THE LONG AWAITED BREAK THROUGH IN BATTERY TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN FOUND

[[email protected]]

There is a small company based outside Marseilles, who will by mid 2019 be mass producing a new type of battery, the advantages of which will blow your mind apart. The French company believe their products offers massive advantages to Electric Vehicles – i.e. self-launching motorgliders.

By combining the unique strengths of lithium batteries with an all new crazy-fast charging and carbon ultra-capacitors, the combination results in massive weight savings of more than a third of current power supplies. Recharge times can be measured in seconds. (Like half the time it takes to fill your tank with fuel). To this add the life span of this new power storage - it will accept up to a million charge cycles.

This is a story that “will blow your mind” and it appears in complete detail in the July issue of Gliding International.

You can buy of renew your subscription at our web site -

www.glidinginternational.com

[[email protected]]

Mind not blown. The concept of combining carbon ultra capacitors and lithium ion batteries for hybrid cars has been worked on for several years by various companies. The French Nawatechnologies company claims to have better capacitors rather than a new concept. In a hybrid car the advantage of combining the ultracapacitor with a lithium battery seems to be using the capacitor's extremely rapid charging for regenerative energy storage but that's not much use for self-launching motorgliders. Also motorglider main battery charging time is not nearly as critical as it is for electric cars - we can do it overnight whereas they need very rapid charging to counter the reduced range compared to ICE engined vehicles.

To me the big story about electrical energy storage advancement is that despite numerous claims of a revolution just round the corner it has been stubbornly incremental in reality.

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

I think this is known in the trade as 'Click-Bait'.....a technique used by
traditional media to raise profile and avoid falling circulation figures.

I agree with John that the evidence is slightly different to this potential
story.

I will also keep my subscription to the British Gliding Association's
Sailplane and Gliding - a publication that doesn't resort to tabloid
journalism to grab the attention of its readership.

N :)




At 02:31 15 June 2018, wrote:
>
>There is a small company based outside Marseilles, who will by mid 2019
be
>=
>mass producing a new type of battery, the advantages of which will blow
>you=
>r mind apart. The French company believe their products offers massive
>adva=
>ntages to Electric Vehicles =E2=80=93 i.e. self-launching motorgliders.
>
>By combining the unique strengths of lithium batteries with an all new
>craz=
>y-fast charging and carbon ultra-capacitors, the combination results in
>mas=
>sive weight savings of more than a third of current power supplies.
>Rechar=
>ge times can be measured in seconds. (Like half the time it takes to
fill
>=
>your tank with fuel). To this add the life span of this new power storage

>=
>- it will accept up to a million charge cycles.=20
>
>This is a story that =E2=80=9Cwill blow your mind=E2=80=9D and it appears
>i=
>n complete detail in the July issue of Gliding International.
>
>You can buy of renew your subscription at our web site -
>
> www.glidinginternational.com
>

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 01:31:47 -0700, jpg797 wrote:

> To me the big story about electrical energy storage advancement is that
> despite numerous claims of a revolution just round the corner it has
> been stubbornly incremental in reality.

You're spot on about promises of new battery technology, usually made
about results from an initial small scale laboratory demonstration, that,
after a glowing announcement in New Scientist, mysteriously vanishes,
never to be heard from again. It would be really wonderful if at least
one of these efforts resulted in something more substantial than a PhD
thesis and, at least sometimes, a newly fledged PhD graduate. But, I'm
not holding my breath for this wondrous event because known electro-
chemical properties put limitations on future capacity increases.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Charlie Quebec]

Something like this would be ok for a acceleration booster, even if only 20 seconds of high power to accelerate for self launch.
Given the FES motor has more power than the Fisher Top motor, with an acceleration boost, self launching at 400kg would be possible.

[[email protected]]

Hear Hear. Just because it's in all capital letters doesn't make it so. And they forgot the operative word "may", as in "by mid 2019 MAY be mass producing a new type of battery". Like many such predictions, it doesn't actually happen.

One issue often glossed over in discussions of fast-charging batteries is the power needed to do that. E.g., suppose you have a battery that holds 20 KWH and you want to charge it in 30 seconds (1/120 of an hour). You'd need 20 * 120 = 2400 KW of power, i.e., 2.4 megawatts. Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of connection...

But yeah, for launching gliders you don't need fast charging.

[Steve Koerner]

> Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of connection...

Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of connection...
>
> Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.

You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason they are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat "hybrid" car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration while the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps have a much lower energy storage density, and much higher price per energy unit, relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station" you'd want to allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much time for buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply. That's actually perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling station, but not at home.

