Author Topic: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing  (Read 8033 times)

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #30 on: 12 November 2017, 05:47:25 »
With the low populations of many worlds, I imagine car culture would not have much hold outside of the major urban hubs since the infrastructure isn't there to support it.  They still might have a few local cars (and old ones at that since things seem to age incredibly well in this universe), but I would see people in smaller settlements doing any long distance travel by some form of mass transport such as rail, air, or maybe scheduled bus service.   
 

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #31 on: 12 November 2017, 16:10:18 »
With the low populations of many worlds, I imagine car culture would not have much hold outside of the major urban hubs since the infrastructure isn't there to support it.  They still might have a few local cars (and old ones at that since things seem to age incredibly well in this universe), but I would see people in smaller settlements doing any long distance travel by some form of mass transport such as rail, air, or maybe scheduled bus service. 

For going to/from fixed locations rail would be more likely as it is cheaper, but if there is significant environmental damage to the rails (sandstorms covering the tracks), then a bus service would work.  This is from comparing the 1800s era of exploration of covered wagon vs rail.

Now for setting up a new mining/manufacturing location you'd see wheeled/hover transport, as there is no rail network yet.  You'd also have to determine if the new location is worth investing in a rail network (i.e. if rail will pay for itself in 5 years, but the resource will mine out in 2, don't do it).

Unless you have dedicated nuclear vehicles, go with rail using combined diesel/electric engines to known locations.  Nuclear powered vehicles will cost more up front, but the lack of fuel needs mean they can stay out as long as their food/spare parts supplies last.  They also get more efficient the larger they get (radiation shielding is based on surface area of the reactor, while power is based on volume), so a lot of crew and cargo can be hauled by them.


The other option is water transport, which can be about half the cost of ground transport.  Rivers are useful, but tend to not always be convenient.  Canals can be built where it is convenient, but take a while.  As an example, the Erie Canal (taking 1818-1825 to construct) reduced shipping costs between Buffalo and New York to 15% of what they were before, as well as changing travel time from ~3 weeks to 8 days.  The problem with canals is elevation changes though they can be solved with interesting methods.


So for exploration on a planet's surface, I'd see orbital mapping being the first part, then river transport being used to get close, followed by wheeled/treaded/hover transport to go where the rivers aren't.  Once a good location is found, you can expect population growth in the area supported by the surface transports, and a rail network expanded to the location.  Depending on resupply of the rail unit, you may see smaller depots set up along the way so the long-distance train can have the necessary supplies.

Or if the founder of the new location has the funds, the industry, and the ego, they may go with a fission powered aircraft or hovercraft.
« Last Edit: 06 January 2018, 22:21:56 by idea weenie »

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2421
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #32 on: 13 November 2017, 12:20:14 »
Since fossil fuels are going to be limited to a small number of worlds with similar ecology and geology to earth, growing crops for bio-fuels, refining raw materials to extract flammable hydrocarbons, separating combustible hydrogen from other elements, or burning methane are all possible alternatives, depending on local availability of those materials.  Diesel engines that burn a wide variety of fuels date back to WWI, and can be manufactured locally on a lot of planets without an advanced industrial base.

Fusion reactors are higher tech, needing to be imported, but are a viable option if what they're powering can pay for it.

Other options may require some parts being imported, with the rest of the system or vehicle produced on-planet.

As pointed out, more advanced public transport between major centers is to be expected, but on some worlds a lot of remote facilities may require personal vehicles.

Hythos

  • The Embiggened Man
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 503
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #33 on: 08 December 2017, 22:59:11 »
also worth noting that ICE can include Turbine systems, since aircraft with Turbine based jet engines are classified as ICE. Turbines can burn just about anything liquid and combustible, though their fuel efficiency can suffer compared to more conventional engine designs.
Beat me to it ;) (and yes, I'm now realizing that the last message in the thread was a month old, not Dec7th... lol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
Agent 722
Salt Lake City / Utah
Have 'Mech, will travel.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #34 on: 10 December 2017, 15:24:06 »
Since fossil fuels are going to be limited to a small number of worlds with similar ecology and geology to earth, growing crops for bio-fuels, refining raw materials to extract flammable hydrocarbons, separating combustible hydrogen from other elements, or burning methane are all possible alternatives, depending on local availability of those materials.  Diesel engines that burn a wide variety of fuels date back to WWI, and can be manufactured locally on a lot of planets without an advanced industrial base.

Fusion reactors are higher tech, needing to be imported, but are a viable option if what they're powering can pay for it.

Other options may require some parts being imported, with the rest of the system or vehicle produced on-planet.

As pointed out, more advanced public transport between major centers is to be expected, but on some worlds a lot of remote facilities may require personal vehicles.

I'm getting a mental image of a prison colony that uses electrical vehicles, and at the center of the base is a giant battery setup.  The prison vehicles only have a range of ~200 km, and the nearest neighbor is ~400 km away.  The prisoners mine whatever is present, and when they have a full load they call the warden to have a (fusion powered) shuttle land to drop off fresh food, pick up the load, and recharge the batteries.  If they try anything, the shuttle just doesn't come, and the prisoners go hungry (or are carpet-bombed).  Make sure it is on a planet with little vegetation (or just a desert region).

To keep the prisoners tired, there are giant gang-cycles set up for 6-10 people to pedal and use that to help recharge the batteries.  A meter at the front lets them know how well they are doing.  Putting the gangcycles next to each other lets groups 'compete' against each other.

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2441
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #35 on: 14 January 2018, 06:15:27 »
I'd think fuel cells would be more common a fuel cell would be easier with the number of fusion engines in BT

They probably would be--but note that until comparatively recently, they weren't included in the game. Which is something needed to remember about Btech technology--it's based on what the writers assumed would be advanced tech, and in the 1980s, it was ICE and fusion with batteries this somewhat laughable thing that people occasionally talked about.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
Re: The electric car vs the Succession wars: tech and manufacturing
« Reply #36 on: 14 January 2018, 14:13:52 »
One thing to consider is relative energy densities.  As an example from today's technology, the following is a list of different types in increasing order of MJ/kg:
Water at 100M height - .001
Energy needed to melt ice - .334-.335
Compressed air (300 bar) - .5
Lithium-Ion Battery - .875 (high end) (rechargeable)
Lithium metal - 1.8 (not rechargeable yet)
Ham & cheese sandwich - 10
Wood - 16.2
AA Battery - 24-26
Coal: ~30
Body Fat - 38
Kerosene - 42.8
Car gasoline - 46
Diesel - 48
Methane - 55
C Battery - 65-82
Hydrogen (burning the gas) - 142
Tritium (via nuclear decay only) - 583,000
Plutonium 238 in an RTG - 2.2 million
Uranium/Thorium (breeder reactors) - ~80M
Deuterium - ~88M

So rechargeable Lithium batteries are good in that they can be refilled with ordinary electricity, but they are really bad in terms of storing energy compared to wood, let alone gasoline. These numbers are why I want to put in a RTG style charger for battery powered vehicles.  Similar to today's electric cars that have a regular car engine in them too to help charge the battery.

So assuming we want to convert this to Battletech, then assuming you allocate 1 kilogram of fuel for the vehicle to go 1 km, and this is done via rechargeable lithium metal batteries (1.8 MJ/kg), you would be able to go the following distances with other fuel sources:
Wood: 9 km
Gasoline (ICE) - 25 km
Hydrogen fuel - 78 km
Tritium decay - 323,000  km
Thorium reactor - 43 million km
(If you want to try comparing using Lithium-ion batteries, the above distances would be doubled)
This of course not factoring in the engine mass itself.

 

Register