The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of 200 kW.
A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic IEOR calculations.
Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.
In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.
In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.
And that's just for one field.
Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas -- include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be $350,000/field in 6 years.
The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.
Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt. conspiracy and post there.
> The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > 200 kW.
> A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic > IEOR calculations.
> Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
> It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
> Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.
> In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a > year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.
> In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.
> And that's just for one field.
> Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas -- > include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be > $350,000/field in 6 years.
> The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and > even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the > batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.
> Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt. > conspiracy and post there.
Here is some detailed information on the cost and return for field corn farming in the Sacramento Valley, in 2004, when diesel was about $1.60/gallon.
It also lists costs of equipment and hours per acre for various farming operations. It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the required farming operation.
I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling indicates that something needs to be done, *soon*. But this proposal is not as simple as electrifying one tractor and having it run continuously. There are many farming operations requiring different implements at different times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others where very little needs to be (or can be) done.
The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor. The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for instance, going 0-60 in 4 seconds. So that is 800 kW-Sec of energy, and it uses capacitors for surges like this. Most of the time it will be cruising at normal speeds where a small car needs only about 10 HP to overcome wind resistance and rolling friction. So that is 7.5 kW, and its range is given to be about 200 miles, or about 3.5 hours at 60 MPH. So its total energy is about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250 kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes. Then it would need to be recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes. So you would need to run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the battery pack. That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times bigger than the Tesla's.
I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude reality check.
Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic alternatives that will work.
> > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > > 200 kW. > > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would > > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which > > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary > > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic > > IEOR calculations.
> > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph > > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
> > It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
> I guestimate it'll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a > square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do > it using a 244 hp tractor.
In that case we can get by with a much smaller battery.
My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and require 400 hp.
> > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > > 200 kW. > > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would > > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which > > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary > > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic > > IEOR calculations. > > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph > > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day. > > It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel. > > Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel. > > In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a > > year, that cost will be $150,000/yr. > > In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars. > > And that's just for one field. > > Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas -- > > include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be > > $350,000/field in 6 years. > > The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and > > even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the > > batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself. > > Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt. > > conspiracy and post there. > Here is some detailed information on the cost and return for field corn > farming in the Sacramento Valley, in 2004, when diesel was about > $1.60/gallon. > http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/cornsv2004.pdf > It also lists costs of equipment and hours per acre for various farming > operations.
My numbers were based on what a too-clever-by-half moron posted. He was claiming that there was a farm operation that it would take an hour to go half a mile for a 400 hp tractor running wide open.
While that situation is probably very rare if it ever exists, even if it is common it does _not_ change the argument for battery-electric tractors. The moron was simply too stupid to figure out that the more electrical energy that the he claims the electric tractor will need, the more the diesel is going to cost to do the same operation and the stronger the argument for battery electric tractors.
> It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since > then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to > spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough > methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the > required farming operation. > I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see > how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling > indicates that something needs to be done, *soon*. But this proposal is not > as simple as electrifying one tractor and having it run continuously. There > are many farming operations requiring different implements at different > times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others > where very little needs to be (or can be) done. > The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor. > The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for > instance, going 0-60 in 4 seconds. So that is 800 kW-Sec of energy, and it > uses capacitors for surges like this. Most of the time it will be cruising > at normal speeds where a small car needs only about 10 HP to overcome wind > resistance and rolling friction. So that is 7.5 kW, and its range is given > to be about 200 miles, or about 3.5 hours at 60 MPH. So its total energy is > about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250 > kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes.
About the time a 400 hp tractor running wide open will need between passes for most real life farming operations.
Need 12 minutes @ 400 hp? Spend a few thousand from the EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS in fuel savings to double the size of the battery pack.
Need 60 minutes for the hypothetical 0.5 mph scenario? Then it's _still_ cheaper to 10X the battery pack.
What am I saying? That's where the greatest savings are!
> Then it would need to be > recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged > efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes.
Go window shopping at the Home Depot. Makita sells an 18 volt Li Ion battery pack that recharges in 10 minutes.
No one in the industry or in tech will deny that recharge times will continue to decrease.
It'll be five minutes before the first prototype E tractor can be built.
It'll be 2 minutes before E tractors are in full production.
