Tractor News Viable Electric Tractor?

[buickanddeere]

Higher voltage is important. It reduces the current to obtain the same amount of power . Wire/cable/conductor sizes are reduced .

 

[chim]

I'm not into battery-powered stuff except my DeWalt 20V tools, so bear with me. With the info given on the Greenworks site (and a brief stay at a Holiday Inn Express) it would appear to me that the 82V battery would need an output of around 55A just to run the blades at full load for the 4 hours run time. That's 4.5 kWh each of the 4 hours (based on the three two-horse motors for the blades). I didn't see anything regarding locomotion, so maybe you need to pull it with a diesel tractor. Without more info, my guess is the battery would need to be an 82V, 18 kWh, aka 82V, 220AH to provide power for the blades alone.

The whole thing looks kinda hokey. The deck is described as both 52" and 60", depending upon where you look. Of course it does state that it is an electric start

 

[RalphVa]

I'd like to have one. Started a thread like this about a year ago. Didn't have any info on any available at that time.

Think the overall efficiency, even in a fossil fuel one, is slightly higher than what a diesel tractor runs: fossil fuel with poor heat recovery is 33%. Put in a gas turbine and generate electricity both off the shaft and from heat recovery in the exhaust, and it doubles. Add in nuclear and water power, and you bright the efficiencies up and costs down even more. Now, there's solar and wind power from outside. Solar power wouldn't work well for your own location because you'd need the tractor during sunshine periods, and there's no solar at night. Typically, wind dies down at night, too.

Can't beat the reduced noise and elimination of diesel particulates without a DPF. The 3 to 6 hours running time is great, and recharging overnight is good.

Got to look at the overall energy cycle of making the tractor and the battery and its efficiency vs. overall cost of making a diesel tractor and its efficiency.

It's the future.

Ralph

 

[Grumpycat]

I'm not into battery-powered stuff except my DeWalt 20V tools, so bear with me. With the info given on the Greenworks site (and a brief stay at a Holiday Inn Express) it would appear to me that the 82V battery would need an output of around 55A just to run the blades at full load for the 4 hours run time. That's 4.5 kWh each of the 4 hours (based on the three two-horse motors for the blades). I didn't see anything regarding locomotion, so maybe you need to pull it with a diesel tractor. Without more info, my guess is the battery would need to be an 82V, 18 kWh, aka 82V, 220AH to provide power for the blades alone.

The whole thing looks kinda hokey. The deck is described as both 52" and 60", depending upon where you look. Of course it does state that it is an electric start

If memory serves correctly Greenworks stated 20 kWh-ish battery at the show.

Your power estimate for the blades assumes worst case full power tallest grass all the time.

Mowers come with different sized decks. I don't fully understand why one would prefer a 52" deck to a 60" but am told many believe they get a better quality of cut from 52" and cite something about how far apart the drive wheels and overlap when cutting.

 

[chim]

............................Your power estimate for the blades assumes worst case full power tallest grass all the time..........................................

I used that scenario because it seemed most fitting for their claims of speed. That's a lot of grass being cut and pumped out. If the grass is trimmed frequently, less power could be used. But then mowing twice as often would likely use more power overall.

 

[Jim Nelson]

I don稚 know what a "3.6 P.V. system" is. $10,000 buys a 6kW system before government subsidies or cost of installation.

I found the paper work from the utility system when it was installed in 2014. It says "This letter is formal notification that the 3.375 KW Solar Electric Generating facility tied to meter XXXXXX" etc has met all the requirements to interconnect and operate in parallel with S.D.G.&E's electric system.

I'm a low tech redneck and did mis-state the KWH in my original post but this is what I have. The $16,000 price was after all rebates and installation.Things must be a lot cheaper where you live. We got several quotes on our system and the one we bought was near the middle of the group.

I'm sorry this doesn't fit in with your argument but it is my experience.

