> 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.
BretCah...@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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
--- Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.
<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote: >BretCah...@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.
>>> 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.
--- AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used they have to be kept hot.
"John Fields" <jfie...@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.
> >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 Dekker <r...@verific.com> wrote: > John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> BretCah...@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.
> >>>>> 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.
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.
> "John Fields" <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message > news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@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.
> > >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.
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.
