power | Andy Arthur.org

4 months later… my thoughts on dual battery setup

Andy | July 23, 2012

My dual battery setup works decently on my Silverado pickup truck for producing camp power for use under the truck cap. For the first night at camp, it provides more then enough power at night, including lots of lights, alarm clock, and moderate use of a portable fan, and 90 watt laptop charger.

After the first night, the deep cycle battery starts to wear down. The inverter will show lower and lower voltage, until it starts beeping every 15 seconds, and eventually shuts off at around 11 volts, to protect the battery. Yet, it can be continued to be run, all you have to do is turn on the engine, and let the truck run at idle speed for like 10 minutes, every 1-4 hours, depending on how heavy your electrical load is. I used an average of 1/3 gallon of fuel for every night after the first night parked, without driving.

As the battery is isolated from the starting battery, running the deep cycle down to the point where the inverter shuts it off is not a big deal. Your starting battery is still fully charged, and the deep cycle will after all get recharged as soon as truck restarts, and the inverter prevents you from going below 10.9-11 volts, a point where damage can occur, even with a good deep cycle.

For most moderate lighting demands — let’s say 75-100 watts — enough to run a couple 26 watt florecents, your pretty close to the 4 hours. But when you start adding a laptop charger or fan, and after the third day without the truck moving, you start to drop things down closer to once an hour. Reducing the load when charging, also helps the truck charge faster, as does swapping out the 60 amp fuse between the batteries with a 100 amp fuse, to send any excess amperage to the deep cycle as fast as possible.

The system originally came with a 80 amp fuse, but I cracked that fuse, when I was re-tightening the connections on fuse holders. Apparently, the fuse holder between the deep cycle battery and the starting battery was loose, and on the bumps of dirt roads would become disconnected. While ultimately, I fixed it by retightening the connections, I ended up breaking the 80 amp fuse, and could only get a 60 amp fuse locally. I plan to buy a 100 amp fuse over the internet at some point.

I rarely stay in the same campsite more then one night, at least without driving somewheres in the truck. Even relatively short periods of charging the battery at above idle speed, e.g. driving rapidly increases the rate of charge. It does however use much more fuel to drive the truck then staying idled.

Why Not Make Electrically-Powered “Trolley” Cars and Trucks?

Andy | April 15, 2011

I’ve always wondered what the fascination with battery technology is, when the proven technology used by trolleys and streetcars for over 120 years is electricity via rail or wire. There are no limitations on range or power delivered electrified lines, and use avoid the inefficiency of power stored in a battery.

I could envision the car of a future being a gasoline engine with complete cylinder deactivation, where the complete engine is shut off by a solenoid disconnecting the rocker arms controlling the valves ala the Active Fuel Management widely used in General Motors pickup trucks today.

On major highways and other high traffic roads where “electric wires” are available, as sensed by a radio signal, the car would automatically pop up trolley poles through the roof like a power radio antenna. Electric consumption and billing information would be transmitted through a signal in the wire to the billing municipality, public authority, or power company.

An electric motor/generator in the transmission of the car would spin the drive train and engine, including pushing up and down engine pistons (using the exhaust in the cylinders and shut valves as a choosen) and flywheel. When braking or going downhill, the motor acting as a generator would put recovered power back into the electric line.

The nice thing about this system is there is no range or weight limitation, and uses existing technologies. You could power even semi-trucks or buses with this technology. Moreover, if you become disconnected temporarily from the electric line, the motion of engine’s pistons decompressing the exhaust left in the cylinders and the standard flywheel, would keep the car coasting until electricity came back or the solenoids reconnected the push-rods to the rocker arm and started feeding the engine gasoline once again (the later could happen basically instantly if there is such a power demand).

Because your still moving the pistons up and end down and compressing waste gases, the engine never gets cold, always has warm coolant to heat the inside of the car, and is always ready to burn gasoline at proper operating temperature whenever electricity is dropped.

I can not imagine a future where cars don’t have at least some kind of internal combustion engine that burns gasoline or diesel, at least part of the time. We have been refining Internal Combustion Engines for 110 years now, and the technology is so well engineered and reliable, that it seems likely that cars will use Internal Combustion Technology of some sort for at least another 110 years, if not longer. Internal Combustion Engines are only going to be come cleaner and less polluting as pollution control standards and technology improves, and they are only going to burn less gas or diesel in decades to come.