 

[Grumpycat]

I found the paper work from the utility system when it was installed in 2014. It says "This letter is formal notification that the 3.375 KW Solar Electric Generating facility tied to meter XXXXXX" etc has met all the requirements to interconnect and operate in parallel with S.D.G.&E's electric system.

I'm a low tech redneck and did mis-state the KWH in my original post but this is what I have. The $16,000 price was after all rebates and installation.Things must be a lot cheaper where you live. We got several quotes on our system and the one we bought was near the middle of the group.

I'm sorry this doesn't fit in with your argument but it is my experience.

My observation is that installed price has a 100% markup over component costs. You can see good prices for components at Wholesale Solar - DIY Solar, Panels & Complete Systems or Buy Solar Panels, Solar Power Kits, DIY Solar Panel Kits for Sale.

To grid tie under local utility's rules requires a blessed installer. The few don't care to compete so I had 2 quotes for 10 kW which were suspiciously $34k and $35k for $15k of parts I could buy myself but not allowed to install. This coming year I'm building elsewhere. TVA no longer pays more than 1½¢/kWh for grid tie PV so there is no benefit to kissing their... you know. Battery storage will add another $30k but I'll be very close to totally self-sufficient.

Am amazed that 3.4 kW can cover most of your usage. Air conditioning set at 78°F here often runs 1500 kWh/month.

 

[Jim Nelson]

I learned real early in shopping that it is a racket and unless you can diy you're out of luck. I can't due to health and lack of knowledge. We had over $8000 difference in quotes and when our house was built it was designed with solar in the future so the conduit was in place, the main panel was correct, the grounding system was correct, it was just a matter of installing the panels and running wires. We had one guy try to sell us a new service panel and grounding system for $12000 because ours was out of date.



We are pretty careful about our power usage so we're not average, whatever that is, but our system was sized using our billing records for the previous 5 years. For our general area the weather is moderate so our needs are less than in some nearby areas.

Our net metering is like giving any power not used away, we pay $.36 per kWh and they pay us about $.05 for what we sell back to them. Now they need another rate increase .I hope someone comes up with an affordable battery system soon but I don't think I will live to see it.

 

[Grumpycat]

Our net metering is like giving any power not used away, we pay $.36 per kWh and they pay us about $.05 for what we sell back to them. Now they need another rate increase .I hope someone comes up with an affordable battery system soon but I don't think I will live to see it.

Wow! $0.36/kwh!

A 13 kwh Tesla Powerwall is about $7200, or $10,000 for the first one, installed. They have to put a Tesla Energy Gateway between meter and distribution panel for the Powerwall to know when to charge and when to discharge. And to brute force take you offline during an outage. Sounds like you are a good prospect. There might be a 26% Federal tax credit on that, but might not apply when expanding existing system.

The neet thing about a Powerwall is that it can fake your grid-tie solar into staying online during an outage.

 

[buickanddeere]

I'm not into battery-powered stuff except my DeWalt 20V tools, so bear with me. With the info given on the Greenworks site (and a brief stay at a Holiday Inn Express) it would appear to me that the 82V battery would need an output of around 55A just to run the blades at full load for the 4 hours run time. That's 4.5 kWh each of the 4 hours (based on the three two-horse motors for the blades). I didn't see anything regarding locomotion, so maybe you need to pull it with a diesel tractor. Without more info, my guess is the battery would need to be an 82V, 18 kWh, aka 82V, 220AH to provide power for the blades alone.

The whole thing looks kinda hokey. The deck is described as both 52" and 60", depending upon where you look. Of course it does state that it is an electric start

Assuming 100% efficiency in battery charge ,battery discharge , the controllers and the motors . If lead acid batteries, do not dis-charge them below 50%.
Better reduce the run time to under 2.0 hrs . And subtract from that the power used by the traction motors . 1.5 hours of mowing time . That is it .

 

[Warpspeed]

Lithium iron batteries are pretty good. Almost zero loss of charge over time sitting around doing nothing, and the power recovered is about 99% of what you put into it.

