# Electric Tractor



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

The time is at hand.

Regards, Mike

http://growingtennessee.com/news/2016/12/john-deere-unveils-its-electric-powered-tractor-prototype-2016-12-08/?utm_source=Growing+Tennessee&utm_campaign=ed1b3d05c5-growingtennessee-daily_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d75710df8e-ed1b3d05c5-296641129


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

I think it will be here rather quickly, autonomous tractors need electrical circuits.....not sure if the claim of it lasting longer will be true, jury still out on that one I suppose, we will see in a few years once they become "mainstream".....lots of questions still to be answered


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

Under or over half a mil


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

hillside hay said:


> Under or over half a mil


First few years of production will no doubt be obscene. I like the idea tho.....it would really change maintenance routines and noise pollution....and power production could be unreal....kind of like electric locomotives.

Regards, Mike


----------



## CowboyRam (Dec 13, 2015)

They are just trading one polluting source for another one. I think they are just trying to please the greenies, besides what farmer is going to be able to afford a tractor like that.


----------



## Farmineer95 (Aug 11, 2014)

I could see the technology used in a skid loader used intermittently. Might save emission grief and maintenance. Thought it would be slick, similar to a forklift. My questions would focus on battery life and cost of replacement/disposal. Can't see a tillage tractor with that much battery. Will have to wait and see when the details come out.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

CowboyRam said:


> They are just trading one polluting source for another one. I think they are just trying to please the greenies, besides what farmer is going to be able to afford a tractor like that.


Depends on what regime is in charge.

I could see a Obama/Cinton/Gore type regime offering tax credits or some sort of refunds if you buy one.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

I believe the general rule of thumb is that there is about a 20% loss of energy for each transformation. E.g., Coal to electric loses about 20%; electric transmission==20%; electric to mechanical==20%.

I'm sure that it is not %20 across the board, but for the sake of example, coal to electrical to mechanical (((100%-20%) - 20%) - 20%) = (.8x.8)x.8 =. 51 or 51% of the energy in coal makes it to the mechanical motion.

(And I'm not sure my math is correct here because it's been since I was in high school that I've really had to use any of that algebra stuff. Some engineer please correct me where I'm wrong.)

Personally, I really have trouble seeing the efficiency of wind and solar power when you consider the total cost of production.

Ralph


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

The inefficiencies of electric vehicles are even worse than Ralph states- way worse.

A coal-fired steam generation plant is around 35% efficient. That is, only 35% of the energy in a ton of coal makes it thru the plant into the electricity that leaves the power house. Then there's another 15% lost in the transmission and distribution lines. So by the time the electric power arrives at your farm, 80% of the energy that was in the fossil fuel is gone.

Natural gas-fired power houses are better as they're around 50% efficient. However, this is only true of the new generation plants that use direct-combustion gas turbines and waste-heat boilers (a setup known as "combined cycle") An existing steam generation plant that's converted from coal to gas is still only 35% efficient.

In any case, from a fuel efficiency or environmental standpoint, electric vehicles are completely stupid.

Gary


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

..but doesnt an electric motor have full load torque at any RPM, which is where they shine over typical internal combusions engines. Basically they have "power everywhere"...


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

Idk I see years of problems. I will however be happy to test one. It will reside outside as my 40 year old equipment is far too valuable to me to lose in the eventual electrical fire.


----------



## Farmineer95 (Aug 11, 2014)

There is a conversion factor between electric and internal combustion engine. Suppose that plays into the tractive effort potential. 
So maybe the batteries are better than the nissan leaf???


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

I would think they would use diesel over DC voltage....that's a Diesel engine (or any internal combustion) that charges the batteries....some sort of hybrid. I don't think I'll ever have to fiddle with one.....


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Maybe they are thinking that with a solar powered electric tractor, not only would it be 'clean' energy, but us farmers wouldn't be out working so late at night anymore. :lol:

Larry


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm gonna just throw it out there that Allis Chalmers had one back in 1959....

http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_687671

You aren't surprised I was gonna do that were you? Although this is technically different, it's not so different.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

PaMike said:


> ..but doesnt an electric motor have full load torque at any RPM, which is where they shine over typical internal combusions engines. Basically they have "power everywhere"...