[Steve Koerner]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of connection...
> >
> > Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.
>
> You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason they are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat "hybrid" car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration while the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps have a much lower energy storage density, and much higher price per energy unit, relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station" you'd want to allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much time for buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply. That's actually perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling station, but not at home.

Makes sense. I've not looked at numbers. It's fun to read the tidbits in Gliding International about carbon nanotube materials and super dense battery technology -- even if it's mostly fictional and none of it will come to light. Numbers just spoil the fun. I'd rather continue to contemplate supercapacitors that will be tiny and cheap and hold enormous energy.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

So, you want a flux capacitor?
;-)

[[email protected]]

> So, you want a flux capacitor?

No, I want the "Mister Fusion" in BTTF 2.

[jfitch]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 4:34:04 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 01:31:47 -0700, jpg797 wrote:
>
> > To me the big story about electrical energy storage advancement is that
> > despite numerous claims of a revolution just round the corner it has
> > been stubbornly incremental in reality.
>
> You're spot on about promises of new battery technology, usually made
> about results from an initial small scale laboratory demonstration, that,
> after a glowing announcement in New Scientist, mysteriously vanishes,
> never to be heard from again. It would be really wonderful if at least
> one of these efforts resulted in something more substantial than a PhD
> thesis and, at least sometimes, a newly fledged PhD graduate. But, I'm
> not holding my breath for this wondrous event because known electro-
> chemical properties put limitations on future capacity increases.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

For aircraft power, energy density is king. Even the company's own press release does not claim to be competitive with LiPo batteries (as used in the FES and Antares), they say the may eventually "approach" that.

The dirty secret of all electric vehicle power is that you've got to get the power somewhere. At our glider port, if more than 1 or 2 electrics plugged in overnight it would bring the electric service to it's knees. We barely have power to recharge the golf carts. As an energy source, gasoline is still hard to beat.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:26 -0700, Steve Koerner wrote:

> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7,
> wrote:
>> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> > > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of
>> > > connection...
>> >
>> > Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why
>> > wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling
>> > station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.
>>
>> You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason they
>> are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or
>> regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to
>> what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat "hybrid"
>> car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration while
>> the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps have a much
>> lower energy storage density, and much higher price per energy unit,
>> relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station" you'd want to
>> allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much time for
>> buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply. That's actually
>> perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling station, but not
>> at home.
>
> Makes sense. I've not looked at numbers. It's fun to read the tidbits
> in Gliding International about carbon nanotube materials and super dense
> battery technology -- even if it's mostly fictional and none of it will
> come to light. Numbers just spoil the fun. I'd rather continue to
> contemplate supercapacitors that will be tiny and cheap and hold
> enormous energy.

A very quick bit of playing with numbers (service station with 18
chargers, assuming that each recharge was the equivalent of a tankful of
petrol, 60 litres, and charging averages one full charge sold per charger
each hour over a 10 hour day) looked like an equivalent electric charge
point would need a continuous power input of around 0.1 MW.

Assumptions:
- 60 litres is a full tank: that's roughly what my Focus takes.
- The standard energy content of a litre petrol is 10 KWh.
- The number of pumps matches my local supermarket.
- The average fill rate of one tankful per pump per hour is a guess
based on how full the service station is at various times combined
with a guestimate that the average stop for a full tank of gas is
10-12 minutes.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:42:35 AM UTC-6, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> ...even if only 20 seconds of high power to accelerate for self launch.

Nope, supercaps absolutely not helpful.
You need enough power for a safe climb rate for several minutes.
And that much power already provides more than adequate acceleration.

Forget the supercaps for this application!
BTW, some electronics I designed flying in produced gliders uses supercaps ;-)

[Charlie Quebec]

