Re: ZEBRA electric school bus
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> experiment converting a school bus into an electric vehicle.
>
> http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf
>
> The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery pack.
> These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery (in 2003). In volume
> production, the manufacturer price sheet goes to about $20,000 for the same
> battery pack.
> Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most notably its
> cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of 'rare' metals. Nickel and
> table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.
>
> Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery vans) seem to
> be a great early adopter to become "electrified", not just because of their
> frequent stops (regenerative braking advantages), and air pollution (noone
> likes stinking diesels in urban areas), but also because they run short
> trips (no more than one day at a time).
>
> ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.
If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.
John Fields
wrote:
---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
JF
John Fields
---
AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used
they have to be kept hot.
JF
Rob Dekker
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
...
> >
> >Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.
>
Any numbers ?
> ---
> AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used
> they have to be kept hot.
Yeah. I initially thought that was a problem too.
But these things need only 40W to keep them hot (when they do not operate).
So that's not a really big deal.
Especially since most busses return to a spot where they can be recharged
every night.
>
> JF
Rob Dekker
...
> >If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
> >with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
>
> ---
> Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
>
>
Let me try something :
The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.
Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.
That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.
...
Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That
is 40.7 kWh.
Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between
30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life use in a large
vehicle.
That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16 kWh
of work from one gallon of diesel.
At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is
$0.30-$0.40 per kWh.
...
Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.
And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another 20%
of fuel cost saved).
Rob
Rod Speed
> John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> BretC...@peoplepc.com wrote
>>>>> When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an interesting
>>>>> experiment converting a school bus into an electric vehicle.
>>>>> http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf
>>>>> The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery pack.
>>>>> These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery (in 2003).
>>>>> In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet goes to about
>>>>> $20,000 for the same battery pack.
>>>>> Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most notably
>>>>> its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of 'rare' metals.
>>>>> Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.
>>>>> Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery vans)
>>>>> seem to be a great early adopter to become "electrified", not just
>>>>> because of their frequent stops (regenerative braking advantages),
>>>>> and air pollution (noone likes stinking diesels in urban areas), but
>>>>> also because they run short trips (no more than one day at a time).
>>>>> ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.
>>>> If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
>>>> with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
>>> Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.
> Any numbers ?
YOU made that stupid claim.
YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.
THATS how it works.
>> AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used they have to be kept hot.
> Yeah. I initially thought that was a problem too.
Corse its a problem.
> But these things need only 40W to keep them hot (when they do not operate).
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> So that's not a really big deal.
Wrong again.
> Especially since most busses return to a spot where they can be recharged every night.
Sure, THAT part isnt a problem.
Pity about the rest.
Rob Dekker
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f2dqnF...@mid.individual.net...
Rod, you are now officially a dick-head in my view.
First of, I did not make the claim, Bret did.
Apart from the fact that he is right (see side-thread ; IF the battery
survives thousands of cycles than it IS already competitive with liquid
hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications), YOU made the claim that that's
NOT true if you count the cost of the batteries properly.
So now it's up to YOU to provide some data to show what you mean with the
"count the cost of the batterys properly" and that if you use that data that
batteries are NOT competitive with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in ANY
application. YOU need to show that because YOU made that claim.
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:g6gsn8$b9i$1...@news.parasun.com...
>
> "John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> news:e1nn845fesb3dnies...@4ax.com...
> ...
> > >If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
> > >with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
> >
> > ---
> > Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
> >
> >
>
> Let me try something :
>
> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
> That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
> That's negligent.
So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
:o(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.
>
> Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
> fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.
>
> That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
> Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
> Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
> That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.
So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital cost).
>
> ...
> Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That
> is 40.7 kWh.
> Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between
> 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life use in a large
> vehicle.
> That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16
kWh
> of work from one gallon of diesel.
>
> At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is
> $0.30-$0.40 per kWh.
>
> ...
>
> Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
> certainly more than 56%.
So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty equal
(w.r.t. diesel).
>
> And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another
20%
> of fuel cost saved).
That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost effective.
But it's no longer a no-brainer.
My conclusion for now :
Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be truely competitive
(no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.
>
> Rob
>
>
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > >with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
> > Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
> Let me try something :
> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
> That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
Actually that $0.0002/whr.
