TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

****************************************


2. The TerraLiner's Rear Awning: A 180° Smartflower


****************************************


It has since occurred to me that Hamid Bekradi must have known about the Smartflower when he designed the OEX-B, because the solar array on the OEXB looks so similar -- see post #1815 in particular, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1932491#post1932491 :










And it has occurred to me that something similar could be installed at the back of the TerraLiner, as a radial solar array to supplement the solar cells on the roof and pergola side awnings. Such a radial solar array would also provide shade for the back of the TerraLiner, further reducing solar heat gain.

Here I have egn very much to thank, because if egn had never alerted me to the real-world existence of the sunflower, this rear-awning solution would never have occurred to me. egn, if you are reading this: once again, I owe you one!!

For the back of the TerraLiner I had originally been thinking of more canvas covered by thin-film flexible solar cells, deployed by something called a "Star Awning", an awning that unfolds radially:









****************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

****************************************










I did a huge amount of research into Star Awnings, and there are vast differences in quality. In cheaper Star Awnings the horizontal struts are not stabilized in the vertical direction, and they seem very “floppy” or “flimsy”. They have little structural integrity before all the vertical poles are put in place, and tied down with cords and tent pegs. It became clear that not all Star Awnings are created equal, and the products made by Eezi-Awn, Ostrich, and especially Alu-Cab are far superior. All of the images above are Alu-Cab's “Shadow Awn” product. It is designed so well that it does not even need vertical poles. For Alu-Cab, see http://www.alu-cab.co.za/index.php , http://www.alu-cab.co.za/index.php/...cle-accessories/shadow-awning-detail?Itemid=0 , http://alu-cab.co.za/images/shadowcat.jpg , http://www.alu-cab.co.za/index.php/...s/hercules-land-cruiser-range-detail?Itemid=0 , http://www.alu-cab.co.za/index.php/...built-projects/icarus-project-detail?Itemid=0 , and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Alu-Cab-The-Ultimate-Aluminium-Canopy/175428539188834 , and here is a useful video:



[video=youtube;CIorF9kx9GA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIorF9kx9GA [/video]



Unfortunately, any such Star Awning could not be robustly secured to a deck, the way that the pergola awnings on the sides of the TerraLiner will be secured by their vertical elements to drop-down decks. So a Star Awning would have to close in any case once the wind-speed rose above 18 miles per hour, or roughly 30 kph. The Alu-Cab awning may be able to survive more than that, and was designed with strong wind-resistance in mind. But I don't know what wind-speed it is capable of withstanding, and I would be surprised if it could survive wind above 40 kph. Whereas the "first stage" of wind-protection for the Smartflower only kicks in at 33.5 mph, or 54 kph -- see post #1813 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1932488#post1932488 :






So the Smartflower would actually be much more wind-resistant than most or perhaps all unpegged "Star Awnings". And because the Smartflower uses "hard" mono-crystalline solar cells, it will have a higher energy density. In addition, the Smartflower is designed to be actively "tilt-able", so it could be moved to capture the sun's rays at an optimal angle, whereas no Star Awning could. I may return to Star Awnings when discussing the TerraLiner's TOAD, which would certainly be equipped with one. So perhaps all that research was not in vain....

The Smartflower seems to produce 4,000 kWh per annum, or 10.96 kWh per day, according to the "Green Building" website -- again, see http://greenbuildingelements.com/2015/09/09/solar-power-takes-the-form-of-a-sunflower/ . Let's call it 11 kWh per day. The Smartflower is rated at 3.4 - 6.2 kWh for an array that's 18 square meters, so at the top end, it's claiming an energy density of 344 W per square meter, which seems awfully high, and a bit unbelievable. At the low end, it would produce 189 W per square meter. I would wager that it would be more realistic to say that the Smartflower's output is 4 kWh, which would give it an energy density of 222 kWh per square meter, similar to Sunpower's claim of 211 kWh per square meter for its X-series solar panels -- see http://us.sunpower.com/commercial-solar-energy-system-helix-comparison/ , http://us.sunpower.com/home-solar/solar-cell-technology-solutions/ , http://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpow...35-345-residential-solar-panels-datasheet.pdf , and http://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpow...ds-x21-series-345-commercial-solar-panels.pdf . Once again, Smartflower uses rigid monocrystalline panels, and not thin-film flexible, so perhaps its higher energy-density claim is possible.