A FES motor would provide sufficient climb rate, and an initial boost would be helpful.
As I pointed out, it is already more powerful than a TOP motor.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:26 -0700, Steve Koerner wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7,
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> >> > > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of
> >> > > connection...
> >> >
> >> > Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why
> >> > wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling
> >> > station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.
> >>
> >> You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason they
> >> are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or
> >> regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to
> >> what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat "hybrid"
> >> car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration while
> >> the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps have a much
> >> lower energy storage density, and much higher price per energy unit,
> >> relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station" you'd want to
> >> allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much time for
> >> buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply. That's actually
> >> perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling station, but not
> >> at home.
> >
> > Makes sense. I've not looked at numbers. It's fun to read the tidbits
> > in Gliding International about carbon nanotube materials and super dense
> > battery technology -- even if it's mostly fictional and none of it will
> > come to light. Numbers just spoil the fun. I'd rather continue to
> > contemplate supercapacitors that will be tiny and cheap and hold
> > enormous energy.
>
> A very quick bit of playing with numbers (service station with 18
> chargers, assuming that each recharge was the equivalent of a tankful of
> petrol, 60 litres, and charging averages one full charge sold per charger
> each hour over a 10 hour day) looked like an equivalent electric charge
> point would need a continuous power input of around 0.1 MW.
>
> Assumptions:
> - 60 litres is a full tank: that's roughly what my Focus takes.
> - The standard energy content of a litre petrol is 10 KWh.
> - The number of pumps matches my local supermarket.
> - The average fill rate of one tankful per pump per hour is a guess
> based on how full the service station is at various times combined
> with a guestimate that the average stop for a full tank of gas is
> 10-12 minutes.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Martin: check your numbers. 60 liter * 10 KWH/l * 18 pumps * 10 hours = 108,000 KWH, or about 10,000 KWH per hour, i.e., 10 megawatts (if supplied over those same 10 hours). And one tankful per pump per hour is very slow for a gasoline filling station, although fairly fast for battery charging with current non-vaporware batteries. The actual filling of a tank takes about 1/18 of an hour, so that flow rate of fuel into your tank is 10 megawatts! Yes, it's hard to beat fossil fuels in energy density.

[lynn]

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:31:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> There is a small company based outside Marseilles, who will by mid 2019 be mass producing a new type of battery, the advantages of which will blow your mind apart. The French company believe their products offers massive advantages to Electric Vehicles – i.e. self-launching motorgliders.
>
> By combining the unique strengths of lithium batteries with an all new crazy-fast charging and carbon ultra-capacitors, the combination results in massive weight savings of more than a third of current power supplies. Recharge times can be measured in seconds. (Like half the time it takes to fill your tank with fuel). To this add the life span of this new power storage - it will accept up to a million charge cycles.
>
> This is a story that “will blow your mind” and it appears in complete detail in the July issue of Gliding International.
>
> You can buy of renew your subscription at our web site -
>
> www.glidinginternational.com

I think what is needed for faster electric car charging at a "gas" station is to have all cars to have standardized, easily pull-out, slide-in battery packs. One would only need to drive up to a refueling bay, a machine would open a hatch, and exchange the battery pack. Battery pack would be provided by nationwide refuel centers. The cost would reflect the cost to charge plus eventual replacement. Refill time would be equivalent to a gas fill up. Car dealership would provide a free fill up like they usually do now. Initial car price would, of course, include the price for a new battery pack. No electric cord required or long wait while on a cross country trip. This has nothing to do with FES designs, but just thought it would be a neat idea..

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 7:19:42 PM UTC-7, lynn wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:31:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > There is a small company based outside Marseilles, who will by mid 2019 be mass producing a new type of battery, the advantages of which will blow your mind apart. The French company believe their products offers massive advantages to Electric Vehicles – i.e. self-launching motorgliders..
> >
> > By combining the unique strengths of lithium batteries with an all new crazy-fast charging and carbon ultra-capacitors, the combination results in massive weight savings of more than a third of current power supplies. Recharge times can be measured in seconds. (Like half the time it takes to fill your tank with fuel). To this add the life span of this new power storage - it will accept up to a million charge cycles.
> >
> > This is a story that “will blow your mind” and it appears in complete detail in the July issue of Gliding International.
> >
> > You can buy of renew your subscription at our web site -
> >
> > www.glidinginternational.com
>
> I think what is needed for faster electric car charging at a "gas" station is to have all cars to have standardized, easily pull-out, slide-in battery packs. One would only need to drive up to a refueling bay, a machine would open a hatch, and exchange the battery pack. Battery pack would be provided by nationwide refuel centers. The cost would reflect the cost to charge plus eventual replacement. Refill time would be equivalent to a gas fill up. Car dealership would provide a free fill up like they usually do now. Initial car price would, of course, include the price for a new battery pack. No electric cord required or long wait while on a cross country trip. This has nothing to do with FES designs, but just thought it would be a neat idea.