$20,000 / (1,000 cycles X 100 kilowatt hours) = $0.20/ kWhr.
If it can cycle several thousand times, however, then the price of is
only a few cents/kWhr
The cost of diesel increases that much in one year.
> Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
> fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.
> That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
> Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
That could drop with cheap PV.
> Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
> That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.
In sunny areas the bus could be plastered with PV which would be a
significant savings.
> Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That
> is 40.7 kWh.
Olive oil has 120 cal/serving (actually 120 kcal/15cc) or 8,000 kcal/
liter or 33 kWhr/gallon.
> Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between
> 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?)
And that's when they are always running at optimum rpm.
> in real life use in a large
> vehicle.
> That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16 kWh
> of work from one gallon of diesel.
>
> At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is
> $0.30-$0.40 per kWh.
So using my battery cost figure diesel is slightly more expensice than
battery-grid right now.
Since we know diesel fuel will continue to spiral, it would be foolish
not to replace diesel with battery-grid as soon as possible where ever
possible.
> Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
> certainly more than 56%.
That'll be true in a couple years anyway.
> And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another 20%
> of fuel cost saved).
I think that's 20% recuperation per stop, not overall.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf
>>> Any numbers ?
>> THATS how it works.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What your view might or might not be on anything at all in spades.
> First of, I did not make the claim, Bret did.
You're lying now. YOU made that claim about hydrocarbons.
> Apart from the fact that he is right (see side-thread ; IF the battery
> survives thousands of cycles than it IS already competitive with
> liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications),
No it aint, because of the cost of the batterys.
> YOU made the claim that that's NOT true if you count the cost of the batteries properly.
In response to the your stupid claim just above that.
> So now it's up to YOU to provide some data to show what
> you mean with the "count the cost of the batterys properly"
Doesnt need data for something as basic as that.
> and that if you use that data that batteries are NOT competitive
> with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in ANY application. YOU need to
> show that because YOU made that claim.
I never ever said anything like that you stupid liar.
Rod Speed
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:g6gsn8$b9i$1...@news.parasun.com...
>>
>> "John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>> news:e1nn845fesb3dnies...@4ax.com...
>> ...
>>>> If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
>>>> with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Let me try something :
>>
>> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
>> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
>> replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
>> That's negligent.
> So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
> o(
A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.
Dont make a mess of the carpet.
> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
> That's NOT negligent.
Dont make a mess of the carpet.
Nope, not when you include the cost of the money used to purchase that battery.
> But it's no longer a no-brainer.
> My conclusion for now :
> Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be
> truely competitive (no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.
And that aint gunna happen and wouldnt be true even if it did when you include the cost properly.
Rod Speed
>>>> If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
>>>> with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
>
>>> Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
>
>> Let me try something :
>
>> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
>> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
>> replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
>
> Actually that $0.0002/whr.
>
> $20,000 / (1,000 cycles X 100 kilowatt hours) = $0.20/ kWhr.
>
> If it can cycle several thousand times, however, then the price of is
> only a few cents/kWhr
>
> The cost of diesel increases that much in one year.
>
>> Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the
>> battery fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still
>> negligent cost.
>
>> That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
>> Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
> That could drop with cheap PV.
Nope, because cheap PV aint gunna happen, you watch.
>> Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see
>> report). That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.
> In sunny areas the bus could be plastered with PV which would be a significant savings.
Wrong again. Pity about the cost of the PV and the kids vandalising it.
>> Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or
>> 146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh.
> Olive oil has 120 cal/serving (actually 120 kcal/15cc) or 8,000 kcal/liter or 33 kWhr/gallon.
Different calories, stupid.
>> Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in
>> between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?)
> And that's when they are always running at optimum rpm.
Which no bus ever does.
>> in real life use in a large vehicle.
>> That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh
>> and 16 kWh of work from one gallon of diesel.
>> At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California),
>> this is $0.30-$0.40 per kWh.
> So using my battery cost figure diesel is slightly more expensice than battery-grid right now.
Wrong again.
> Since we know diesel fuel will continue to spiral,
It hasnt even spiralled yet.
> it would be foolish not to replace diesel with battery-grid as soon as possible where ever possible.
Wrong again. It makes a lot more sense to see if it ever becomes economic.
>> Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
>> certainly more than 56%.