I don't believe so, when we converted the pit drive from a motodrive to using a VFD we had to go from a 5hp electric motor to a ten to have enough power at lets say half motor RPM instead of 1725 especially if the pit should shut down while still full of corn.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Sort of, its a complex answer. Regular VFD's work by rectifying AC into 3 DC buses they they connect the windings of the motor to the DC bus with the right voltage at the timing to build a sine wave for the speed you want.

Troubles are the sine wave is rough shaped and noisy/dirty, the electronics for the bus do not tolerate over current like a conventional motor starter, and the motor itself is derated when you feed it dirty power.

There is a different type of controller that builds pure sine waves but you aren't going to use it to run something on the farm.



mlappin said:


> I don't believe so, when we converted the pit drive from a motodrive to using a VFD we had to go from a 5hp electric motor to a ten to have enough power at lets say half motor RPM instead of 1725 especially if the pit should shut down while still full of corn.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

slowzuki said:


> Sort of, its a complex answer. Regular VFD's work by rectifying AC into 3 DC buses they they connect the windings of the motor to the DC bus with the right voltage at the timing to build a sine wave for the speed you want.
> 
> Troubles are the sine wave is rough shaped and noisy/dirty, the electronics for the bus do not tolerate over current like a conventional motor starter, and the motor itself is derated when you feed it dirty power.
> 
> There is a different type of controller that builds pure sine waves but you aren't going to use it to run something on the farm.


In a nutshell, yep.

We do have one advantage as its three phase in and three phase out so none of that messy business of turning 1 into 3.

Far as a DC tractor, 12 volt starters usually don't work real well on 6 volts, ditto on 24's on 12. Granted motive power DC motors are different than a starter. Usually holds true though that a lower voltages than optimum electric motors do run hotter. I almost always shift into a lower speed on our cordless drills rather than use the trigger to run slower.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Oddly enough, the single phase to 3 phase just derates the VFD a bit, it only uses 4 of the 6 diodes to supply the DC buses so about 66% of the nameplate rating.

I soon stopped buying single phase rated ones and just buy bigger 3 phase units. The single phase models just have the derate info stamped on them.



mlappin said:


> In a nutshell, yep.
> 
> We do have one advantage as its three phase in and three phase out so none of that messy business of turning 1 into 3.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

stack em up said:


> I'm gonna just throw it out there that Allis Chalmers had one back in 1959....
> 
> http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_687671
> 
> You aren't surprised I was gonna do that were you? Although this is technically different, it's not so different.


That has to be the ugliest tractor I have ever seen.....but it's cool!

Regards, Mike


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Yeah saw they were quick to compare to Tesla...

Yall read about what happens to the Tesla batteries if they're not charged or stored right?? Plenty of stories on the net about guys going overseas on assignments or whatever and leaving their Teslas in storage, only to come home and find the batteries had crapped out. Price for a new battery from Tesla-- about $40 grand...

Basically it's cheaper to junk the car than to buy a new battery for it. Case closed. Who wants to play that with a big Deere tractor that costs in the neighborhood of a cool half million??

I can see diesel/electric like railroad locomotives... that makes a LOT of sense. I can see electrics taking over for a lot of the hydraulics currently in use-- way more efficient and less heat loss/exacting tolerances, etc. Linear actuators in place of cylinders and electric motors in place of orbit motors... the aircraft industry has been moving away from hydraulics and toward either full electrically-actuated stuff, or electrohydraulic self-contained units that use a small pump and solenoid valve to operate a specific built-in cylinder, with wires to control the entire unit remotely.

Batteries simply don't have the power density needed, and the cost and reliability aren't there either... not for any reasonable length of service or service lifetime, anyway. Who wants to go take the tractor to the field with a big disk, chisel plow, what have you and run a few hours, have the thing tell you it's about out of juice, and needs to recharge for 8-12 hours or whatever?? How's that gonna work when you're on "Granny Schickelgruber's farm" 20 miles from nowhere and her old house is rotting down and there's only a disconnected meter pole in the yard?? Gonna drive that bad boy home EVERY NIGHT to recharge?? Doesn't make good sense. Diesel fuel has tons of power density in a relatively small package... and it's very good at powering equipment lugging out "turning the dirt" all day every day for hours on hours on end... Electrics have their advantages, but even the railroads know that for the kind of heavy work they're doing, they need a diesel engine turning an electric motor to drive the wheels... I could see the advantages to that in farm tractors. Until the railroads are retiring their diesel locomotives and replacing them with gangs of batteries hanging under the loco between the trucks (or pulling massive box-car size battery "tenders" behind them like the old steam locos did back in the day with their coal or oil and water tenders, I don't see it being practical for farm tractors... A small diesel or kerosene powered turbine engine spinning a generator, or a "constant speed" reciprocating type diesel engine powering a giant alternator to turn the wheel motors and power the implements, that I could see... but batteries?? Nah... at least not with the kind of battery technology and expense we have today (and for the near future anyway). (There are some rather, shall we say, EXOTIC batteries on the horizon that would have FAR superior power density and be more suitable, perhaps, but usually their "not user friendly" in that they tend to be highly poisonous or "go boom" if they fail or are incredibly toxic to make and would turn the farm into a superfund site if they busted open, things like that...)