One start up that actually attempted to do this was called "Better Place". Unfortunately, it failed spectacularly. Great idea though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)

David

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:54:18 -0700, moshe.braner wrote:

> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:26 -0700, Steve Koerner wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7,
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> >> > > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of
>> >> > > connection...
>> >> >
>> >> > Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why
>> >> > wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling
>> >> > station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.
>> >>
>> >> You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason
>> >> they are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or
>> >> regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to
>> >> what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat
>> >> "hybrid"
>> >> car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration
>> >> while the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps
>> >> have a much lower energy storage density, and much higher price per
>> >> energy unit, relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station"
>> >> you'd want to allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much
>> >> time for buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply.
>> >> That's actually perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling
>> >> station, but not at home.
>> >
>> > Makes sense. I've not looked at numbers. It's fun to read the
>> > tidbits in Gliding International about carbon nanotube materials and
>> > super dense battery technology -- even if it's mostly fictional and
>> > none of it will come to light. Numbers just spoil the fun. I'd
>> > rather continue to contemplate supercapacitors that will be tiny and
>> > cheap and hold enormous energy.
>>
>> A very quick bit of playing with numbers (service station with 18
>> chargers, assuming that each recharge was the equivalent of a tankful
>> of petrol, 60 litres, and charging averages one full charge sold per
>> charger each hour over a 10 hour day) looked like an equivalent
>> electric charge point would need a continuous power input of around 0.1
>> MW.
>>
>> Assumptions:
>> - 60 litres is a full tank: that's roughly what my Focus takes.
>> - The standard energy content of a litre petrol is 10 KWh.
>> - The number of pumps matches my local supermarket.
>> - The average fill rate of one tankful per pump per hour is a guess
>> based on how full the service station is at various times combined
>> with a guestimate that the average stop for a full tank of gas is
>> 10-12 minutes.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> Martin: check your numbers. 60 liter * 10 KWH/l * 18 pumps * 10 hours =
> 108,000 KWH, or about 10,000 KWH per hour, i.e., 10 megawatts (if
> supplied over those same 10 hours).
>
Yep. I forgot to convert KWh to MWh. I was having a slow day.

> And one tankful per pump per hour is very slow for a gasoline filling
> station,
>
Sure. Based on my usual timing, a fill seems to take around 10 min if you
include queuing at the til - pay at the pump has only just appeared at my
usual service station and I haven't yet got my head around how long it
takes now. But, it would seem unlikely that a pump could deal with more
than 20 cars an hour, but average over a whole day the throughput has to
be less when you consider that for much of the time maybe only 25% of the
pumps are in use.

> although fairly fast for
> battery charging with current non-vaporware batteries.
>
Agreed.

> The actual
> filling of a tank takes about 1/18 of an hour, so that flow rate of fuel
> into your tank is 10 megawatts! Yes, it's hard to beat fossil fuels in
> energy density.
>
Yes, exactly so. Another point is that building the generation capacity
to replace the refineries producing petrol and diesel and adding the
cabling to get that power to the charging stations is going to take quite
a lot of time and money. That process will be slow and expensive enough
here in a physically small country, so I wonder how long and expensive it
will be in a place as big as the USA. Have the people planning your
carbonless future thought about that? I don't think ours have.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[jfitch]

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:03:27 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:54:18 -0700, moshe.braner wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:26 -0700, Steve Koerner wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> >> >> > > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of
> >> >> > > connection...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why
> >> >> > wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling
> >> >> > station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason
> >> >> they are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or
> >> >> regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to
> >> >> what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat
> >> >> "hybrid"
> >> >> car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration
> >> >> while the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps
> >> >> have a much lower energy storage density, and much higher price per
> >> >> energy unit, relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station"
> >> >> you'd want to allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much
> >> >> time for buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply.
> >> >> That's actually perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling
> >> >> station, but not at home.
> >> >
> >> > Makes sense. I've not looked at numbers. It's fun to read the
> >> > tidbits in Gliding International about carbon nanotube materials and
> >> > super dense battery technology -- even if it's mostly fictional and
> >> > none of it will come to light. Numbers just spoil the fun. I'd
> >> > rather continue to contemplate supercapacitors that will be tiny and
> >> > cheap and hold enormous energy.
> >>
> >> A very quick bit of playing with numbers (service station with 18
> >> chargers, assuming that each recharge was the equivalent of a tankful
> >> of petrol, 60 litres, and charging averages one full charge sold per
> >> charger each hour over a 10 hour day) looked like an equivalent
> >> electric charge point would need a continuous power input of around 0.1
> >> MW.
> >>
> >> Assumptions:
> >> - 60 litres is a full tank: that's roughly what my Focus takes.
> >> - The standard energy content of a litre petrol is 10 KWh.
> >> - The number of pumps matches my local supermarket.
> >> - The average fill rate of one tankful per pump per hour is a guess
> >> based on how full the service station is at various times combined
> >> with a guestimate that the average stop for a full tank of gas is
> >> 10-12 minutes.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
> >
> > Martin: check your numbers. 60 liter * 10 KWH/l * 18 pumps * 10 hours =
> > 108,000 KWH, or about 10,000 KWH per hour, i.e., 10 megawatts (if
> > supplied over those same 10 hours).
> >
> Yep. I forgot to convert KWh to MWh. I was having a slow day.
>
> > And one tankful per pump per hour is very slow for a gasoline filling
> > station,
> >
> Sure. Based on my usual timing, a fill seems to take around 10 min if you
> include queuing at the til - pay at the pump has only just appeared at my
> usual service station and I haven't yet got my head around how long it
> takes now. But, it would seem unlikely that a pump could deal with more
> than 20 cars an hour, but average over a whole day the throughput has to
> be less when you consider that for much of the time maybe only 25% of the
> pumps are in use.
>
> > although fairly fast for
> > battery charging with current non-vaporware batteries.
> >
> Agreed.
>
> > The actual
> > filling of a tank takes about 1/18 of an hour, so that flow rate of fuel
> > into your tank is 10 megawatts! Yes, it's hard to beat fossil fuels in
> > energy density.
> >
> Yes, exactly so. Another point is that building the generation capacity
> to replace the refineries producing petrol and diesel and adding the
> cabling to get that power to the charging stations is going to take quite
> a lot of time and money. That process will be slow and expensive enough
> here in a physically small country, so I wonder how long and expensive it
> will be in a place as big as the USA. Have the people planning your
> carbonless future thought about that? I don't think ours have.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