> That'll be true in a couple years anyway.
Nope.
>> And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another 20% of fuel cost saved).
> I think that's 20% recuperation per stop, not overall.
You're wrong.
m II
> So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
> :o(
Time to retire the slide rule. I understand the new fangled calculators
keep track of the decimal point without need of paper and pencil. They
can even add and subtract, if my sources are to be believed.
mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
> > That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
> > That's negligent.
>
> So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
> :o(
I'm not a tweaker. Two orders of magnitude, OK, but _three_ orders of
magnitude, well, that's stepping over the line.
My diesel heat content in another post was off by a factor of three,
well within my margin of error.
> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
> That's NOT negligent.
Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.
The idea that we should wait another year when we _know for sure_ the
cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.
It's some kind of mental blindness going around.
For awhile I toyed with the idea that Big Oil, like Big Tobacco, paid
Hollywood to somehow brainwash the public but that would be nearly
impossible with farms which are run like a business.
The only explanation is everyone is in some kind of state of denial.
Bret Cahill
John Fields
wrote:
>> > The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
>> > Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
>> > That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
>> > That's negligent.
>>
>> So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
>> :o(
>
>I'm not a tweaker. Two orders of magnitude, OK, but _three_ orders of
>magnitude, well, that's stepping over the line.
>
>My diesel heat content in another post was off by a factor of three,
>well within my margin of error.
>
>> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
>> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
>> That's NOT negligent.
>
>Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.
>
>The idea that we should wait another year when we _know for sure_ the
>cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.
---
The idea that something can be put into place which will phase out
diesel in a year is what's stupid.
In the meantime, there are lots of folks who are working very hard to
find a solution to the problem instead of just whining about how bad
everything's going to get if someone doesn't do something.
If you think there's a problem, and you want to help, then get up off
of your lazy ass and do something meaningful instead of just flapping
your gums.
---
>It's some kind of mental blindness going around.
>
>For awhile I toyed with the idea that Big Oil, like Big Tobacco, paid
>Hollywood to somehow brainwash the public but that would be nearly
>impossible with farms which are run like a business.
>
>The only explanation is everyone is in some kind of state of denial.
---
"I'm not crazy, everyone else is."
JF
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> >> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
> >> That's NOT negligent.
> >Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.
> >The idea that we should wait another year when we _know for sure_ the
> >cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.
> The idea that something can be put into place which will phase out
> diesel in a year is what's stupid.
Then why did you suggest it?
Care to try another strawman?
I haven't covered this issue yet but I'm guessing it would take up to
six years, about the time diesel is $25/gallon, to electrify most
basic food crop farms.
In overall costs, grid battery is already competitive or cheaper than
diesel in many areas. It would be foolish to replace an old diesel
with a new diesel when grid battery will not skyrocket in operating
cost.
> In the meantime, there are lots of folks who are working very hard to
> find a solution to the problem
You don't think intellectual property requires work, both the original
concept as well as the development? You think copyright laws and
patent rights are a scam?
Maybe Madison screwed up with Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U. S.
Constitution?
Or are you so ashamed of your "contributions" you won't share them
with anyone?
Maybe you are a loser in your own mind.
If you are a loser in your mind, then you are certainly a loser in my
mind.
Bret Cahill
"Only nobodies are ever modest."
-- Goethe
Rod Speed
>>> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
>>> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
>>> replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
>>> That's negligent.
>> So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
>>> o(
> I'm not a tweaker.
Yep, you're just a wanker.
> Two orders of magnitude, OK, but _three_ orders of magnitude, well, that's stepping over the line.
> My diesel heat content in another post was off by a factor of three,
A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.
> well within my margin of error.
You're your 'parents' error.
>> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
>> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
>> That's NOT negligent.
> Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.
Nope, you watch.
> The idea that we should wait another year when we _know
> for sure_ the cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.
The idea that anyone should do anything as a result of you
wanking with your calculator with numbers you have plucked
out of your arse is even more just plain fucking stupid.
> It's some kind of mental blindness going around.
You were warned about what your wanking would do to your eyesight, child.
> For awhile I toyed with the idea that Big Oil, like Big Tobacco,
> paid Hollywood to somehow brainwash the public but that would
> be nearly impossible with farms which are run like a business.