The Smartflower website does not provide exact dimensions, apart from the area. So working backwards, dividing 18 square meters by π, we get 5.72958. And taking the square root of that, we get 2.393 m as the radius; call it 2.4 m. This is a good number because it means that the Smartflower array could fold down and tuck itself away at the back of the TerraLiner, but don't ask me how exactly.....:sombrero: ..The whole array including the batteries weighs about 800 kg, so the solar panels alone probably weigh only half of that, and that's the only part we would be interested in. The array for the TerraLiner would also unfold for only half the size, creating a 180-degree arc at the back of the TerraLiner that's about 4.8 m wide, but only 2.4 m deep. So this array might weigh as little as 200 kg. Which is not very much, all things considered, given that it would add about 2 kWh to the TerraLiner's solar power production. Daily, that might mean another 5.5 kWh, on average. Remember that Green Building's annual figure for the Smartflower's power production yielded a daily average, not a daily minimum or maximum.

So the total output of the TerraLiner's solar array in 2020 might be as high as 14 kWh + 2 kWH = 16 kWh. In addition, there's the TerraLiner's TOAD garage to consider. It may or may not be located close to the TerraLiner, because when glamping coastal, lake-side, or riverine farmland, I may want the TOAD garage to function as a separate "boat-house". But if the TOAD garage were located close to the TerraLiner, then it might contribute an additional 6.325 m of length for monocrystalline solar. As far as roof-top solar cells are concerned, I've been figuring roughly 1 KW for every 2 m of TerraLiner length (recall that I estimated 5 KW for 10 m). So it's probably safe to say that the TerraLiner TOAD might contribute another 3 KW. It won't have drop-down decks or side-awnings, so there won't be further contribution on that front. But like the TerraLiner, the sides of the TOAD garage could be covered with thin-film solar cells of the kind that are now being developed specifically to be "embedded" in automobile surfaces.

So the total power of the TerraLiner's solar arrays may be as high as 19 kWh, in a good climate with excellent DNI.

Using Green-Building's daily output estimate as a guide, this means that the TerraLiner's solar arrays might produce 52.25 kWh per day on average -- see http://greenbuildingelements.com/2015/09/09/solar-power-takes-the-form-of-a-sunflower/ . I am not sure how much wind-power might add to that; that's still something to be discussed further.

This is still not enough to meet my estimated TerraLiner A/C power demand in a very hot climate of 70 - 100 kWh per day. And remember, a hot climate does not necessarily mean good DNI, because at the equator rainfall is high in most countries, and there's lots of cloud cover. But 52.25 KW would certainly go a long way towards mitigating the need to run the generator to replenish the battery pack. And once again, because we are now talking about a large generator doing the replenishing, camping will be "largely silent", with the generator running at most a few hours every third or fourth day when there's no solar, and more like once every week when there's a reasonable amount of solar. The Germans still won't be happy, but the TerraLiner can't be designed to be A/C-free, just to make the Germans happy....:sombrero:



****************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

****************************************


3. Estimated water usage: 200 - 300 liters per day for 3 people


****************************************


So safas, I then wonder how all the numbers might add up, for a "typical" week of power demand when camping in a hot climate, and how quickly the TerraLiner might burn through fuel in such a boondocking scenario.

Again, I want the TerraLiner to have a very high level of water automony, and yet designed in such a way that it does not demand water-rationing from its occupants. Put another way, I want the TerraLiner's owners to be able to use water in the way that they normally would, if they were living in a typical home. For two people in the UK, this would be 267 liters per day; and for 3 people, 367 liters per day -- see http://www.ccwater.org.uk/savewaterandmoney/averagewateruse/ :







Even this might be a low figure. Another PDF says that the average person in the UK consumes 150 liters of water per day:







30 % of this is toilet flushing, so we can immediately knock off 45 liters, bringing the figure down to 105 liters per person. The incinerating toilet will most probably be a Cinderella, because it seems to be the only incinerating toilet that's designed to be compact and lightweight for a motorhome, and promises to be completely odor-free, unlike the Incinolet -- see http://www.cinderella-toilet.nl/en/cinderella-motion/ . The Cinderella seems to have a large plate that completely seals the toilet when it goes through its burn cycle. If the Cinderella is genuinely odor-free, then we can eliminate the liters required to flush a toilet, even a very water-efficient vacuum toilet -- see post #1573 and following, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1924024#post1924024 .

In addition, although the TerraLiner will have a ShaChaGra-style hot-tub combined with a steam-bath, it will not have a refillable bathtub. So for long soaking, there will be no increase in water demand. I then figure we might be able to deduct another 20 % off the average consumption figure, because the pie-chart above allocates 21 % to baths and taps, and 12 % to showers. So we're now down to about 73.5 liters per person per day. On the other hand, the average 8-minute shower consumes 62 liters of water, and I want to leave it at that, because this is exactly the kind of water that will be recycled, despite all the soap.....:sombrero: See http://www.waterwise.org.uk/news.php/11/showers-vs.-baths-facts-figures-and-misconceptions .

