# Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Hi Roger, Victor and All,
AS one who has to consider EV
production, these batts have problems.
On Molten salt batts 100wts/hr parasitic drain can double
the energy needs for many drivers. I'd have to think this
goes up in winter too. As a good point the materials are
inexpensive so good for vehicles used a lot.
Batts using silver, nickel or other
expensive metals can't compete with LiFePo4, ect cheaper
materials. In fact EV's would be stolen for such expensive
batts also precludes their use.
NiFE can't because of these and it's
high discharge rate and ineff, water use while charging.
Nicads, NiMH were made to fix these problems except they are
still and always will be pricey.
So get use to Li, Molten salt as they
are by far the lowest future cost though Alum/air batts
could come back.
Some Li batts are now less cost than
AGM's so once they and their BMS' are sorted out in about a
yr will be our best choice at even lower prices thanks to
the recession.
One suggestion is everyone write
your congresspeople to have the Feds buy the US rights to
LiFePo4 to create jobs,factories, EV's here. GM just picked
an inferior Li batt because of it's patent dispute. But if
everyone could be free of that cost, hassle in the US
factories, jobs would mushroom here raising competition and
driving down prices on what looks like the best or at least
excellent Li type.
While talking to them mention the
EV tax credit should be available for conversions as they
are the only available EV for a while. And for 3 wh freeway
capable EV's as only 4wh ones can get it now. Apparently
that includes some golfcarts taking up the limited EV
credits but not my style 80mph. 100 mile range 3wheeler!!

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Roger Heuckeroth <[email protected]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Silver Zinc Batteries and othe EV Data
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:45:03 -0500

>I truely believe that we will see major advances in the
>refinement of these chemisties that have existed in
>principal for decades, but have been put on the self due
>to limitations that seamed insurmountable. With
>nanotechnology, new separator films, etc. many thing are
>possible.
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Feb 8, 2009, at 11:25 AM, "Roland Wiench" <[email protected]>


> >wrote:
> >
> >> Silver Zinc Batteries new introduction and EV data by:
> >>
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> jerryd wrote:
> >
> > Hi Roger, Victor and All,
> > AS one who has to consider EV
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> > jerryd wrote:
> >
> >> On Molten salt batts 100wts/hr parasitic drain can double
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

I think that the easiest way to understand why Molten Salt
battery does not consume much more power in winter is to
explain the difference in temperature and let's take some
nice extreme numbers to show how little it differs:

Say that in Summer the average (day+night) temp is like
a bad season in Atlanta (nothing personal) at 30 deg C
(86 Fahrenheit) while in winter the average temp is like
a cold spell in the NorthEast at -30 C (-22 Fahrenheit).

Then the energy leak from the Molten Salt to the ambient
of the battery will see a temperature delta between its
internals and outside of about 270 deg C in summer and 
330 deg C in winter, taking the temp of the internals
at a round 300 deg C number.
I understand that the Molten Salt will work at temps
between 270 and 350 deg C. 

Now the expected increase in thermal leak between summer
and winter will be (330/270) - 100% = 22%
So if the battery needs about 120 Watts to stay at temp
in summer then in winter it will rise by about 26 Watts 
to 146 Watts to maintain the same internal temp with the
extreme temp change (+30 to -30 deg C, +86 to -22 deg F)

Let's see how the energy leak of this battery stacks up
against the energy use of a typical EV as first vehicle
(which means that the gas burner is the alternative car
if there still is one) so it is used the average 15k mi
that means 41 miles each day on average.
Let's also say that the car is pretty efficient and
needs 250Wh/mi from its battery pack so it consumes a
decent 10.25 kWh per day driving.

Compare that to the need of heating even in winter
of 146W x 24h = 3.5 kWh (if parked on the street,
inside garage the heat loss will be less) 
and you see that approx 25% of the total energy needed
for car+heater is going to the heater.

Now think about AirCo or Heater. Nobody is going to
argue that those better not be used, but they can
also consume about 10 to 20% of the energy used for
driving when operated in these circumstances, the
case of NiMH batteries where some implementations
caused an energy waste that is even larger than
this due to the need to run the AirCo while the
vehicle is charging.

This all is not to say that we can waste energy as
we see fit - far from that, it makes sense to
conserve energy where possible, but that the leak
of energy to heat the Molten Salt is not that bad.