I could see battery powered skid-steers or maybe even sprayers (if they're not out having to wade in the mud all day lugging around a loaded 1200 gallon spray tank along with everything else on the machine) where it's either "shorter duty cycles" (running a skid steer for a couple hours to get the work done, or it working hard for a short period of time and doing light work or stopped part of the time) but for heavy duty pulling/working/constant lugging, I don't see battery powered ANYTHING working worth a rip... or being affordable, or desirable...

Later! OL J R


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Re tesla batteries, if I leave my tractor batteries discharged and leave for any length of time they are usually garbage. If new one cost 40k I think I might leave a battery maintainer on it or hire someone to do so if I had to leave unexpectedly.

I agree we are a long way from farming with batteries but I'd love to be able to plug the house into the tractor during a power outage, use it like a giant UPS. Also since the vast majority of the time tractors sit, it would make sense to plumb them into a solar or wind setup to leverage that battery pack. Help reduce the problems of wind power or lack of sun at night.


----------



## Wyo_1 (Nov 8, 2016)

The Technology is not here today to make this cost effective, But it will be sooner than most people think, As far as cost, Have you priced a 400 HP JD lately? I would guess that in the near future it will be cheaper to build batteries and electric motors than clean diesels and CVT transmissions.

It will go a lot like PC's, started out very high priced and not that useful, 30 years later everyone has one in there pocket and 20 of them on your tractor.

Power transmission looses 6%, nuclear, fission, solar, wind, will make more power than we ever will need, Batteries are recyclable and valuable.

There will be problems and technology needs to be developed but its coming and its growing exponentially. Obviously JD is thinking the world will go that way.

You farmers/landowners should be happy, as you will be some of the few left that will have a job.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Whether you like green or not, JD does not make many mistakes in product direction. Every decision is made with long term profitability in mind by a battery of scientist, engineers, and product specialist. Maybe they know something that others do not know at this time. It is coming whether it fits into your line of thinking or not.

I can remember over 40 years ago as a very young man reading that someday we would make all of our purchases with a plastic card and that currency would be obsolete.....I scoffed.....we don't lack very much being there today.

Regards, Mike


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I agree with OL JR about the "hybrid" approach. A lower powered, lower fuel consumption diesel engine charging the batteries that power the tractor? That way if one were hard pressed to finish a task, even fully depleting the batteries, one could stop the tractor for a bit and let the diesel hybrid recharging engine recharge you enough to make it home?

I wonder if the problems OL JR mentions could be overcome with some other technology? Solar panels across the roof of the tractor? Perhaps a "reserve battery" that is only used after primary cell is exhausted to get home? Or maybe a way to install a charging cord on our farm trucks that plugs into tractor battery unit for a quick high idle charge?

I'm more for cleaner, more efficient diesels. Mahindra has a under 100HP diesel thats clean enough to meet tier 4 with no expensive exhaust scrubbers or any DEF fluid.

That makes me think were very close to clean, reliable diesels for higher HP applications.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

They use a retarded injection timing, scr cat and super egr on the mahindra so you pay for it with bad fuel economy.



JD3430 said:


> I'm more for cleaner, more efficient diesels. Mahindra has a under 100HP diesel thats clean enough to meet tier 4 with no expensive exhaust scrubbers or any DEF fluid.
> That makes me think were very close to clean, reliable diesels for higher HP applications.


----------



## Farmineer95 (Aug 11, 2014)

Just throwing this out there, what if tillage is a thing of the past? 400 hp may be unnecessary as far as a farms investment. WOTUS might get it way and we all use smaller implements. Guessing JD is going to develope a market. Mixer tractor or similar comes to mind what would be awesome if priced right.