So perhaps a figure of 100 liters per day per person is about right. 200 liters per person per day would then be the minimum, and if 3 people were using the TerraLiner (a couple, and one of their children), then maybe 300 liters per day. I can't quite remember whether earlier in the thread I estimated 100 liters per day per person, or 100 liters per day for 3 people. But given that I don't want the TerraLiner's design to expect the owners to water-ration, it seems like 300 liters per day might be a good design target. But remember, much of that will not be "new" water from the rooftop collection system, or from an AWG, or drawn from a ground source. Rather, much of that will be recycled greywater. I suppose it doesn't make much difference from the power-consumption viewpoint whether the TerraLiner filters "new" or greywater, because even greywater will have to go through an RO filter, or distillation. I don't want to put even greywater through just a carbon filter.

Now even if AWGs are massively energy-intensive, I would still want the TerraLiner to have them. When camping in a coastal fog desert where the TerraLiner will extract water from humidity, it will simply have to run the 300 KW generator more often. Coastal fog deserts tend to be very empty places, places where the TerraLiner will have lots of beautiful beachfront more or less to itself. So I figure that the only issue when running an AWG will be the rate of fuel consumption. Nobody else around to complain about generator noise or pollution. And coastal fog deserts are also places that will have some pretty phenomenal DNI during the late morning and afternoons. The fog and humidity goes up radically during the night and stays high during the early morning, but tends to burn off completely by 11 am. So the solar arrays should contribute substantially, too.

Note however that the two AWGs will only be used relatively rarely, in situations where ground-water and rainwater are not available, and/or groundwater is highly suspect (e.g. India). Even when camping in a coastal fog desert a desalinating RO system like the one that dwh referenced could process seawater, and the AWGs might not be needed -- again see http://www.h2oonthego.com.au .

If you think 300 liters per day for 3 people is absurdly high, and needs to be cut down, let me know. But give good reasons!! Others reading this also please feel free to chime in, but again, good reasoning, links, and evidence expected.....:sombrero:



****************************************


4. How much fuel will the TerraLiner use when boondocking?


****************************************


I still haven't been able to find specifications for a lightweight 300 KW generator of the kind that would typically be used in a transportation application. Oshkosh does use such a powerful generator in its Propulse hybrid system, but there are no specifications available online. There is no question that a 200 KW diesel generator exists that was deliberately designed for a transportation application, a generator that is very lightweight (just 480 kg), and that has an "energy density" even better than the Jenoptk (the Jenoptik's 2.92 kg per KW versus just 2.4 kg per KW): the MGV-200 made by Whisperpower -- see http://www.whisperpower.com/uk/4/21/products/generators-(variable-rpm).html , http://www.whisperpower.com/uk/4/21/products/generator-systems-(high-power).html and http://www.whisperpower.com/uk/4/21...-systems-(high-power)/m-gv-200-genverter.html , http://www.whisperpower.com/uk/10/26/hybrid/big-boat-systems.html :







For further discussion, see post #2128 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1974111#post1974111 , section 48.


The Whisperpower MGV-200 is designed to be used on yachts, so that's probably why it's so light. I just need to keep looking, and perhaps the "search space" should now include other generator brands deliberately designed for use on large yachts. Unlike 300 KW industrial generators, yacht generators will be designed to minimize weight.

In the meantime, as a "baseline" I will use the Perkins 320 KW generator, which consumes 75 liters per hour when operating at 100 % -- see http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10414624 , https://www.perkins.com/en_GB/produ...-generation/diesel-generators/1000001931.html , :








Its "prime power" is 280 KW, and standby power is 320 KW. It consumes 75 liters per hour when operating in 100 % "prime power" mode, generating 280 KW, and it consumes 84 liters per hour when operating in "standby" mode, generating 320 KW. Perkins advertises this generator as very fuel-efficient, and maybe it is; but it weighs a ton. I don't have this specific generator in mind for the TerraLiner because it is so darn heavy. There is also a larger Perkins generator in the same series whose "prime power" is 320 KW, and whose standby power is 360 KW, and which consumes 85 liters per hour -- see http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10414626 . For further discussion, see post #2129 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1974540#post1974540 , sections 49 and 50.

safas: How much time do you think it would take for such a 280 KW generator to recharge a 300 KW battery pack? Here just assume that the batteries are the fast-charging kind used by Proterra. Proterra's "extended range" battery packs can fully charge in 90 minutes -- see http://www.proterra.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Tearsheets_ExtendedRange.pdf , http://www.proterra.com/proterra-introduces-extended-range-electric-bus-flexible-battery-system/ , http://www.proterra.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Tearsheets_EnergyStorage.pdf , http://www.proterra.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Tearsheets_CatalystPlatform.pdf , and http://www.proterra.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Tearsheets_ChargingTechnologies.pdf . The Proterra charger seems to produce a maximum of "100 KW conductive charging", so I wonder how they arrive at the figure of 90 minutes? Would't it be more than that if, say, a bus carried a 200 KW or 300 KW battery pack?