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. They know that the smaller the cells, the faster the charging time.
Guess what they'll do? They'll make smaller cells.
> So you would need to > run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the > battery pack.
Just wire 4X more batteries in parallel.
We're talking $150,000 in fuel savings in 2 years for _one_ square.
> That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a > day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times > bigger than the Tesla's. > I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one > way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude > reality check. > Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic > alternatives that will work.
There is no question that all kinds of custom tailored electric systems will appear and work for almost all farmers. There's no question the diesel thingy is over.
To speed things up I've proven a much bolder claim than that:
In a few short years the _least_ cost effective electric tractor system is or will soon be wildly more cost effective than any diesel in _any_ situation, _long_ before many E tractors are in production.
And this is with off the shelf technology.
Someone in the field should have said something before now. I've upstaged everyone so now I should be able to request what is really needed now:
BretCahill wrote: > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > 200 kW.
For short periods of time.
> A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)
Would be a failure as a tractor. One to two hours working time followed by several hours of recharge time? The Tesla is probably more at than 8 hours of recharge time.
> Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would > take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour (about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW.. Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that would usually be done that slow, but there are crops I know little about, like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20 cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different machinery.
Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200 acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?
> > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > > 200 kW. > For short periods of time.
The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a field back to the recharger.
> > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) > Would be a failure as a tractor.
Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
> One to two hours working time
Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.
At today's prices.
In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.
In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:
Everytime you start talkin' energy, I'm gonna pop you on your fanny with the diesel equivalent.
You'll then need to show how the batteries are _more_ expensive.
This, of course, ain't gonna happen.
> followed > by several hours of recharge time?
You need to get out sometime. If you cannot afford gas try cycling to the Home Depot. Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 minutes.
There isn't a soul in the industry or academia who will deny that this time will drop.
> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 > hours of recharge time.
At the typical 10 kW household current.
Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple of minutes with off the shelf technology.
> > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would > > take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day. > Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour > (about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW..
I guess we can forget about paying all that money for a lot of extra batteries.
Hey, wait! That's an argument _for_ battery tractors.
You could knock me over with a feather!
> Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that > would usually be done that slow,
Hey, it might become necessary someday! There's all kinds of situations! Maybe they'll eventually try to clear Joshua Tree for farming! The sooner they do _something_ with that hideous place the better.
But yea, I agree. It ain't an everyday operation. Some too-clever-by- half moron came up with that nonsense hoping it was an argument against battery tractors.
It wasn't
> but there are crops I know little about, > like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and > that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20 > cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different > machinery. > Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you.
> Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200 > acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in > the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?
CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas.
If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately!
BretCahill wrote: > Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel > equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
Show me. Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery replacement costs and such what costs. Build a recharger, and find out what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but
And don't forget:
The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels.
> In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?
> > Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel > > equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well. > Show me.
Buy two Teslas for $100K each then scrap them for the motors and batteries.
Already you've saved money compared to the diesel, maybe even in initial cost alone!
> Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery > replacement costs and such what costs.
Every cost is _already_ well known and can be easily calculated by any IEOR.
> Build a recharger,
What next? Reinvent the wheel?
> and find out > what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but > And don't forget: > The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels.
And you're whining about about battery technology being unproven?
? ? ?
We _know_ everything about the batteries. They already exist. We only have _claims_ for the algae.
> > In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr. > So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?
Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2 mile of fire tubing.
What's wrong with burning bio at a utility power plant set up to burn bio?
A pizzeria is set up to make pizza.
A farm is set up to cultivate fields with grid power.
And a stationary power plant is set up to make power from bio.
Read the _Republic_ where each person does a specific task.
>> > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of >> > 200 kW.
>> > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would >> > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which >> > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary >> > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic >> > IEOR calculations.
>> > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph >> > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
>> > It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
>> I guestimate it'll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a >> square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do >> it using a 244 hp tractor.
>In that case we can get by with a much smaller battery.
--- How much smaller?
I've already shown you how to find the capacity of the battery you need, so why don't you run the numbers and see whether what you have in mind is realizable instead of just running your mouth? ---
>My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that >was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and >require 400 hp.
--- Hey, Brat, you were the one who came up with 400 HP, so if you disagree with the numbers, change them to something you're comfortable with and then post what capacity battery will be needed for that job.