New Power Plants Economics Compared

Andy | April 14, 2011

A local environmentalist put together a spreadsheet with the data from the November 2010 Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants. It shows why most new power plants constructed in recent years use either natural gas or wind, as by far they are the most cost-effective fuels. Evens with even a modest carbon regulations, new coal plants will become the exception and not a rule. It seems with the current economics, coal plants already seem like a waste of money and non-economic.

Note: Power Plants come in all different sizes. This analysis normalizes plant costs down to lifespan cost per kW during the plant’s lifespan, typically around 75 years. Therefore, a 500 MW Natural Gas: Advanced Combustion Turbine (CT) Plant based on the table, operating at full capacity would cost = $671.70 x 500,000 = $335 million over it’s lifespan.

Less Expensive Types of New Plants.

Fuel – Plant Type	Capital Cost (per kW/lifespan)	Fixed Operating & Maintenance Cost (per kW/lifespan)	Total Costs (per kW/lifespan)	Versus Average New Plant Types
Natural Gas: Advanced CT	$665	$6.70	$671.70	-84.13%
Natural Gas: Conventional CT	$974	$6.98	$980.98	-76.82%
Natural Gas: Conventional NGCC	$978	$14.39	$992.39	-76.55%
Natural Gas: Advanced NGCC	$1,003	$14.62	$1,017.62	-75.96%
Natural Gas: Advanced NGCC with CCS	$2,060	$30.25	$2,090.25	-50.62%
Onshore Wind	$2,438	$28.07	$2,466.07	-41.74%
Coal: Dual Unit Advanced PC	$2,844	$29.67	$2,873.67	-32.11%
Hydro-electric	$3,076	$13.44	$3,089.44	-27.01%
Coal: Single Unit Advanced PC	$3,167	$35.97	$3,202.97	-24.33%
Coal: Dual Unit IGCC	$3,221	$48.90	$3,269.90	-22.75%
Coal: Single Unit IGCC	$3,565	$59.23	$3,624.23	-14.38%
Biomass BFB	$3,860	$100.50	$3,960.50	-6.43%
Geothermal: Binary	$4,141	$84.27	$4,225.27	-0.18%

More Expensive Types of New Plants.

Fuel – Plant Type	Capital Cost (per kW/lifespan)	Fixed Operating & Maintenance Cost (per kW/lifespan)	Total Costs (per kW/lifespan)	Versus Average New Plant Types
Coal: Dual Unit Advanced PC with CCS	$4,579	$63.21	$4,642.21	9.68%
Solar: Thermal	$4,692	$64.00	$4,756.00	12.36%
Solar: Large Photovoltaic	$4,755	$16.70	$4,771.70	12.73%
Coal: Single Unit Advanced PC with CCS	$5,099	$76.62	$5,175.62	22.28%
Nuclear: Dual Unit	$5,335	$88.75	$5,423.75	28.14%
Coal: Single Unit IGCC with CCS	$5,348	$69.30	$5,417.30	27.99%
Geothermal: Dual Flash	$5,578	$84.27	$5,662.27	33.77%
Hydro-electric: Pumped Storage	$5,595	$13.03	$5,608.03	32.49%
Offshore Wind	$5,975	$53.33	$6,028.33	42.42%
Solar: Small Photovoltaic	$6,050	$26.04	$6,076.04	43.55%
Natural Gas: Fuel Cells	$6,835	$350	$7,185.00	69.75%
Biomass CC	$7,894	$338.79	$8,232.79	94.51%
MSW Incineration	$8,232	$373.76	$8,605.76	103.32%

Japan’s Rebirth May Save the Planet

Andy | March 18, 2011

Japan’s partial meltdown and destruction of three or more nuclear reactors at the Fukushima I Power Plant may finally force the world to rethink it’s energy policies. Japan’s future relating to these destroyed nuclear plants looks grim, with a great possibility of that at least some nuclear plant operators will die, and other residents around the plant will die slow and horrific deaths from cancer. Crops will be contaminated and animals will get sick and die. Nuclear radiation is nasty stuff.

Much of Japan’s recent history is surrounded by tragic consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, that not only killed thousands upon their initial explosion, but killed thousands more in the following years as the doses of radiation stimulated cancers and caused miscarriages. While the dropping of the atomic bomb and the lives it took is a distance memory, and evil potentially just as great if not greater has been unleashed over Japan. There ought to be a realization that the nuclear age must end.