You also mentioned something about "typical charging inefficiency" for Tesla batteries, in post #2204 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1989809#post1989809 .

So I am wondering: if the TerraLiner's primary generator produces 280 KW, and Tesla battery charging efficiency is 80 %, does that mean that in one hour this sort of generator could recharge only 224 KW? So it would take another 20 minutes to fully re-charge the battery back to 300 KW? Could Tesla batteries fully charge this fast, in just 1 hour, 20 minutes, if the generator were producing 280 KW as "prime power"? If so, then we would arrive at a fuel-consumption figure something to the effect that to recharge a 300 KW battery pack, would require about 100 liters of fuel. If there were no solar power available at all, and if the TerraLiner were consuming 100 KW per day, and the generator were completely recharging the battery pack every 3 days, and if the TerraLiner arrived at its campsite with a full tank of 1500 liters, then the TerraLiner would be able to operate for 45 days before needing to refuel. If instead the TerraLiner were consuming 100 KW per day, but the solar arrays were contributing 50 KW per day, then the TerraLiner would be able to camp for 90 days, or three months, without having to refuel.

If circa 2025 the TerraLiner were to replace its solar arrays with more efficient technology, and the solar arrays were able to contribute on average 60 KW or 70 KW day, then even in a high-power-consumption scenario in which the TerraLiner is using 100 KW per day, the generator would only need to recharge the battery bank every 10 days (30 KW per day x 10 = 300 KW). As such, the TerraLiner would be able to camp without refueling for 150 days, or 5 months. That would certainly be an optimal "design goal", because I can imagine the TerraLiner wanting to glamp in some places as little as 2 months, but in others as long as 5 or 6 months. Once settled in a really nice spot, with the decks extended, and all the toys out, the TerraLiner would not want to have to repack everything just to go to the nearest gas station to refuel.

So perhaps "100 KW per day" should be imagined as the maximum possible level of power consumption when camping; and 70 KW per day would be much better. But a 100,000 BTU A/C system is rated as 29.3 KW. It would not be running constantly, because presumably the TerraLiner will be very well-insulated. But it's easy to imagine that when the Heat Index is 110, the A/C might be running at least 2 - 3 hours in total per day, which alone would consume 60 - 90 KW.

There are a number of embedded questions here. So please feel free to critique every aspect of the above reasoning, and please feel free to re-frame the questions better than I was able to state them.....


****************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

****************************************


5. Most forms of Carbon Filtration will not be sufficient. RO or Distillation will be necessary.


****************************************


As I wrote earlier in the thread, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta is probably as good an authority as one might like to consult regarding water filtration. It has produced a useful chart of various water purification methods – see http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/household_water_treatment.html and http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/drinking/Household_Water_Treatment.pdf :







Carbon filtration would be classified as “filtration”, and it's hardly ever "nano". It's usually described as "Granular Activated Carbon" (GAC), and at best it's "micro-filtration" or "ultra-filtration" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon . But granted, various institutions are now working on "nano-carbon filtration", and apparently some products now exist -- see http://www.asianscientist.com/2013/08/in-the-lab/water-filters-plasma-treated-carbon-nanotubes-2013/ , http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson...gy/MSC-24180-1_Water-Filtering-Device_prt.htm http://www.nanoceram.com , http://crystalclearcleanwater.com/pages/technologies.php , and http://crystalclearcleanwater.com/pages/about.php :






The second video describes a product that seems very interesting, but as near as I can tell, is not yet available for purchase.

According to this CDC chart, although effective against Giardia, most forms of filtration have only moderate effectiveness against bacteria like E. Coli, and no effectiveness whatsoever against Hepatitis A. Carbon filtration is also only “moderately effective” against chemicals even when it's nano-filtration, as opposed to mere microfiltration. Only distillation and RO are truly effective against the full range, including chemicals.

An epidemic disease caused by open defecation like Hepatitis A is viral, and not bacteriological in origin – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_A and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaundice , http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/uk-health-defecation-idINKBN0DO1CC20140508 , http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/envsanfactsheets/en/index2.html , and http://abstractmag.com/politics/28/04/2014/load-****-indias-problem-open-defecation . So most forms of filtration will be completely ineffective against Hepatitis A, because viruses are much smaller than bacteria. This is basic Biology 101.