There are some significant down sides though.
A 22Kwh Lithium iron battery costs about 15.4K in Australian dollars right now. A rough guess would be about 10K US dollars. That is just the bare basic battery itself. No motor, no control system, no charger.
They don't like freezing temperatures, and can be damaged if you try charging them below freezing.
Over charging, or over discharging also causes permanent damage, so one little accident or oversight and your very expensive lithium battery is trash.

I am off grid in the suburbs with a 100v lithium battery, and could not be happier. But an electric car (or tractor) is a pretty expensive alternative.

 

[rScotty]

The Luddites are coming out in force again.

A commercially viable electric tractor will be here, hopefully within my lifetime.

John Deere, Cat, and FCA are all working on them. Tesla is making a profit, and GM is reconfiguring the Hamtramck plant for electric car and truck production. Ford has announced plans to produce electric pickups.

Also, remember, that $10k solar panel will power your house when it痴 not charging your tractor battery.

Technology moves on and changes our lives, mostly for the positive, bet there are always naysayers who want to resist change.

Sometimes they get left behind and fade into the past.

Well said. Electric is the direction we are moving. It's not perfect, but using the electric grid to transport power is a better solution than trucking it. Even if we burn coal to produce electricity, at least that can be done where the coal is mined instead of trucking it to each house. But the real advantage is that electricity is easy to produce at home as well. Getting set up still has downsides and it isn't pollution free. But it is a better overall solution than what we are doing now.

And things begin to look even better when we start to do more things. That same solar panel can make electricity at home for free to run a car, tractor, lights, cooking, shop tools, and heat&cool the house.... the savings begin to compound themselves. And of course electrical power has a lot of appeal to the independent do-it-yourself type, since it can be made at home, stored for free, and free from taxes.

With all that going for it, I sometimes wonder what it is about electrical power that makes the naysayers so angry. In reading through threads like this one, I can usually predict who will react negatively. But why do they care so much? And why is their resistance so predictable? Is it just because it represents change? Or because solar panels at home means loss of control? Loss of tax base? Or is it because electricity itself is hard for some to understand?

I am confused by the Naysayers. The very people I would expect to support solar & electrical energy are the biggest opponents. Why?
rScotty

 

[chim]

Well said. Electric is the direction we are moving. It's not perfect, but using the electric grid to transport power is a better solution than trucking it. Even if we burn coal to produce electricity, at least that can be done where the coal is mined instead of trucking it to each house. But the real advantage is that electricity is easy to produce at home as well. Getting set up still has downsides and it isn't pollution free. But it is a better overall solution than what we are doing now.

And things begin to look even better when we start to do more things. That same solar panel can make electricity at home for free to run a car, tractor, lights, cooking, shop tools, and heat&cool the house.... the savings begin to compound themselves. And of course electrical power has a lot of appeal to the independent do-it-yourself type, since it can be made at home, stored for free, and free from taxes.

With all that going for it, I sometimes wonder what it is about electrical power that makes the naysayers so angry. In reading through threads like this one, I can usually predict who will react negatively. But why do they care so much? And why is their resistance so predictable? Is it just because it represents change? Or because solar panels at home means loss of control? Loss of tax base? Or is it because electricity itself is hard for some to understand?

I am confused by the Naysayers. The very people I would expect to support solar & electrical energy are the biggest opponents. Why?
rScotty

Not quite certain myself. I live in an environment of licensed electricians and degreed engineers. We can't agree on the viability in either physical or financial aspects, so I don't believe it's a matter of not understanding electricity. Part of the discussion that isn't generally known is how much of our tax money is used to prop up the unproven industry. Another is how much burden is put on the conventional generation industry - they need to provide generation capacity equal to the wind and solar capacity being added to the grid. Then they need to pay a premium rate to the wind & solar guys for power. So what's the whole point?