----------



## CowboyRam (Dec 13, 2015)

I wonder how much of a hand the Federal Government has in this electric tractor?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

CowboyRam said:


> I wonder how much of a hand the Federal Government has in this electric tractor?


I doubt that they have any....JD does not like to share anything. It is possible that there is some type of "credit" for non-fossil fuel research.

Regards, Mike


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

JD3430 said:


> I agree with OL JR about the "hybrid" approach. A lower powered, lower fuel consumption diesel engine charging the batteries that power the tractor? That way if one were hard pressed to finish a task, even fully depleting the batteries, one could stop the tractor for a bit and let the diesel hybrid recharging engine recharge you enough to make it home?


Chevy Volt, is a possible example, runs on batteries until needs to be re-charged. With only short trips, motor never starts (if you plug it in, to recharge that is).

Larry


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Here is the proto-type in a youtube...but in French.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Hayman1 (Jul 6, 2013)

Doesn't Haytalk have a translator program??


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Wyo_1 said:


> The Technology is not here today to make this cost effective, But it will be sooner than most people think, As far as cost, Have you priced a 400 HP JD lately? I would guess that in the near future it will be cheaper to build batteries and electric motors than clean diesels and CVT transmissions.
> 
> It will go a lot like PC's, started out very high priced and not that useful, 30 years later everyone has one in there pocket and 20 of them on your tractor.
> 
> ...


More power than we'll ever need?? Sounds like the BS promises that were used to "sell" building nuke plants around here in the 70's..."electricity too cheap to meter" and stuff like that... I still have a little plastic "uranium fuel pellet" shrink-wrapped to a 3x5 card with the "South Texas Project" emblem on it, telling how that little "uranium pellet" contained as much energy as a couple railroad cars full of coal, or about a dozen semi's of diesel fuel, or whatever...

"Electricity too cheap to meter" never materialized...we're paying more for it than ever. Solar, wind, geothermal, whatever "fuel free" electricity sources you can think of, are as high or higher than coal, nuclear, oil, or gas...

The problem I see is that the power grid is already overloaded and deteriorating, and the demand for electric power is constantly growing, in most places at a faster rate than improvements and repairs to the existing grid (and adding onto the grid) can handle... The only reason things haven't gotten bad yet is because we're pushing the grid capacity to the limits and shaving the capabilities to the limits. It was like the mess in California a few years back... they don't have enough power to keep the lights on, yet they're pushing everybody to "save the planet" by getting electric cars... Umm-kay... let's see how that works out for ya...

Say everybody switched to electric cars overnight... now ALL the energy that was being dispensed in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for motor fuels is now having to be generated and distributed through the power grid system. How many power plants would have to be build to provide the generating capacity to replace all that gasoline and diesel motor fuel, plus losses in transforming energy from one form to another, transmission losses, resistance and losses in the chargers and batteries, etc. etc. etc?? It would take MORE fuel to replace all that motor fuel with electric power for battery powered cars than it would to simply power them with motor fuels directly. Then of course, how much EXTRA capacity would have to be built into the power grids to supply neighborhoods all plugging in their cars overnight?? None of that is free. Meanwhile, you've basically junked most of the existing infrastructure you have to distribute energy via motor fuels, since they're no longer needed...

Of course it'd be a more gradual process, but still, not a COST-FREE one... IF electric battery-powered equipment and vehicles take over from internal combustion (or external combustion "steam" powered vehicles for that matter-- there's a number of interesting concepts for external combustion powered vehicles) engine vehicles then it WILL require 1) increased power generation capability (new power plants, solar, wind, geotherm, nuke, whatever) to either burn the feedstocks used to create those motor fuels to generate power (plus extra to account for losses, or generate an equivalent amount of power that would have been provided by motor fuels, and 2) the building of capability and excess capacity into the power distribution grid FAR beyond the levels we have today to distribute that power electrically instead of as motor fuels...

It's simple physics... energy cannot be created or destroyed-- just transformed from one form to another... and every time you transform it from one form to another, you WILL lose some to inefficiency, friction, etc. etc. etc. in the process... that CANNOT be avoided. It can be "managed" through better, more efficient processes and materials and such, but it cannot be "eliminated".