Encephalitis is more of a condition than a disease, but it too can be caused virally, and it too is associated with open defecation – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_encephalitis , http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...es-not-just-building-lavatories-also-changing , http://www.indiawaterportal.org/art...ty-neglect-disaster-and-disease-how-long-will , and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-encephalitis-deaths/articleshow/15368804.cms . It is viral Encephalitis transmitted via contaminated water that is primarily responsible for the current epidemic in India.

Again, I can only repeat that either one has travelled in Third World countries, and one has direct personal experience of the dangers of water-borne diseases, or one has not. I have, and so I think my “paranoia” is justified. I am probably exactly the right person to set the design specification for the TerraLiner's water-purification system, because I have personally dealt with chronic diarrhea for years, diarrhea initially triggered by an infection that I picked up in Nepal. (Thankfully, I am now cured.) I view my worry about the quality of TerraLiner water as a prudent worry, not paranoia; the worry of someone who has actually travelled in countries where open defecation is a serious problem. It's a worry that, as I already showed in posts #1574 to #1576, will probably prove even more justified in the coming decades, not less -- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1924026#post1924026 and following. The demographic aspect of the open defecation problem in many Second and Third World countries is going to get worse over the next few decades, not better.



****************************************


6. A Request


****************************************


Now safas, here is another request. If you have the time, it would be great if you would be willing to indicate what the energy consumption per day might be of the "best" distillation systems that you found, and the "best" RO systems that you found; best from the point of view of (a) weight, and (b) power consumption. These need to be fairly robust systems that could handle a through-put of 200 to 300 liters per day. And again, I don't have much interest in most forms of carbon filtration, because I don't think they are good enough. A carbon filter might still be in the system to do "pre-filtration", but I would be counting on RO or distillation to keep the TerraLiner's occupants pathogen-free.

That was a lot of questions all in one go, but you are an engineer, so I figure that you might enjoy answering them. You put so much work into that list you compiled of RO and distillation systems, so here would be your chance to capitalize on that!!

All best wishes,




Biotect

 

[biotect]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...speculating-on-batteries-power-price-versions
predicts that Tesla will use cells with 343 Wh/kg by 2020. That would bring the pack to about 200 Wh/kg, which validates your guess.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/11353-Dimensions-of-battery-pack says that Tesla pack has very roughly 260 Wh/l.
http://totalbatteryconsulting.com/i...ort/Extract-from-the-Tesla-battery-report.pdf says that cells in it are 630 W/l.
Sounds reasonable.

If we use the prediction from the 1st link together with the current size, we arrive at roughly 337 Wh/l. However, the author also predicts packaging to get denser. So I'd guess a total of 350-400 Wh/l.
300 kWh would take 0.75-0.85 m^3. If this volume was spread evenly below the floor, it would raise it by roughly 3-3.5 cm. I guess that if you tried to push it this flat, your packaging would get less efficient. So prepare to have 1/3 of the floor raised by 10 cm.

Don't forget that battery needs cooling. The pack dissipates heat to a coolant fluid. You still need to move it to the atmosphere.

Hi safas,

I just came across the following rather odd nugget of information. The Citaro Blue-Tec diesel-electric hybrid articulated bus that Mercedes developed back in 2008, claimed/claims to have a 180 KW lithium-ion battery pack that weighs just 350 kg -- see https://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-1136865-1-1194918-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html , and see post #1915 which I (finally) completed, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1959993#post1959993 :

World's first lithium-ion battery in this output category

The lithium-ion battery used in the articulated Citaro G BlueTec Hybrid is in an output category of its own. The battery system generates 180 kW and is comparatively light in weight at under 350 kg. Major advantages over conventionnal battery systems include a higher energy density combined with a high storage capacity and a low battery weight.

This would give it a power density of 514 Wh/kg, which is completely off the charts. What do you make of this? Mercedes has not sold many of these buses, just 101 units as of 2013, perhaps a few more since then, and Mercedes seems to be getting out of diesel-electric hybrid technology completely. In 2012 Mercedes discontinued its "Orion" brand of diesel-electric hybrid buses sold in North America. Again, see post #1915 and #1916 for further discussion. Perhaps Mercedes did not sell many Citaro G BlueTec hybrid buses because the battery pack was/is phenomenally expensive?

If such a battery pack were at all possible, then the TerraLiner's 300 KW battery pack would weigh just 583.66 kg, and not 1500 kg. This seems just too good to be true, so I am really curious what you make of this. And if anyone else wants to chime in, please feel free....