The Japanese are certain to search for new energy sources to replace these existing nuclear plants. While Japanese are ready adopters of high technology, they are certainly are now aware of dangers of nuclear power and are going to want to shy away from it. Being an island nation, and being so aware of the dangers of climate change, they probably are not going to welcome in a large coal or natural gas plant that produces large carbon emissions to replace the now destroyed and forever unusable nuclear plants. Likewise, Japan has to import almost all of it’s fossil energy, so becoming more dependent on fossil fuels is a recipe for economic stagnation.

What can Japan do to replace these destroyed power plants? It’s not clear, although the unconventional alternatives to new fossil and nuclear generation seem likely. Japan can go on a massive campaign to reduce electricity consumption and build out renewables. They can build a smarter grid, where appliances reduce their electrical load automatically to ensure a need for less surplus capacity. They can make massive investments in renewable energies like off-shore wind and wave turbines. They can require buildings to have solar cells. They can make saving electricity a national priority.

Japan may have the chance to build the energy infrastructure only dreamed and theorized by Climate Activists in other countries. Yet, if Japan can do it, other countries will not be far behind in copying their successes. Whatever Japan does to rebuild will be an indication for energy industry of the future.

My Truck’s $1.50/kwh Electricity

Andy | September 15, 2010

I was wondering about how expensive it is to generate electricity with my pickup truck to power my accessories in the evening compared to the 16 cents a killowatt hour electricity I have at home from National Grid (including the 1.8 cent a killowatt hour surcharge for wind-hydro power).

Figuring…

The inverter and wiring has a maximum output of 800 watts. In an hour, it can produce up to 0.8 a kilowatt hours of electricty.

The truck battery has a reserve capacity of 120 minutes at 50 amps draw at 12 volts.

Gas is $2.75 a gallon. A Ford Ranger uses approximently 1/2 oz of gasoline per minute idle, and it takes 256 minutes or 4 hours, sixteen minutes idling per gallon.

Idle the truck 20 minutes an hour to keep the battery charged. That means each hour it uses 10 oz of gasoline, or 1/12 a gallon of gasoline.

Adds up to…

About $1.50 a kWh for electricity. While it takes more then hour to produce that killowatt hour energy, that’s what the net cost is. It’s 10 times the cost of utility plant, but that’s to be expected.

A pickup truck’s engine and alternator is not designed as a dynamo to efficently generate electricity. The primary goal of the alternator is keep the battery charged up, and the battery is designed mostly to provide a high amperage output to the starter, to quickly spin a cold engine with significant resistance from congealed oil in the winter.

Alternators are at best 50-60% efficent at converting engine power to electricity, and that’s on top of an engine that is probably about 20% efficent at putting power to drive line. That means the entire system is about 10% efficent, far below the 30-40% that most utilities can create electricity at.

Why I Like Truck Camping

Andy | June 24, 2010

Notes on the Re-Run for Saturday, June 9th.

— Andy

I have camped out plenty of times in the past in lean-tos and in tents in the wilderness. Yet, it’s not a regular thing, but more of an occasional thing. I much prefer camping out in my truck for the simple fact: I like having electricity.

As I’ve noted in the past, my truck has a 800-watt inverter hooked up to the battery, which provides electricity for my clock radio and lighting. I usually bring a string of LED Christmas lights for charm, but then also have a desk lamp with a 9-watt florescent light (equivalent to a 40 watt incandescent), along with two other 26-watt florescent lamps (each equivalent to a 100 watt lights).

It turns out that those lamps put out a lot of light. When I hear a bump in the night, or just need to run outside, I can turn on the lamps, and instantly have a lot of light. While a florescent lamp the size of 100-watt incandescent bulb might not seem that bright, as in a large well-lit room, in a darkly lit woods, they are very bright.

I usually use just a well focused 40-watt equivalent florescent bulb in my desk lamp for reading in the woods. I find it hard to read with a flicker of my white gas lantern, which also tends to be dimmer then the electric light, especially after white gas lamp starts to run lower on fuel, and needs to be pumped up again.

Indeed, one my favorite things to do when camping is reading. It one of few places I can enjoy the quiet without the distractions that are normally around. I find to read at night for hours, I need a good source of light to do it without eye strain I get with a lantern.

Electricity also powers my truck’s radio, along with a clock radio, chargers, and even a portable fan. It’s nice having music at night, and a fan to cool you. I like listening to the radio throughout the night, as it proves to be a good companion. You can get some of the strangest radio programs — right-wing christian talk shows — when your up in the woods.

Some people will say camping in the back of a pickup truck, with half a dozen things plugged is not real camping. Yet, it provides enjoyment, and a chance to get away from it all, and still provide the light and power I need or at least want to have a night.