I've watched them build the Tesla charging station near my home. The power service looks like a small power substation. I think they only have 10 charging stations, supposed to be able to get a Tesla to something like 80% in 30 minutes.

Tesla also proposed, and began to build, battery swap stations for their cars. I'm not sure it was every made operational. The Tesla batteries are underneath and apparently quickly swappable - not slide out, but put on a lift and R&R with some special equipment. One problem you will run into is the battery pack you get might have 5000 cycles on it, vs. yours with only 500..

Another problem with mass conversion to electric cars: the public believes the electricity comes out of trees or something. In fact in most of the US, fossil fuels (coal or diesel) are used to generate the power. Many of these plants are turbines, and are not as thermally efficient as a modern car engine. Hydro power is pretty much fully developed (as much as the public will stand anyway) and there hasn't been a nuclear plant built in decades. Solar may be an answer, but it requires energy storage systems that are not currently in place. Fusion IS the answer, but someone has yet to crack that nut.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Tagging on here, not picking on you.......

So, where do the volts come from?

In some major US cities, yes, there are charging stations.
What about in "east bumfvck" US when your battery is low?

You are SOL........

I have read Tesla threads, where they are too far far away from a quick charge.
The microstructure is not there yet.
Maybe someday.
A gas/electric is likely a better option, for now.

Solar works fine in some parts of the US.
Geothermal works in some countries.
Hydro works in some places.

I still lean to nukes, accepting some of the downsides for now. Look to some Euro countries.

AFAIK, no "perfect solution" everywhere. Each has it's challenges.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

There has not been an nuclear power plant approved for construction since the Three mile island near meltdown in March of 1979. I was a sophomore studying nuclear engineering at Oregon State and that event lead me to change majors to Chem E, in very short order. I wanted a job post college.

>On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:57:13 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> Another problem with mass conversion to electric cars: the public believes the electricity comes out of trees or something. In fact in most of the US, fossil fuels (coal or diesel) are used to generate the power. Many of these plants are turbines, and are not as thermally efficient as a modern car engine. Hydro power is pretty much fully developed (as much as the public will stand anyway) and there hasn't been a nuclear plant built in decades. Solar may be an answer, but it requires energy storage systems that are not currently in place. Fusion IS the answer, but someone has yet to crack that nut.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

My opinion, FWIW.......the US seems to start with a blank sheet for every nuke site.
To me, what do I know, design maybe 3 power sites, then apply as needed. Do a small, medium and large.
Then you have a common approved design, within a decade or so, the design should be OK.
Why reinvent the wheel for every site?

Yes, there are issues of the waste, but the killer, in my mind for the US, is reinventing the wheel for every Frikkin site.....