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[safas]

1. Watermakers:
A few months ago I would recommend spectra ventura, but since then they fielded a new unit that's both lighter and more power efficient:
http://www.spectrawatermakers.com/products/marine/passport/
That's my primary recommendation. 4.2 Wh/l*300l/day=1.26 kWh/day
The secondary would be Katadyn PowerSurvivor80. I don't see exact size specs, but it seems smaller. It's lighter too, though not by much. You pay with double energy usage.2.23 kWh/day.
Distilation? Fontemar 120-160, 3.33 kWh/day. Though I'm suspicious about the power use, it's too outstanding. The closest competitor would use 216 kWh/day. Competitor units that weight several tonnes still use 64% more energy/l.
2. Citaro G battery:
It has 180 kW, not 180 kWh. That's power, not capacity. And as a hybrid, it's unlikely to have a lot of battery capacity.

 

[biotect]

Many thanks!!

Just the other question as well: how long would it take for a 280 KW generator to recharge a 300 KW battery pack composed of Tesla cells? In post #2315 above, section 4, I guestimated 1 hour, 20 minutes. Was that correct? This will then give me an idea of what TerraLiner fuel consumption might be to recharge a 300 KW battery pack. And hence, how long the TerraLiner might be able to boondock without refueling. If I am right, then it will take about 100 liters of fuel to recharge 300 KW, assuming that the Perkins generator is reasonably "representative" of the fuel-efficiency of current diesel generators.

All best,


Biotect

 

[safas]

Many thanks!!

Just the other question as well: how long would it take for a 280 KW generator to recharge a 300 KW battery pack composed of Tesla cells? In post #2315 above, section 4, I guestimated 1 hour, 20 minutes. Was that correct? This will then give me an idea of what TerraLiner fuel consumption might be to recharge a 300 KW battery pack. And hence, how long the TerraLiner might be able to boondock without refueling. If I am right, then it will take about 100 liters of fuel to recharge 300 KW, assuming that the Perkins generator is reasonably "representative" of the fuel-efficiency of current diesel generators.

All best,


Biotect

Oh, right.
280 KW would charge at nearly 1C. Not any cell will survive that, but some will. You use CC-CV, so you charge at full speed up to c.a. 85% capacity. Let's assume 85% charging efficiency. 300 kWh*85% = 255 kWh. 280 kW*85% = 230 kW. 255 kWh/234 kW = 64 minutes.
Then you switch to CV. This phase depends highly on what batteries you have, but expect CV to be between 25%-50% of CC when charging fast. So 80-96 minutes total.

 

[biotect]

280 KW would charge at nearly 1C. Not any cell will survive that, but some will. You use CC-CV, so you charge at full speed up to c.a. 85% capacity. Let's assume 85% charging efficiency. 300 kWh*85% = 255 kWh. 280 kW*85% = 230 kW. 255 kWh/234 kW = 64 minutes.

Then you switch to CV. This phase depends highly on what batteries you have, but expect CV to be between 25%-50% of CC when charging fast. So 80-96 minutes total.

Hi safas,

Again, many thanks: I could never have done that kind of calculation myself!

So your lower-bound estimate is 1 hour, 20 minutes, the same as my much cruder calculation. It might then be safe to say that a battery that can "survive" this kind of charging will exist by 2020? So 1 hour, 20 minutes may be an "ambitious" figure today, but perhaps very doable and not much of a problem circa 2020? Does this sound about right to you?

All best,


Biotect

 

[safas]

Hi safas,

Again, many thanks: I could never have done that kind of calculation myself!

So your lower-bound estimate is 1 hour, 20 minutes, the same as my much cruder calculation. It might then be safe to say that a battery that can "survive" this kind of charging will exist by 2020? So 1 hour, 20 minutes may be an "ambitious" figure today, but perhaps very doable and not much of a problem circa 2020? Does this sound about right to you?

All best,


Biotect

Definitely.

 

[biotect]

You can get 300 KW out of a fully charged 300 KW battery. Inefficiency means that you have to put more than 300 KW into it.

However, Li-ion charging is more complex than that.

1. The proper charging procedure is to CC-CV or constant-current constant-voltage.
This means that the charger charges with high current until the battery is mostly full. They tops it off with constant voltage (and dropping current). You may have it hard to top your battieries off like that in a truck, I don't know what do hybrid manufacturers do.
2. The faster you charge, the lower battery capacity is.
3. The faster you discharge, the less energy you get out.

Points 2 and 3 make large batteries desirable, 100 kW from 100 kWh battery will discharge it in 1 hour. This rate is called 1 C. 100 kW from 300 kWh battery is 0.33C, much better. Optimal charge and discharge rates vary across chemistries, see:
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion

So the 80% efficiency will probably show on both sides of 300 KW, you'll get more in and less out. Tesla says that their batteries actual capacity is 95% of the rated one. Maybe fast discharge is one of reasons? Maybe that's also one of reasons why Tesla claims 92% efficiency (they use the rated capacity) and users report less, at peak load they discharge the 70 kWh pack at over 8C. http://www.batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion says that NMC cells shouldn't exceed 2C. Though few users will exceed 2C (or 140 kW from the battery, some less at the wheels) regularly.
Anyway, assuming that you'll take 285 kWh from a 300 kWh-rated pack looks to be on the safe side.