> The only explanation is everyone is in some kind of state of denial.
The obvious explanation is that you spend all your time with your dick in your hand.
Rod Speed
>>>> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
>>>> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
>>>> That's NOT negligent.
>
>>> Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.
>
>>> The idea that we should wait another year when we _know for sure_
>>> the cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.
>
>> The idea that something can be put into place which will phase out
>> diesel in a year is what's stupid.
>
> Then why did you suggest it?
>
> Care to try another strawman?
> I haven't covered this issue yet but I'm guessing
Wanking, actually.
> it would take up to six years, about the time diesel is
> $25/gallon, to electrify most basic food crop farms.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about food crop farming.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense to grow biodiesel instead for those.
Doesnt even need any modification of the farming machinery.
> In overall costs, grid battery is already competitive or cheaper than diesel in many areas.
You're lying, as always.
> It would be foolish to replace an old diesel with a new diesel
> when grid battery will not skyrocket in operating cost.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to produce biodiesel, stupid.
>> In the meantime, there are lots of folks who are
>> working very hard to find a solution to the problem
The problems have in fact all been solved and we're just waiting for
the price of oil to get high enough for long enough to make them viable.
> You don't think intellectual property requires work,
> both the original concept as well as the development?
The problems have in fact all been solved and we're just waiting for
the price of oil to get high enough for long enough to make them viable.
> You think copyright laws and patent rights are a scam?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Maybe Madison screwed up with Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U. S. Constitution?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Or are you so ashamed of your "contributions" you won't share them with anyone?
> Maybe you are a loser in your own mind.
> If you are a loser in your mind, then you are certainly a loser in my mind.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> You're lying, as always.
We've done the math.
Diesel is already 35 cents / kW hr.
Battery + grid is only 30 cents / kW hr, 27 cents in the TVA area.
> > It would be foolish to replace an old diesel with a new diesel
> > when grid battery will not skyrocket in operating cost.
> Makes a hell of a lot more sense to produce biodiesel,
Where is this bio diesel being produced?
Is there a pipeline that delivers it anywhere?
Grid battery is all off the shelf.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
>>>>>> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
>>>>>> That's NOT negligent.
>>>>> Diesel will go up 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.
Another lie.
>>>>> The idea that we should wait another year when we know for sure
>>>>> the cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.
>>>> The idea that something can be put into place which
>>>> will phase out diesel in a year is what's stupid.
>>> Then why did you suggest it?
>>> Care to try another strawman?
>>> I haven't covered this issue yet but I'm guessing
>> Wanking, actually.
>>> it would take up to six years, about the time diesel is
>>> $25/gallon, to electrify most basic food crop farms.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about food crop farming.
>> It makes a hell of a lot more sense to grow biodiesel instead for those.
>> Doesnt even need any modification of the farming machinery.
>>> In overall costs, grid battery is already competitive or cheaper than diesel in many areas.
>> You're lying, as always.
> We've done the math.
You've actually plucked some stupid numbers out of your arse and wanked with them in your calculator.
> Diesel is already 35 cents / kW hr.
Another lie.
> Battery + grid is only 30 cents / kW hr, 27 cents in the TVA area.
Another lie. You cant ignore the cost of the battery, liar.
And that doesnt qualify as many areas either.
>>> It would be foolish to replace an old diesel with a new diesel
>>> when grid battery will not skyrocket in operating cost.
>> Makes a hell of a lot more sense to produce biodiesel,
> Where is this bio diesel being produced?
On any farm that chooses to do that.
> Is there a pipeline that delivers it anywhere?
Dont need to have a pipeline if they produce it themselves, fool.
> Grid battery is all off the shelf.
So is biodiesel, you stupid pig ignorant child.
And all electric farming machinery aint.
Rob Dekker
So you are not only a dick-head, you are also a retard.
Just go back through the tread about who said what.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf
>>>>> Any numbers ?
>>>> THATS how it works.
You did, liar.
Bret Cahill
Totally huge.
Nope.
Ain't gonna happen.
Nuke.
Cite?
Bret Cahill
Nope.
Totally pathetic.
Huge.
Bret Cahill
Totally huge.
Pathetic.
No way.
Cite?
Liar
Bret Cahill
> Just go back through the tread about who said what.