Alternatives are there, but vary across the US unlike most other countries.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:31:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> There is a small company based outside Marseilles, who will by mid 2019 be mass producing a new type of battery, the advantages of which will blow your mind apart. The French company believe their products offers massive advantages to Electric Vehicles – i.e. self-launching motorgliders.
>
> By combining the unique strengths of lithium batteries with an all new crazy-fast charging and carbon ultra-capacitors, the combination results in massive weight savings of more than a third of current power supplies. Recharge times can be measured in seconds. (Like half the time it takes to fill your tank with fuel). To this add the life span of this new power storage - it will accept up to a million charge cycles.
>
> This is a story that “will blow your mind” and it appears in complete detail in the July issue of Gliding International.
>
> You can buy of renew your subscription at our web site -
>
> www.glidinginternational.com

Ah if only gliders could be powered by hot air rising from soaring magazines. :-O

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:57:13 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:03:27 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:54:18 -0700, moshe.braner wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:26 -0700, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7,
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > >> >> > > Go ask your electrical utility for a price quote on that sort of
> > >> >> > > connection...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Well Moshe, when the supercapacitors become workable in cars, why
> > >> >> > wouldn't they also become workable for buffering at the filling
> > >> >> > station? Megawatt connections won't be the issue.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You'd need a heck of a lot of those supercapacitors. The reason
> > >> >> they are being talked about in cars is to provide acceleration or
> > >> >> regeneration for a few seconds, a small amount of energy relative to
> > >> >> what's stored in the main battery. Sort of like a now-old-hat
> > >> >> "hybrid"
> > >> >> car uses the battery for short-term acceleration and regeneration
> > >> >> while the gasoline tank stores most of the energy. The supercaps
> > >> >> have a much lower energy storage density, and much higher price per
> > >> >> energy unit, relative to batteries. Also, at a "filling station"
> > >> >> you'd want to allow one car to fill-er-up after the other, not much
> > >> >> time for buffering. So you'd still need megawatts of supply.
> > >> >> That's actually perhaps economically feasible at a dedicated filling
> > >> >> station, but not at home.
> > >> >
> > >> > Makes sense. I've not looked at numbers. It's fun to read the
> > >> > tidbits in Gliding International about carbon nanotube materials and
> > >> > super dense battery technology -- even if it's mostly fictional and
> > >> > none of it will come to light. Numbers just spoil the fun. I'd
> > >> > rather continue to contemplate supercapacitors that will be tiny and
> > >> > cheap and hold enormous energy.
> > >>
> > >> A very quick bit of playing with numbers (service station with 18
> > >> chargers, assuming that each recharge was the equivalent of a tankful
> > >> of petrol, 60 litres, and charging averages one full charge sold per
> > >> charger each hour over a 10 hour day) looked like an equivalent
> > >> electric charge point would need a continuous power input of around 0.1
> > >> MW.
> > >>
> > >> Assumptions:
> > >> - 60 litres is a full tank: that's roughly what my Focus takes.
> > >> - The standard energy content of a litre petrol is 10 KWh.
> > >> - The number of pumps matches my local supermarket.
> > >> - The average fill rate of one tankful per pump per hour is a guess
> > >> based on how full the service station is at various times combined
> > >> with a guestimate that the average stop for a full tank of gas is
> > >> 10-12 minutes.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
> > >
> > > Martin: check your numbers. 60 liter * 10 KWH/l * 18 pumps * 10 hours =
> > > 108,000 KWH, or about 10,000 KWH per hour, i.e., 10 megawatts (if
> > > supplied over those same 10 hours).
> > >
> > Yep. I forgot to convert KWh to MWh. I was having a slow day.
> >
> > > And one tankful per pump per hour is very slow for a gasoline filling
> > > station,
> > >
> > Sure. Based on my usual timing, a fill seems to take around 10 min if you
> > include queuing at the til - pay at the pump has only just appeared at my
> > usual service station and I haven't yet got my head around how long it
> > takes now. But, it would seem unlikely that a pump could deal with more
> > than 20 cars an hour, but average over a whole day the throughput has to
> > be less when you consider that for much of the time maybe only 25% of the
> > pumps are in use.
> >
> > > although fairly fast for
> > > battery charging with current non-vaporware batteries.
> > >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > The actual
> > > filling of a tank takes about 1/18 of an hour, so that flow rate of fuel
> > > into your tank is 10 megawatts! Yes, it's hard to beat fossil fuels in
> > > energy density.
> > >
> > Yes, exactly so. Another point is that building the generation capacity
> > to replace the refineries producing petrol and diesel and adding the
> > cabling to get that power to the charging stations is going to take quite
> > a lot of time and money. That process will be slow and expensive enough
> > here in a physically small country, so I wonder how long and expensive it
> > will be in a place as big as the USA. Have the people planning your
> > carbonless future thought about that? I don't think ours have.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin | martin at
> > Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> I've watched them build the Tesla charging station near my home. The power service looks like a small power substation. I think they only have 10 charging stations, supposed to be able to get a Tesla to something like 80% in 30 minutes.
>
> Tesla also proposed, and began to build, battery swap stations for their cars. I'm not sure it was every made operational. The Tesla batteries are underneath and apparently quickly swappable - not slide out, but put on a lift and R&R with some special equipment. One problem you will run into is the battery pack you get might have 5000 cycles on it, vs. yours with only 500.
>
> Another problem with mass conversion to electric cars: the public believes the electricity comes out of trees or something. In fact in most of the US, fossil fuels (coal or diesel) are used to generate the power. Many of these plants are turbines, and are not as thermally efficient as a modern car engine. Hydro power is pretty much fully developed (as much as the public will stand anyway) and there hasn't been a nuclear plant built in decades. Solar may be an answer, but it requires energy storage systems that are not currently in place. Fusion IS the answer, but someone has yet to crack that nut.

