Hybrid Power Trac

[ponytug]

My apologies for not citing references. And I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that the Feds were consistent.

I do think that the DOE quote below is a little dated. Economic pressures have been pushing plant efficiencies upward, as has the general increase in scale in the industry.

My other numbers were from the DOE.
Coal and efficiency
and
IGCC

When all else fails, there are always google, and wikipedia...

The addon technologies are things like IGCC that I mentioned, and magnetohydrodynamics (adds upto 40% in efficiency, at an unknown capital cost unknown running costs.)

Hitachi recently commissioned a standard plant at 50%. I'm not claiming it is typical, just what can be done with standard technology. You could also check out the Danish plant, Nordjyllandsv誡ket, which is running at 47%.

One of the biggest improvements for traditional plants has been the use of finely pulverized coal for more complete combustion, but remember that the absolute heat (Carnot) efficiency is 77%, and you need non-heat technologies, such MHD to get better than that.

Sorry for not being clearer the first time.

All the best,

Peter

Peter,

I would be interested in the source of your information about current producing power plants.

The following quote is taken from the Department of Energy web site:
Department of Energy - Electric Power

"Research is also underway to increase the fuel efficiency of coal-fueled power plants. Today逞ｴ plants convert only a third of coal逞ｴ energy potential to electricity. New technologies in Energy逞ｴ Fossil Energy program could nearly double efficiency levels in the next 10-15 years. Higher efficiencies mean even more affordable electricity and fewer greenhouse gases."

 

[Bob999]

I do think that the DOE quote below is a little dated. Economic pressures have been pushing plant efficiencies upward, as has the general increase in scale in the industry.

My other numbers were from the DOE.
Coal and efficiency
and
IGCC

Peter, I looked at the two links to DOE and it appears to me that both refer to ongoing research and development--not on-line power plants. I do agree that fluidized bed is a mature technology and installed in a number of power plants. I didn't find a citation of efficiency for operating fluid bed plants.

The Hitachi link cites a 44% figure for one plant in Japan.

In any event I agree with your observation that the pressures are for higher efficiency and that technology exists to achieve higher efficiency. Perhaps where we still see things differently is what is in being today. I focused my comments on what I understand the installed base is achieving and I think you are focusing your comments on the leading edge.

 

[BobRip]

Peter, I looked at the two links to DOE and it appears to me that both refer to ongoing research and development--not on-line power plants. I do agree that fluidized bed is a mature technology and installed in a number of power plants. I didn't find a citation of efficiency for operating fluid bed plants.

The Hitachi link cites a 44% figure for one plant in Japan.

In any event I agree with your observation that the pressures are for higher efficiency and that technology exists to achieve higher efficiency. Perhaps where we still see things differently is what is in being today. I focused my comments on what I understand the installed base is achieving and I think you are focusing your comments on the leading edge.

Bob999, I agree with your comments above and Peter's statement. My general experience is that a mobile automotive system can never achieve the efficiencies of a fixed system or even a very large mobile system like a ship. The extra equipment (basically many more stages of waste heat usage) are just too expensive, large and heavy to make sense. Electric system perform well over a large range of power, load and size, making them a good choice for automotive systems. So I think we are all converging our concepts.
Just to change the focus, right now no one pays road taxes on electricity. I expect governments will get around to that in a few years. This will of course reduce the advantages of electricity. "We just need a better battery." Quote from Thomas Edison

 

[Gravy]

I'm pretty sure a simple conversion with a couple of batteries and a DC motor in place of the existing engine would work just fine for all of those little jobs that account for about half of the times I start my PT - ya' know, the ones where I'm just moving stuff around - firewood, building materials, fertilizer, whatever.

I don't think it would work so well for mowing a couple of acres, plowing snow off the driveway, or drilling post holes all day, but for the short jobs I think electric would work fine.

Someday Real Soon Now, maybe I'll find a really cheap PT with a blown engine, along with a donor golf cart... OK. Maybe not me, but somebody could do it.

But there is that local tractor dealer that's been trying to sell that old 418 for over a year now. Maybe one of these days they will decide it's not actually worth 75% of a new 422. Maybe a really hot place will get really cold...

 

[catsco]

One thing I haven't seen suggested is to use a DC motor to power the pump, whatever batteries that are appropriately sized and affordable (ha!) and an IC engine (maybe mini-turbine) to provide constant output for 30% or so of most operations.

Then use a control system to start and stop the engine/turbine as needed.

For mowing, though, this would be pretty inefficient if full power is needed because you have the loss of power generation at full throttle. The possible energy saving would be for times when using 30% power or less with stored energy being used for the extra needed for short times when lifting, starting to move, digging, whatever.

For the same money, or less, you could probably hire a live-in equipment operator with all the stuff needed for all your work.

 

[ponytug]

Theoretically, DC motors would be fine, but the market is AC and AC control, i.e. PWM controllers.
If you are good at finding salvage parts, you have a chance at it, but...

Yes, it is not going to be as efficient as a geared connection at high output, but don't forget hydraulic losses. Diesel electric trains do just fine, without direct connection.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

All the best,

Peter

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Time to 'fess up, I guess. I have an old PT180, with blown engine, a Briggs Etek motor and a pwm controller - all sitting deteriorating because I haven't put them together. I plan to run the hydraulics with the electric motor. It won't be efficient, but the objective is quiet and effective for an hour at a time. Since I have some deep discharge 6V batteries, I'll probably use those to start.
Tell me why it won't work.

 

[MossRoad]

...
Tell me why it won't work.

"because I haven't put them together."

 

[BobRip]

Time to 'fess up, I guess. I have an old PT180, with blown engine, a Briggs Etek motor and a pwm controller - all sitting deteriorating because I haven't put them together. I plan to run the hydraulics with the electric motor. It won't be efficient, but the objective is quiet and effective for an hour at a time. Since I have some deep discharge 6V batteries, I'll probably use those to start.
Tell me why it won't work.

Put it together. Can you have this done by March 1? We are impatient.
Free advice will be given here as needed. Some of it will be worth more than you paid for it. A lot more.

Oh, I would put a 2 inch receiver hitch on the back so you can carry extra batteries if needed. Just a thought.

Good Luck.

 

[catsco]

Free advice will be given here as needed. Some of it will be worth more than you paid for it. A lot more.

Unless I add to the advice, in which case it might be worth less than you paid for it.