Yes, yes, I know. When the horseless carriage was introduced all the dumb hayseeds thought they were a flop. I'm in the hayseed camp on this one

 

[finn1]

Not quite certain myself. I live in an environment of licensed electricians and degreed engineers. We can't agree on the viability in either physical or financial aspects, so I don't believe it's a matter of not understanding electricity. Part of the discussion that isn't generally known is how much of our tax money is used to prop up the unproven industry. Another is how much burden is put on the conventional generation industry - they need to provide generation capacity equal to the wind and solar capacity being added to the grid. Then they need to pay a premium rate to the wind & solar guys for power. So what's the whole point?

Yes, yes, I know. When the horseless carriage was introduced all the dumb hayseeds thought they were a flop. I'm in the hayseed camp on this one

I don’t get the argument against government supporting “unproven” technologies. I see that support as a continuation of support for new technologies that goes back generations. Examples would include the land grants that allowed the development of the trans continental railroad, the nuclear energy grants through the Department of Energy even today, highway funding, especially the development of the interstate highway system, medical and drug research... the list goes on.

 

[chim]

I don稚 get the argument against government supporting ?*?nproven technologies. I see that support as a continuation of support for new technologies that goes back generations. Examples would include the land grants that allowed the development of the trans continental railroad, the nuclear energy grants through the Department of Energy even today, highway funding, especially the development of the interstate highway system, medical and drug research... the list goes on.

In most cases, anything that the government is involved in is much better done by private enterprise. We spend billions of dollars on bombers that can't fly. How long were we tinkering around with space travel when Elon Musk came up with a rocket he landed and re-used?

The railroad example is interesting. Trains were a proven method of transportation before the land grants. The land grants didn't cost the taxpayers very much because the land was taken away from the Native Americans and given to a few rich influential white guys. The current problem with railroads now is that have been socialized. Users' fees don't pay for the costs of operating them.

Nuclear doesn't impress someone who receives evacuation instructions annually from the infamous TMI.

The other examples, for the most part, do have some funding by those with skin in the game such as the 58.7 cents per gallon fuel tax here in PA.

 

[Tractorable]

Here’s a recent interesting video from Engineering Explained about how electric vehicles are viable in some situations but the combustion engine still has a long life ahead of it.


Why Gas Engines Are Far From Dead - Biggest EV Problems - YouTube

 

[finn1]

Interesting, but flawed perspective. The first successful US manned Space began in 1961, if I recall correctly, a full ten years before Elon Musk was born. The concept of the Internet was developed at the University of Illinois, not some tech company. Nuclear energy is a vital component of the modern submarine, another government program. The TVA and all the hydro projects in the West were all government projects.

Very few companies spend more than a few percent of their revenue on R&D, and what is spent is paid for by tax credits and, often, matching government grants.

Private companies, with few exceptions just don’t invent new technology on their own. Tax credits and grants are an integral part of the process.

Private companies excell at commercializing technology, but that’s a downstream effort.

Not sure how subsidizing highway construction with a Federal tax is any different, in the end, than subsidizing electric vehicle production.

 

[chim]

Interesting, but flawed perspective. The first successful US manned Space began in 1961, if I recall correctly, a full ten years before Elon Musk was born. ....................................

With a head start like that, how many rockets have they re-used?

 

[buickanddeere]

I would say that chim has one of the most accurate assessments of the situation here on this board .
There are too many dreamers out there who have been watching Star Trek and think the tech is real.
No matter how much research and expenditure . Some of these electric dreams are just as viable as making water run uphill naturally on it’s own against gravity .
The greenies can’t or won’t grasp the fact that all the wind and solar has to be backed up with fossil power .

 

[buickanddeere]

An electric tractor does not have enough room for enough battery capacity to operate long enough between charges . For more than 1-2 hours of operation at full power .
Recharge time will be 8-16 hours as most rural farms are limited to a 200 or 400 amp 120/240V electrical service . No Tesla Super Chargers?
Only the wealthy or a one track minded enviro whacko would spend that kind of money for that little performance .