I don't have information to guess gearbox inefficiency. But I have a question. Where do you want to have that gearbox? In each wheel? A complex setup... In some wheels would be a possible compomise.

Just a few more questions that occurred to me after re-reading the post above, which you wrote a few pages ago. Very interesting to learn that there are different types of Lith-Ion, and that Tesla chose Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (LiNiCoAlO[SUB]2[/SUB]) -- see http://www.batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion .



***********************************************


1. Some Questions about "C"


***********************************************


First off, I still don't quite understand "C", even though I read the explanation at http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/what_is_the_c_rate . As we move towards faster charging/discharging, C goes above 1, yes? And as we move towards slower charging/discharging, C drops below 1, right? So the problem with fast-charging is that one needs a bigger battery in order to store the same amount of power, as one would if one were charging more slowly instead. In addition, the basic problem with a Tesla battery, is that it wants to be recharged at 0.7 C. This means something to the effect that if a Tesla battery pack is 100 KW, then it wants to be recharged by a 100 KW generator in 1.42 hours, not just 1 hour. Is this right? Am I basically on track?

So in some ways a NMC battery might be better, because it can accept a 1 C charge rate. There will still be the 20 % inefficiency loss, so after one hour a 280 KW generator will still only have re-charged a 300 KW NMC pack to 224 KW. But at least the rate won't have to be slower than that, because NMC"s "C" is 1, and not 0.7.

Now when you wrote "Definitely", were you suggesting that by 2020 the "C" rate for Tesla's choice of Lith-Ion chemistry may have improved, and reached 1 C?

Furthermore, in the quote above you seemed to indicate that it would be wise to assume that the TerraLiner will only get 285 kWh out of a 300 kWh battery battery pack. So there is inefficiency on both sides, putting in and taking out. To keep things simple, I have been trying to choose very "round" numbers. So should I be imagining the TerraLiner carrying a 316 KW battery pack, so that it can actually draw out 300 KW, assuming 95 % efficiency when withdrawing? If using the same generator, then this means 88 minutes to recharge 316 KW, instead of 80 minutes to recharge 300 KW (in both cases assuming 80 % re-charging efficiency).



***********************************************


2. Can I go forward with my very rough estimates of what might be possible in 2020?


***********************************************


My next question is then this. Can I just ignore such details, and figure that by 2020 not only will the TerraLiner be able to recharge 300 KW in 1 hour and 20 minutes or less using 280 KW generator, but it would also be probably be able to recharge 316 KW in the same amount of time?

In other words, because I am allowing myself to imagine 4 years into the future, can I rough-ballpark guess that 100 liters used by a Perkins 280 KW generator will be enough to recharge a large battery pack (one that's probably 316 KW), out of which the TerraLiner will then be able to withdraw 300 KW? Everything simplifies beautifully if the answer is "yes". If energy consumption in a very hot climate is 100 KW per day, then recharging the 316 KW battery will require 100 liters of diesel fuel every three days, without help from solar. Even though the battery is 316 KW, the TerraLiner will only get 300 KW back out of that, ergo, exactly three days. So even without any contribution from solar, the TerraLiner could "high-energy-usage" camp for 45 days, with a 1500 liter fuel tank.

I just need to know that I can move forward with some degree of confidence; that I can trust that this will be possible circa 2020. Would such an assumption be "conservative", "about right", or "optimistic"?



***********************************************


3. Why "C" needs to be high: reducing generator run-time to an absolute minimum


***********************************************


One reason I am asking about charging time is of course fuel consumption. Longer charging, more fuel consumed. "C" could be lowered by having the generator operate at 50 % power for twice as long. Fuel efficiency goes down a bit, and the generator would then consume 80 liters of fuel, to produce the same amount of power that it did when operating at 100 % and consuming 75 liters of fuel:







But perhaps charging only half as fast would increase battery efficiency, so things would work out more or less the same?

The other big factor to consider is noise. Running the generator for just 1 hour 20 minutes at most every 3 days, and probably more like just once a week, is not going to bother any farmer. But running the generator for 3 hours instead at half-speed, would be more disturbing. The whole idea behind having a big battery pack as well as a very powerful generator, is that camping could then become "mostly silent". Asking a farmer if one might be allowed to run the TerraLiner's primary generator for just an hour or two every week would not be a "deal-breaker" request. Whereas if instead one were to ask a farmer if the TerraLiner could run a 20 KW generator almost around the clock, he might think twice before allowing one to rent his land.



