ZEBRA electric school bus

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.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@peoplepc.com wrote:

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:12:10 +1000, "Rod Speed"

--
AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used
they have to be kept hot.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

Any numbers ?

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

YOU made that stupid claim.
YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.
THATS how it works.

Corse its a problem.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Wrong again.

Sure, THAT part isnt a problem.
Pity about the rest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

interesting
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

You're lying now. YOU made that claim about hydrocarbons.

No it aint, because of the cost of the batterys.

In response to the your stupid claim just above that.

Doesnt need data for something as basic as that.

I never ever said anything like that you stupid liar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

vehicle.
ingredients.
irrelevant.
So you are not only a dick-head, you are also a retard. Just go back through the tread about who said what.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You did, liar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.
Totally pathetic.
Huge.
Ain't gonna happen.
Nuke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

--
Not much, but you _do_ waste our time.

JF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:55:25 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@peoplepc.com wrote:

--
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.


JF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital cost).

kWh
So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty equal (w.r.t. diesel).

20%
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.
Dont make a mess of the carpet.

Dont make a mess of the carpet.

Nope, not when you include the cost of the money used to purchase that battery.

And that aint gunna happen and wouldnt be true even if it did when you include the cost properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rob Dekker wrote:

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,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@peoplepc.com wrote:

--
The idea that something can be put into place which will phase out
diesel in a year is what's stupid.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.