Cor van de Water
Director HW & Systems Architecture Group
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 383 7626 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203 XoIP: +31877841130

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Victor Tikhonov
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:17 PM
To: [email protected]; Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect



> jerryd wrote:
> >
> > Hi Roger, Victor and All,
> > AS one who has to consider EV
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Hi Cor, Victor and All,

As Bas mentioned I said, for many in
their typical use the waste heat is equal to 20-40 miles per
day at the 100wthrs/mile my Freedom EV and many of the
future practical EV's, ie ones that cost less than ICE's to
run and people can afford, which will have a similar power
usage. Myself only average about 10 miles/day so would
3-4x's my transport energy costs. Mostly 3-5 miles/day with
a weekly 25-35 mile day. My present EV trike MC only uses
35wthr/mile, runs 40 miles on 4 used 12vdc 67lb batteries.
Thanks for the numbers Cor, Victor, but
they prove my points.
As for NiMH they are not going to be
the future battery because of costs so their high charge
usage is moot. Ni-cads I can speak of as I've used them for
over 10 yrs and I only overcharge them every 5 cycles 10%
and they are fine with that. But they too use too much Ni so
not going to be a future battery because of material costs.
As I said for those who use their EV's
a lot, molten salt batts can be very good. But for many we
just don't go the miles/day to justify their increased power
needs. One would need to use at least 40miles/day to be
practical, better would be 100miles/day for them.
Sent to me accidentally probably meant to the list a
request for the report.

CC: From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[email protected]>
Reply-to: "Joseph Ashwood" <[email protected]>


> Victor wrote
> Email me in private and I'll forward you the study (.pdf
file)
> backing this up if you're interested to learn more.

I'm interested in the study.
Joe
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus




----- Original Message Follows ----- 
From: "Cor van de Water" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc
Batteries, ect
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:45:09 -0800

>I think that the easiest way to understand why Molten Salt
>battery does not consume much more power in winter is to
>explain the difference in temperature and let's take some
>nice extreme numbers to show how little it differs:
>
>Say that in Summer the average (day+night) temp is like
>a bad season in Atlanta (nothing personal) at 30 deg C
>(86 Fahrenheit) while in winter the average temp is like
>a cold spell in the NorthEast at -30 C (-22 Fahrenheit).
>
>Then the energy leak from the Molten Salt to the ambient
>of the battery will see a temperature delta between its
>internals and outside of about 270 deg C in summer and 
>330 deg C in winter, taking the temp of the internals
>at a round 300 deg C number.
>I understand that the Molten Salt will work at temps
>between 270 and 350 deg C. 
>
>Now the expected increase in thermal leak between summer
>and winter will be (330/270) - 100% = 22%
>So if the battery needs about 120 Watts to stay at temp
>in summer then in winter it will rise by about 26 Watts 
>to 146 Watts to maintain the same internal temp with the
>extreme temp change (+30 to -30 deg C, +86 to -22 deg F)
>
>Let's see how the energy leak of this battery stacks up
>against the energy use of a typical EV as first vehicle
>(which means that the gas burner is the alternative car
>if there still is one) so it is used the average 15k mi
>that means 41 miles each day on average.
>Let's also say that the car is pretty efficient and
>needs 250Wh/mi from its battery pack so it consumes a
>decent 10.25 kWh per day driving.
>
>Compare that to the need of heating even in winter
>of 146W x 24h = 3.5 kWh (if parked on the street,
> inside garage the heat loss will be less) 
>and you see that approx 25% of the total energy needed
>for car+heater is going to the heater.
>
>Now think about AirCo or Heater. Nobody is going to
>argue that those better not be used, but they can
>also consume about 10 to 20% of the energy used for
>driving when operated in these circumstances, the
>case of NiMH batteries where some implementations
>caused an energy waste that is even larger than
>this due to the need to run the AirCo while the
>vehicle is charging.
>
>This all is not to say that we can waste energy as
>we see fit - far from that, it makes sense to
>conserve energy where possible, but that the leak
>of energy to heat the Molten Salt is not that bad.
>
>Cor van de Water
>Director HW & Systems Architecture Group


> >>jerryd wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Roger, Victor and All,
> >> AS one who has to consider EV
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

hi all , 
this is my first post so ... hope it is not dumb

is there places that actually sell the molten salt
batteries that can be used in electric vehicles? 

or can i get clear step by step instructions on
building my own? 

thanks 
Rick




> --- jerryd <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jerryd" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect


> CC: From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[email protected]>
> Reply-to: "Joseph Ashwood" <[email protected]>
>
>
>> Victor wrote
>> Email me in private and I'll forward you the study (.pdf
> file)
>> backing this up if you're interested to learn more.
>
> I'm interested in the study.
> Joe