Some of the posters here are not even functional.
In Tucson they tried to integrate these SSI mental disability cases
into society by locating them in apt. buildings, etc. At first I
thought it was a good idea but later discovered merely having them
physically around normal people isn't much different that putting them
all together on the funny farm. One glance and every normal avoids
them w/o even thinking about it.
Now apparently they are trying this which is a good idea.
After all, what damage can they do here?
Bret Cahill
John Fields
---
Not much, but you _do_ waste our time.
JF
John Fields
wrote:
>
>"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>news:g6gsn8$b9i$1...@news.parasun.com...
>>
>> "John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>> news:e1nn845fesb3dnies...@4ax.com...
>> ...
>> > >If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
>> > >with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Let me try something :
>>
>> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
>> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
>> That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
>> That's negligent.
>
>So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
>:o(
>Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
>With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
>That's NOT negligent.
---
True, but the error was. ;)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent
JF
disgoftunwells
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g6gsn8$b9i$1...@news.parasun.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:e1nn845fesb3dnies...@4ax.com...
> > ...
> > > >If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
> > > >with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
>
> > > ---
> > > Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
>
> > Let me try something :
>
> > The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
> > Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
> > That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
> > That's negligent.
>
> So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
No, we always do that. Not 10 or 100, just 1,000.
> :o(
> Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
> With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
> That's NOT negligent.
>
I've read that basic Li-ion batteries are available for $500/Kwhr.
Zebra batteries are meant to be cheaper than that.
However, from Wikipedia:
"The ZEBRA battery has an attractive specific energy and power (90 Wh/
kg and 150 W/kg). The liquid electrolyte freezes at 157 °C, and the
normal operating temperature range is 270-350 °C. The β-alumina solid
electrolyte that has been developed for this system is very stable,
both to sodium metal and the sodium chloroaluminate. Lifetimes of over
1500 cycles and five years have been demonstrated with full-sized
batteries, and over 3000 cycles and eight years with 10- and 20-cell
modules. Vehicles powered by ZEBRA batteries have covered more than 2
million km. Modec Electric Van uses ZEBRA batteries for the 2007
model."
3,000 charges for a $20,000 battery would be 7c plus amortisation
costs.
>
>
> > Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
> > fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.
>
> > That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
> > Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
> > Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
> > That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.
>
> So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital cost).
>
You should be able to get night time electricity more cheaply.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ...
> > Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That
> > is 40.7 kWh.
> > Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between
> > 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life use in a large
> > vehicle.
> > That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16
> kWh
> > of work from one gallon of diesel.
>
> > At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is
> > $0.30-$0.40 per kWh.
>
> > ...
>
> > Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
> > certainly more than 56%.
>
> So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty equal
> (w.r.t. diesel).
>
>
>
>
>
> > And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another
> 20%
> > of fuel cost saved).
>
> That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost effective.
> But it's no longer a no-brainer.
>
> My conclusion for now :
> Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be truely competitive
> (no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.
>
Or the life has to treble, which is already achievable.
The problem with Zebra is that it needs to be kept at 250C or so. So
it needs to be very well insulated. That's less of a problem for a
100KW (1 ton) battery than a 13KW car battery.
Rob Dekker
You are right : with 3000 charges, capital cost should be around 7cts/kWh, and with lower cost night-time electricity (maybe
7cts/kWh), brings overall cost (excluding maintenance and failure etc) to around 14 cts/kWh (rather than the conservative 33cts/kWh
that I calculated).
Pricing of batteries (wholesale) is always somewhat murky. There are no pricelists on-line, and you have to read between the lines.
For example, the ZEBRA-bus report stated $20,000 for the 107kWh pack ($200/kWh) for ZEBRAs ordered in volume (the report states
order of 30,000 ZEBRAs). In small orders they are still more expensive (around $500/kWh). Lithium-ion seems to be also in that
range, although the Wiki page refers to a Chinese manufacturer that apparently sells 10kWh Li-ion packs for $2000 (in volume).
The ZEBRA indeed has to be kept 'hot', but that might not be too problematic. I read that it requires only 40W to keep the pack hot,
and it takes days before the pack solidifies if left unattended. For bus operators, that should not be a problem, since typically
busses return to their terminal at the end of the day. Instead of filling them up with diesel, they would now just have to be
plugged in. Once plugged the pack keeps itself hot (using 40W).