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Vol said:


> Whether you like green or not, JD does not make many mistakes in product direction. Every decision is made with long term profitability in mind by a battery of scientist, engineers, and product specialist. Maybe they know something that others do not know at this time. It is coming whether it fits into your line of thinking or not.
> 
> I can remember over 40 years ago as a very young man reading that someday we would make all of our purchases with a plastic card and that currency would be obsolete.....I scoffed.....we don't lack very much being there today.
> 
> Regards, Mike


Yeah, and I remember (or have read about) all the "coming revolutions" in power and equipment... The various manufacturers have ALL, to one extent or another, built various "prototypes" and experimented with systems, some have really touted them as "the next big thing" from the Electrall Farmall to fuel cell powered tractors to gas turbine engines instead of reciprocating Otto-type engines, etc. I remember when the "Wankel rotary" was going to be the next big thing... then it was gas turbine engines-- no power pulses and vibrating, reciprocating parts, just smooth, continuous, uninterrupted rotational turbine power in a package FAR smaller and lighter than a similar reciprocating engine... etc.

Sure, change will come. But it's not like this is anything new or revolutionary... Look on Youtube, there's DOZENS of alternative motive power engines being proposed all the time...

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

JD3430 said:


> I agree with OL JR about the "hybrid" approach. A lower powered, lower fuel consumption diesel engine charging the batteries that power the tractor? That way if one were hard pressed to finish a task, even fully depleting the batteries, one could stop the tractor for a bit and let the diesel hybrid recharging engine recharge you enough to make it home?
> 
> I wonder if the problems OL JR mentions could be overcome with some other technology? Solar panels across the roof of the tractor? Perhaps a "reserve battery" that is only used after primary cell is exhausted to get home? Or maybe a way to install a charging cord on our farm trucks that plugs into tractor battery unit for a quick high idle charge?
> 
> ...


A little simple math does away with a lot of "good ideas" that seem feasible on first blush but don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. I'm not going to go through a big spiel and spend 3 hours looking up specs and doing calculations; I'm just going to give a basic examples going from memory, so if I'm off a little, I don't need some [email protected] sniping from the peanut gallery... if you want to get exact figures, look it up, do the math, and post it yourself, and I'll applaud you for it.

Earth receives about 7 watts (IIRC) of solar energy per square meter. (This is calculated by the time it takes to raise a given quantity of water 1 degree in a given amount of time in full sunlight). Say the roof of your tractor is 4 square meters, and you install solar panels on top. That's 7x4 or 28 watts of power... that's not going to recharge your battery much... plugging in volts times amps equals watts, transposing that'd be about 2.3 amps at 12 volts... 28 watts won't hardly power your radio in the tractor, let alone charge up it's batteries for motive power....

How about that "quick charge" from the pickup at "high idle"... okay, lets say you have a 200 amp alternator at 12 volts... that's 2400 watts... MUCH better, but still, HOW LONG will you have to charge that battery to get enough power to "make it home" or "finish the field"? Say it'd take another 20 gallons of diesel to "finish the field"... basically you'd have to run the truck at "high idle" and burn 20 gallons of diesel (plus whatever inefficiency and losses in the system from transforming power from one form to another, which I'm not going to even bother trying to include, but it's MORE THAN ZERO TO BE SURE!) to put enough power into the battery just to "finish the field". Similarly, if it'll take you 2 gallons of diesel to "drive the tractor home" you'd have to run the truck long enough to create enough electricity and put it into the tractor batteries to replace the energy that would have been burned in the tractor's engine (if it had one) to burn that 2 gallons of diesel. Only now you have the ADDED losses of transforming power from one form to another, which is NEVER zero... there's friction losses in the engine, heat losses from inefficiency in the engine, magnetic losses and resistance losses in the alternator, resistance in the charger circuit and wiring, etc. etc. etc. All of that "loss" is ADDED to the amount of fuel it would have taken, IF BURNED DIRECTLY in the tractor's engine (if it had one) to do the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.