Yeah, I editted the to: field poorly. Wasn't necesarily meant for the list, 
meant for Victor, sorry to waste list traffic on this.
Joe 

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> jerryd wrote:
> >> On Molten salt batts 100wts/hr parasitic drain can double
> >> the energy needs for many drivers.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> Lee Hart wrote:
> >Victor, do you have any data on how much power the
> >molten salt batteries
> >actually take on a continuous basis to keep them warm?
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Jerry,

In this respect you're right. 'Course if you used 5kWh and ran
errands once a month, and the rest of the time the battery
sits plugged in hot and not being used, all month worth of energy
is wasted - far more than 5kWh.

I wouldn't call this very typical usage of the vehicle,
but we discussed in the beginning that the battery is not
optimal for everybody - the more rarely you use the car -
the less attractive Zebra becomes.

I'm just reacting on your statement that it is not good
option for [your?] customers as if you already know for sure
that their usage pattern will be running EV 20 min once a week.

I'm assuming more-less everyday usage is how most people drive.
Indeed for 24/7 fleets it would be ideal usage but the study
I have suggest that minimum driving per day (typically only to
and from work + some errands) already breaks energy usage even.

Victor




> jerryd wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cor, Victor and All,
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Hi Victor and All,

Victor, Why do you always misconstrue my
data? It's right below.
It plainly states I use an average of 54
miles/week, hardly errands once a month! Neither am I the
only person who doesn't drive that much because we are
smart/lucky enough to live close to where we need to go,
retired or work at home as I do. I bought my home because
everything was going to be built around it and it has. I'd
bet 25-30% of drivers do about the same miles/week or less. 
And 54 miles is about 5.4kwhr/week, not
per month. But since the Zebra uses 2.4kwhr/day or
16.8kwhrs/week means anyone who uses under 100-168miles/week
as probably 50% of drivers do lose out on eff/mile big time,
doubling the energy/mile vs Li batts. Most practical future
production EV's will use between 100-150wthrs/mile.
In my EV I will go 168 miles/week on the
energy the Zebra uses to stay warm/week going nowhere!! And
many do less miles/week than that, No?
Nor did I say the Zebra needed to be
used 24/7 to be viable, but at least 50-75miles/day is
needed. Average driving/day is about 35 miles in the US so
more than 1/2 drivers wouldn't be benefited by the Zebra,
it's typical when over it's 50%, No?
I don't twist your data, don't twist
mine. React all you want but be honest about it as it
doesn't make you look good. By now you should know I'll call
you on it especially when you do it to me this badly, by a
factor of 4!!

Jerry Dycus

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Victor Tikhonov <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], Electric Vehicle Discussion List
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc
Batteries, ect
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:25:35 -0800

>Jerry,
>
>In this respect you're right. 'Course if you used 5kWh and
>ran errands once a month, and the rest of the time the
>battery sits plugged in hot and not being used, all month
>worth of energy is wasted - far more than 5kWh.
>
>I wouldn't call this very typical usage of the vehicle,
>but we discussed in the beginning that the battery is not
>optimal for everybody - the more rarely you use the car -
>the less attractive Zebra becomes.
>
>I'm just reacting on your statement that it is not good
>option for [your?] customers as if you already know for
>sure that their usage pattern will be running EV 20 min
>once a week.
>
>I'm assuming more-less everyday usage is how most people
>drive. Indeed for 24/7 fleets it would be ideal usage but
>the study I have suggest that minimum driving per day
>(typically only to and from work + some errands) already
>breaks energy usage even.
>
>Victor
>
>


> >jerryd wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Cor, Victor and All,
> >>
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Note that the Zebra battery does not use *any* excess energy for heat
while it is in use and for 4 hours after wards. So if you use it
twice a day during the week and a similar amount on the weekends,
figure that a one way trip is 1/2 hour + 4 hour cool down, so you get
twice that or 9 hours/day where the Zebra is not using any extra
energy. So the potential wasted energy is ((24-9)/24)*2.4 = 1.5
KWH/day.

To put that into perspective, at 10 cents/KWH, the wasted energy
costs 15 cents/day, $1/week, $4.5/month, or $55/year. Which is a
tiny part of the cost of operating any car.