Actually, diesel is very rarely used for large scale generation, except on islands. The most common energy source for electricity generation in the USA is natural gas. State of the art natural gas generators ("combined cycle") are MUCH more efficient than a car engine (almost double). (But electric cars have some additional losses in the charge/discharge cycle of the battery, and a huge amount of energy embedded in the manufacturing of the battery.) As for fusion, "it is the energy source of the future, and always will be" :-)

The "answer" is to use far less energy, and to use it when it's more readily available (while the sun shines), to avoid the need for much storage. Like it or not, we'll be forced into that route, through the economics. Cheap fracked gas (over-supply due to over-investment) is a fleeting anomaly.

But we're getting farther and farther away from soaring in the discussion here. The thread about electric winches is more relevant.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 17:40:39 -0700, moshe.braner wrote:

> But we're getting farther and farther away from soaring in the
> discussion here. The thread about electric winches is more relevant.
>
Picking up on that, my club looked at the possibilities shortly after the
German ESW2 winch http://www.startwinde.de/ became available. Our field
was a WW2 bomber field. We use the triangle of runways between the
crossing points of the original runways (04/22, 16/34 and 09/27), which
wer dug out, the rubble used for build motorways and the runways widened
quite a lot and put down in grass. We normally fly on 04/22, because our
prevailing winds are SW and NE, less often using 16/34 if the get
northerlies or southerlies and rarely on 09/27 because its the shortest
and narrowest run. The consequence is that there are four places where
the winch is set up depending on wind direction, and so we'd need to need
to provide power at all four points.

The ESW2 winch requires a 400v supply capable of providing 7-20kW. The
cost of installing this cable made electric winching uneconomic for us.
The far ends of 22 and 16 are 1600m and 1250m from our clubhouse, which
would be the mains endpoint. While the supply for 34 could be taken off
the cable to 22 and the cable run to 04 is only 340m, these don't offset
the cost of the two longer cables or the possible upgrading of the club's
mains supply.

Since the ESW2 winch uses 1.2 kWh to launch an ASK-21 to 400m (1300 ft)
and its motor can draw up to 200 kW, there's a fair amount of battery
buffering onboard - I believe they use lead-acid truck accumulators. In
theory at least you should be able to run one off a construction-site
generator trailer rated at 7-20 kW and parked behind it, but I have no
idea how the cost of doing that compares with wiring up the airfield.