SO, now you've INCREASED the amount of fuel it takes to do the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK. The ONLY way that this works is *IF* you can construct a tractor that is *ENOUGH cheaper* in manufacturing it (in terms of energy expenditure to produce say the engine castings, machining, etc.... and yeah electric motors are MUCH cheaper and easier to manufacture, BUT, on the other hand, HOW MUCH HARDER AND MORE ENERGY does it take to build massive exotic chemical/metallic batteries than it is to stamp out and roller-seam-weld a simple diesel tank to store energy on a diesel powered tractor?) AND you have to make it MORE EFFICIENT enough to more than justify the losses of the power transformation losses elsewhere in the system... IOW, if you can save "X amount" of losses through friction and power loss (in addition to manufacturing costs) by eliminating relatively inefficient gearboxes, powershifts, transmissions, PTO's, etc. and actually SAVE ENERGY by installing drive motors running through final drives to power the wheels and electric motors (perhaps with final drives) to run implements, then the machine makes sense.

IF on the other hand it is just "swapping around" where the energy comes from, where it's burned or used (in manufacturing versus operating, or fuel burned in a distant power plant than in the engine of the machine itself) then you really aren't gaining ANYTHING and can be LOSING quite a bit of efficiency in the process, meaning it takes MORE ENERGY to do the SAME WORK with the new system than it did with the old one...

It was like all the hoopla about about "hydrogen economy" a decade or so ago... "Everything will be powered by clean, efficient HYDROGEN"... EXCEPT for the fact that the only "industrial scale" methods of producing hydrogen would be to crack hydrogen off natural gas carbon molecules, or create massive electrolyzers to create hydrogen from water via electrolysis... which then begs the question-- POWERED BY WHAT?? Then of course there was the "infrastructure problem" in that you have to create an ENTIRELY NEW distribution system to distribute, handle, and burn that hydrogen to create energy where it's needed... AT GREAT COST... and like I said, the additional capacity and infrastructure required to be added to the power grid to handle a massive shift from IC engines to site-charged battery electrics will be MASSIVE...

There is no "free lunch". The power has to come from *somewhere*. If it takes "XXX" amount of watts to do a job with an IC engine powered tractor, it will take "XXX" amount of watts to do the same job with an electric powered tractor, LESS any greater efficiency from direct drive (eliminating hydraulics and mechanical gearbox losses, after figuring elecrical/magnetic/friction/resistance power losses in the electrical motor powertrain versus the IC engine/conventional transmission power train as it presently exists). BUT then you have to figure in the additional infrastructure costs and POWER TRANSMISSION LOSSES as energy is transformed from one form to another along the chain-- fuel burned in a power plant to create steam, steam spinning turbine generators, electricity from the generators transformed to high voltage power for grid distribution, grid power being transformed back down through multiple steps to the end user's farm, being transformed again and changed from AC to DC to charge batteries (which batteries only work on DC), then losses in storage inside the battery (as ALL batteries eventually "go dead" if unused, like gasoline evaporating out of a gas can-- it's power lost/wasted that cannot be recovered). Then of course the losses as the power is transformed from electrical energy in the tractor's batteries into motive power and tractive force to propel the desired implement doing whatever job on the farm-- and AT EVERY STEP IN THAT CHAIN, you WILL be losing SOME amount of power to transformational losses, friction/distribution/resistance/heat losses, etc...

Usually the SHORTEST power transformation process is THE MOST EFFICIENT ONE...

later! OL J R


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Luke, sometimes I can't help myself. so here is a though - what if they only used these tractors on farms that had hills, with the farmstead at the bottom. That way when the tractor 'ran out' of electricity out in the field (on top of the hill), you could coast down hill to recharge. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go easy, I know you might be on flatter land, but with 10 inches of snow, I could be a little of my rocker today. 

Larry


----------



## CowboyRam (Dec 13, 2015)

Of course all of those Greenee's want us to use only renewable energy; put windmills and such, but Oh not in my back yard, because they don't want to have to look at them.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Farmineer95 said:


> Just throwing this out there, what if tillage is a thing of the past? 400 hp may be unnecessary as far as a farms investment. WOTUS might get it way and we all use smaller implements. Guessing JD is going to develope a market. Mixer tractor or similar comes to mind what would be awesome if priced right.


There are SOME areas and SOME crops for which tillage will NEVER be "a thing of the past". Not everybody grows a corn/soybean monoculture rotation...

400 horse isn't going to be "unnecessary"... takes a mighty big tractor to pull some of these mighty big planters and grain carts, even without "tillage". Might be more of a "niche" thing rather than the "mainstream" but there's going to be a job for 400hp+ tractors in the future. Probably more than there is now actually...