But note that in most parts of the country it is fairly cold during
much of the year, but the battery (unless you insert an insulator to
block it, say during the Summer), keeps the car warm from the moment
you step into it, unlike other batteries which must sacrifice some of
their energy to keep you warm, and which take a certain amount of
time and energy to build up the heat. So the wasted energy is
typically much less that $1/week, unless you never turn a heater on.


-- Larry



> jerryd <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Victor and All,
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> Jerryd wrote:
> 
> > I don't twist your data, don't twist mine.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Hi Larry, Roger and All,

Larry wrote,
Note that the Zebra battery does not use *any* excess
energy for heat
while it is in use and for 4 hours after wards. So if you
use it
twice a day during the week and a similar amount on the
weekends,
figure that a one way trip is 1/2 hour + 4 hour cool down,
so you get
twice that or 9 hours/day where the Zebra is not using any
extra
energy. So the potential wasted energy is ((24-9)/24)*2.4 =
1.5
KWH/day.

JD, Only partly true and exposes another Zebra
battery problem, it's high internal resistance which creates
heat by being ineff. Not something one should brag about as
a positive!! Since it takes 4hrs to cool off I expect this
is much larger than 100wts/hr so your point is moot as
whether driving or parked, it loses energy not going to
range. So uses at least 2.4kwhr/day which equals 24miles/day
in a practical production EV. 

To put that into perspective, at 10 cents/KWH, the wasted
energy
costs 15 cents/day, $1/week, $4.5/month, or $55/year. Which
is a
tiny part of the cost of operating any car.
Larry

JD Again an exaggeration. Few places in the US
charge such low rates now. US average is probably
$.15-.20/kwhr. Many pay more for green energy. So about
2.5x's or more as much total energy, cost as you mention. I
expect EV's to cost less than ICE's by a good amount if
designed, built right to be a practical production EV.



----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Roger Stockton <[email protected]>
To: "'Electric Vehicle Discussion List'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc
Batteries, ect
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:44:27 -0800



> >Jerryd wrote:
> >
> >> I don't twist your data, don't twist mine.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> On 13 Feb 2009 at 19:09, jerryd wrote:
> 
> > I expect this is much larger than 100wts/hr ...
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> EVDL Administrator wrote:
> 
> > Let's put an end to the thread now, please.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Jerry, Roger, Lee and all,

Here are few docs I was able to find on subject without digging for 
hours in terabytes of such material scattered among several hard
disks ...

http://www.metricmind.com/misc/zebra_pages.pdf
http://www.metricmind.com/misc/evs_18_new_types_of_zebra.pdf
http://www.metricmind.com/misc/evs17.doc

David, this is last email on the subject I'm sending. Promise.

Victor

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*



> Roger Stockton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > EVDL Administrator wrote:
> >
> >> Let's put an end to the thread now, please.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Just a short question about looking at the energy loss differences between
Summer and Winter. When you compare heat differences, aren't you supposed to
use Kelvin degrees instead of Centigrade, so instead of 330/270 = 22% you
have 602/542 = 10%, or am I mistaken?

-- Larry Gales



> Cor van de Water <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I think that the easiest way to understand why Molten Salt
> > battery does not consume much more power in winter is to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect*

Yes, I am afraid you are mistaken.

First,
Kelvin degrees are identical to Celcius with the
exception that the scale starts at the absolute
zero (lowest theoretically possible temperature
when the Brownian Motion has completely halted)
So where Celcius goes from 0 to 100 for freezing
and cooking water at sea level, the Kelvin scale
goes from 273 to 373 for the same points.
Zero Kelvin is -273 Celcius (and a little bit)

Second,
Now to check the behavior of winter and summer
operation you need to take the temperature
*difference* between battery internal and ambient.
This is identical for Celcius and Kelvin as their
degree steps are identical, the different zero
position does not matter when looking at a difference.
For example from -10 to -20 is the same difference
as from 90 to 80. Or from 3279 to 3269.

Hope this clarifies,

Cor van de Water
Director HW & Systems Architecture Group
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 383 7626 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203 XoIP: +31877841130

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Larry Gales
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 12:31 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Feds, Molten salt and Silver Zinc Batteries, ect

Just a short question about looking at the energy loss differences
between
Summer and Winter. When you compare heat differences, aren't you
supposed to
use Kelvin degrees instead of Centigrade, so instead of 330/270 = 22%
you
have 602/542 = 10%, or am I mistaken?

-- Larry Gales

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Cor van de Water <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> > I think that the easiest way to understand why Molten Salt
> > battery does not consume much more power in winter is to
> ...


----------