FWIW I think the original electric winches were installed at alpine
airfields which had a single runway and only ever launch in one
direction. Unterwossen has a four drum winch installation situated well
off the end of the airfield. IIRC I've seen photos of similar winches
installed in brick winch-houses. Of course this minimises the cost of
cabling, especially if the winch is at the same end of the airfield as
the club house and hangars.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 9:04:17 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 17:40:39 -0700, moshe.braner wrote:
>
> > But we're getting farther and farther away from soaring in the
> > discussion here. The thread about electric winches is more relevant.
> >
> Picking up on that, my club looked at the possibilities shortly after the
> German ESW2 winch http://www.startwinde.de/ became available. Our field
> was a WW2 bomber field. We use the triangle of runways between the
> crossing points of the original runways (04/22, 16/34 and 09/27), which
> wer dug out, the rubble used for build motorways and the runways widened
> quite a lot and put down in grass. We normally fly on 04/22, because our
> prevailing winds are SW and NE, less often using 16/34 if the get
> northerlies or southerlies and rarely on 09/27 because its the shortest
> and narrowest run. The consequence is that there are four places where
> the winch is set up depending on wind direction, and so we'd need to need
> to provide power at all four points.
>
> The ESW2 winch requires a 400v supply capable of providing 7-20kW. The
> cost of installing this cable made electric winching uneconomic for us.
> The far ends of 22 and 16 are 1600m and 1250m from our clubhouse, which
> would be the mains endpoint. While the supply for 34 could be taken off
> the cable to 22 and the cable run to 04 is only 340m, these don't offset
> the cost of the two longer cables or the possible upgrading of the club's
> mains supply.
>
> Since the ESW2 winch uses 1.2 kWh to launch an ASK-21 to 400m (1300 ft)
> and its motor can draw up to 200 kW, there's a fair amount of battery
> buffering onboard - I believe they use lead-acid truck accumulators. In
> theory at least you should be able to run one off a construction-site
> generator trailer rated at 7-20 kW and parked behind it, but I have no
> idea how the cost of doing that compares with wiring up the airfield.
>
> FWIW I think the original electric winches were installed at alpine
> airfields which had a single runway and only ever launch in one
> direction. Unterwossen has a four drum winch installation situated well
> off the end of the airfield. IIRC I've seen photos of similar winches
> installed in brick winch-houses. Of course this minimises the cost of
> cabling, especially if the winch is at the same end of the airfield as
> the club house and hangars.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Thanks for that info Martin. I am surprise it only takes about 1 KWH for a launch, that's the equivalent of 1/10 of a liter of gasoline, using the conversion number you gave above.

If the launch requires 200KW and the supply is 20KW then most of the launch power is coming from the batteries. That means that you could supply it with less power and it will still work, although it may need a longer time to charge between launches? E.g., if a launch uses 100 KW on the average and takes 1 minute (1.6 KWH) and you do one every 20 minutes (not ideal) then you need a supply of 100/20 = 5 KW.

BTW 5 KW of solar panels is only about $5,000 these days. That would do about 3 launches per hour. Possibly an alternative to running the expensive wires? (For only one location though.) Add more batteries and you can run the first few launches of the day on energy stored from the morning, the previous day, or overnight (with modest grid connection). And you don't need fancy vaporware batteries, any type will do, since they stay on the ground.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:19:33 -0700, moshe.braner wrote:

> If the launch requires 200KW and the supply is 20KW then most of the
> launch power is coming from the batteries. That means that you could
> supply it with less power and it will still work, although it may need a
> longer time to charge between launches? E.g., if a launch uses 100 KW
> on the average and takes 1 minute (1.6 KWH) and you do one every 20
> minutes (not ideal) then you need a supply of 100/20 = 5 KW.
>
From experience with Supacat and Skylaunch twin drum winches, the actual
launch takes around 35-40 secs in normal conditions, but then theres a
fair amount of throttle applied to pull the cable down before it drifts
too far, so 1 minute of run-time per launch seems reasonable.

On our field (1000m cable run, twin drum winch) the best launch rate we
ever achieved was 18 an hour - and apart from the winch driver and launch
marshal that required 3-4 extra full-time helpers, i.e. one guy in the
cable truck and at least two extra people retrieving landed gliders,
moving the launch queues up to the twin launch points, AND for no
briefing delays and other fannying about at the head of the queue.

A bunch of us, all recent solos and flying the club's SZD Juniors used to
get stuck in while waiting for a Junior to land, and no matter how we
tried we couldn't top 18 launches an hour. It didn't need much in the way
of long landings, and briefings etc to drop that rate quite a bit.

> BTW 5 KW of solar panels is only about $5,000 these days. That would do
> about 3 launches per hour.
>
We routinely do more than that - 100 launches isn't unusual for a decent
day.

> And you don't need fancy vaporware batteries, any type
> will do, since they stay on the ground.
>
Agreed - wet lead acid would be fine, particularly as it all helps to
hold the winch down.

However, as I said, we went to other way and have two winches - both are
7-8 litre V-8s running on LPG and using Spectra cables. One is a Skylaunch
and the other is a Tost which was rebuilt by Skylaunch. Since we operate
7 days a week, mostly winched flying from the start of April to the end
of September, we've found that having only one winch loses a bit too much
time on servicing etc, so we got the second one. This lets us alternate
them so the offline one can be serviced etc.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[AS]

>> I am surprise it only takes about 1 KWH for a launch, that's the equivalent of 1/10 of a liter of gasoline, using the conversion number you gave above. <<

Our winch uses on average 1 cup of gas (~240cc) per launch. The engine is a 7.5l V8 with a carburetor. Going to fuel injection would lower that consumption but we would have to do a lot of launching, before we recover that investment.
There is a very promising electric winch project on the way in the US. Stay tuned for news in the near future...

Uli
'AS'