***********************************************


4. One major TerraLiner camper design objective: maximizing off-grid boondocking time between refuelings


***********************************************


Remember, one my main concerns in all of this, from a design/engineering point of view, will be thinking about how the solar panels could then supplement the generator, so that off-grid boondocking could be extended to 90 days, even in a high-energy consumption scenario (100 KW per day). And even if DNI were only about average, meaning that 19 KW of solar arrays in total would yield only about 50 KW of power daily. The ultimate design/engineering objective here is being able to dry-camp for as long as possible without refueling.

A more fuel-efficient generator would certainly help, e.g. one that could recharge 316 KW using just 90 liters of fuel, instead of 100 liters. And more efficient batteries that do not lose as much energy charging/discharging would also help. But the most important part, from a design point of view, will be providing enough surface area in the TerraLiner's layout such that the solar arrays are producing 50 KW per day, even in a hot equatorial climate where often it is raining and/or there is significant cloud cover, and where DNI is not optimal even though the sun is directly overhead. As I've been working things through, it does seem like 90 days of dry camping without refueling would be possible in a hot equatorial climate, just as long as the solar cells were producing 50 KW per day.

All of this begins to make the TerraLiner seem uniquely attractive, from a boondocking point of view. The TerraLiner might well prove to be the "ultimate large expedition motorhome for boondocking", because it will be so autonomous.

No, this does not mean that the TerraLiner will be the "ultimate expedition motorhome" more generally. There is no such thing. But most motorhomes -- even expedition motorhomes -- are not designed for 90 days of complete off-grid independence. And especially not such extended independence combined with high energy consumption, and full A/C in a hot climate when the Heat Index rises above 100. Even expedition motorhomes can only boondock for months via conservation and rationing of everything -- water, power, food. Whereas I am deliberately targeting a design goal where off-grid living for 3 months will not be draconian, and the TerraLiner's occupants will be living like comfortable Floridians in an air-conditioned home.



***********************************************


5. Hacienda Zuleta


***********************************************


To provide some idea of the kind of "farm camping" that I have in mind, I want to briefly discuss a very beautiful Eco-Lodge located in Ecuador, called "Hacienda Zuleta". Although it is not situated in a hot climate, discussing Hacienda Zuleta will allow me to vividly illustrate some thoughts about TerraLiner logistics, and one way that it might find accommodating farms where it can camp in Second and Third-World countries.

Hacienda Zuleta is a working farm, and the family home of an ex-president of Ecuador -- see http://zuleta.com , http://zuleta.com/hacienda-zuleta/ , http://zuleta.com/location-of-hacienda-zuleta-ecuadorian-andes/ , http://zuleta.com/history-of-hacienda-zuleta-in-ecuador/ , http://zuleta.com/working-farm-and-agrotourism-in-ecuador/ , http://zuleta.com/destinations-in-highland-ecuador/local-sustainable-dairy-farm-in-ecuador/ , http://zuleta.com/destinations-in-h...den-and-agriculture-in-ecuador-south-america/ , and http://zuleta.com/media/ . The Hacienda is located about 100 km north of Quito, just a few hours by car from the capital. It sits at an elevation of about 3000 m, and has a temperate climate that does not change very much year-round, because it's right on the equator. In effect, it has a year-round "spring" climate. So A/C would not be necessary during the day, and at night only a bit of heat.

The Hacienda has 2112 hectares, 300 dairy cows, 100 horses, 2000 sheep, a trout farm, an organic garden, and terrific views of the surrounding volcanoes. It is the ideal "Eco-Lodge" or "agriturismo", because it has so many amenities. Many agriturismi in Italy are just large rural properties with a few olive trees, and not much in the way of a true working farm. More upscale, they are really just rural boutique hotels. More downscale, they are really just B&Bs. Alternatively, some agriturismi are true working farms, but the "Eco-Lodge" side of things is weak. Hacienda Zuleta is then very special because both sides of the operation are strong and genuine. It is both an upscale boutique hotel, as well as a genuine working farm and ranch. Furthermore, it is a major riding center and choice destination for equine tourism -- see https://www.inthesaddle.com/rides/view/159_haciendazuleta_andes_ecuador , http://www.coxandkings.co.uk/destin...d-the-galapagos/accommodation/hacienda-zuleta , and http://www.abercrombiekent.co.uk/ecuadorandgalapagosislands/otavalo/zuleta.cfm , https://www.inthesaddle.com/rides/view/159_haciendazuleta_andes_ecuador . I have visited lots of boutique hotels, lots of riding centers, lots of organic farms, and lots of working farms. But I don't think I have ever stayed at a working farm that is also a top-class boutique hotel, as well as an organic farm, a fish farm, and a major riding center:








**************************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

***********************************************










***********************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************************









**************************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************************









**************************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************************









**************************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.