Either way (lithium-ion or ZEBRA, temp-management or not), the calculations show that electric busses should be quite
cost-competitive with diesel right now.
I'm curious to see how bus operators and manufacturers respond to this.
It's an interesting time.
Thanks again !
Rob
"disgoftunwells" <disgoft...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cde0941c-bc1c-4e2b...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
normal operating temperature range is 270-350 °C. The â-alumina solid
Rob Dekker
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:0f5u84t05n5u532mc...@4ax.com...
...
>>> Let me try something :
>>>
>>> The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
>>> Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
>>> That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
>>> That's negligent.
>>
>>So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
>>:o(
>>Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
>>With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
>>That's NOT negligent.
>
> ---
> True, but the error was. ;)
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent
>
> JF
English is not my native language, but I should have known better anyway.
Thanks for pointing out the (other) error.
Rob
Rod Speed
> Good points ! Thanks.
>
> You are right : with 3000 charges, capital cost should be around
> 7cts/kWh, and with lower cost night-time electricity (maybe
> 7cts/kWh), brings overall cost (excluding maintenance and failure
> etc) to around 14 cts/kWh (rather than the conservative 33cts/kWh
> that I calculated).
> Pricing of batteries (wholesale) is always somewhat murky. There are
> no pricelists on-line, and you have to read between the lines. For
> example, the ZEBRA-bus report stated $20,000 for the 107kWh pack
> ($200/kWh) for ZEBRAs ordered in volume (the report states order of
> 30,000 ZEBRAs). In small orders they are still more expensive (around
> $500/kWh). Lithium-ion seems to be also in that range, although the
> Wiki page refers to a Chinese manufacturer that apparently sells
> 10kWh Li-ion packs for $2000 (in volume).
> The ZEBRA indeed has to be kept 'hot', but that might not be too
> problematic. I read that it requires only 40W to keep the pack hot,
> and it takes days before the pack solidifies if left unattended. For
> bus operators, that should not be a problem, since typically busses
> return to their terminal at the end of the day. Instead of filling
> them up with diesel, they would now just have to be plugged in. Once
> plugged the pack keeps itself hot (using 40W).
> Either way (lithium-ion or ZEBRA, temp-management or not), the calculations show that electric busses should be quite
> cost-competitive with diesel right now.
Nope, pity about the capital cost.
Which might just be why so few bother with any form of electric bus.
> I'm curious to see how bus operators and manufacturers respond to this.
Its obvious, they'll keep ignoring it.
It makes much more sense to use LPG or CNG in
gasoline engines if you care about the cost of diesel.
> It's an interesting time.
Not with busses it aint.
John Fields
wrote:
>
---
My pleasure.
BTW, your English is excellent.
JF
John Fields
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Not with busses it aint.
---
Have you never heard of "The Grid"?
JF
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Not with busses it aint.
> Have you never heard of "The Grid"?
Tad unlikely I havent seeing as I have used that term a number of times.
John Fields
---
Whoooooosh...
The grid _is_ a "buss", Mr. Clever.
JF
Rod Speed
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:51:39 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> Not with busses it aint.
>>
>>> Have you never heard of "The Grid"?
>> Tad unlikely I havent seeing as I have used that term a number of times.
> Whoooooosh...
Your desperate wanking doesnt sound anything like that, child.
> The grid _is_ a "buss", Mr. Clever.
Pathetic, Master Wanker.
John Fields
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:51:39 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> Not with busses it aint.
>>>
>>>> Have you never heard of "The Grid"?
>
>>> Tad unlikely I havent seeing as I have used that term a number of times.
>
>> Whoooooosh...
>
>Your desperate wanking doesnt sound anything like that, child.
>
>> The grid _is_ a "buss", Mr. Clever.
>
>Pathetic, Master Wanker.
---
Not at all.
At the very least, it seems you're purporting that if you think I'm
the Master Wanker, then my orgasm, when masturbating, is superior to
yours.
You're probably right, since nothing you've posted so far allays the
guilt you associate with getting yourself off.
That last line:
"Pathetic, Master Wanker."
Sealed your fate.
JF
Rod Speed
John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com>
desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.