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

CowboyRam said:


> I wonder how much of a hand the Federal Government has in this electric tractor?


More than we'd like I'm sure...

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

r82230 said:


> Chevy Volt, is a possible example, runs on batteries until needs to be re-charged. With only short trips, motor never starts (if you plug it in, to recharge that is).
> 
> Larry


"For SHORT trips".... that's the KEY PHRASE.

Stop-n-go commuter type driving for short distances is where the battery-powered electric vehicles shine... in fact that's their best use. Long haul driving, even "light duty" (taking the car cross-country to 'visit Grandma' three states away) is NOT what they're good at, period. Long haul, HEAVY DUTY driving (trucking, hauling, most all-day-in-the-field farm work) is about the WORST thing you can use them for, and they're not at all suited for that sort of work.

If you're using a machine sporadically, or for short time periods doing limited amounts of "heavy work" (under heavy load), ie, like a skid loader, which is usually only working most of the time going "one direction" (scooping going forward, lifting, backing up with the load, driving forward, dumping it, returning to the pile "empty"), for fairly short periods of time, would really be the BEST type of equipment to have as battery-powered electrically-motored machines. That's why electric forklifts are so popular and have been for decades (in addition to being used inside mostly).

Doing "all day work" that requires no enormous lugging/pulling ability, like say, SPRAYING (depending on how big the tanks are, how heavy the machine is, and the soil conditions-- ie propelling the machine itself and a "reasonably small" load across a fairly smooth field making a fairly low-energy application of material along the way) might be a FAIRLY decent application of electric propulsion technology... Of course the harder the going is, the heavier the machine and filled spray tanks are, and the harder the machine has to work to "clamber through the mud" to do its work, the WORSE an electric power system is going to do, at least in terms of battery life and range, and wear and tear on equipment... just as a sprayer on smooth, firm, level ground may burn half the fuel of a sprayer hauling a massive full spray tank on back and slogging through mud all day trying to get the field sprayed, so an electric powered sprayer will perform similarly...

Doing "long haul" heavy duty lugging type work all day long pulling heavy planters or tillage equipment through the field is about the WORSE type of duty for a battery powered electrical propulsion unit, which is PRECISELY why you don't see anybody seriously proposing battery powered electric semi's or battery powered electric railroad locomotives... electric power is MORE than capable in those circumstances-- in fact electric motors DO have a lot of advantages in HD lugging type work than IC engines, BUT... the 'weak link' is the battery capacity required to provide the energy density reserve necessary to do that sort of work for any respectable length of time. That's why you see DIESEL powered electric locomotives, or electric locomotives running under catenary power lines, drawing power from overhead wires or a "third rail", or gas-turbine powered generators or nuclear powered generators providing electrical power for electric propulsion motors on submarines or ships... IOW, EXTERNAL sources of electrical power, or internal sources of electrical power GENERATED BY ONBOARD POWER PLANTS.

Look no further than the old diesel/electric "U-boats" and submarines common before the nuclear propulsion era in ships... the typical diesel/electric submarine was capable of running either on the surface under diesel power at speeds up to around 22 knots or so, but underwater on battery-generated electric power, were only capable of at most about 7 knots and only for VERY LIMITED amounts of time before the battery power was expended. Now, granted, that was with 70 year old battery technology, and older designs of electric motors and equipment, but the PRINCIPLE is the same. That's why the Germans pioneered the "shnorkel" (snorkel) device to bring fresh air from the surface down to a submerged submarine so that it could run on diesel power underwater. It's also why the US and USSR spent billions of dollars on developing small nuclear power plants capable of providing propulsion and power for submarines (and other vessels) while not having to rely on a supply of fresh air to run an internal combustion (IC) engine on the submarine.

Batteries simply DO NOT have the kinds of power density needed to provide all-day-long heavy-duty high-power-requirement type work at this time. Perhaps with further developments in battery technology, that will change (and likely will at some point). But for now, for farm equipment required to do massive amounts of work (in watts) for long periods of time, diesel fuel is STILL THE most energy-dense means of storing and delivering energy out there, period.

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

r82230 said:


> Luke, sometimes I can't help myself. so here is a though - what if they only used these tractors on farms that had hills, with the farmstead at the bottom. That way when the tractor 'ran out' of electricity out in the field (on top of the hill), you could coast down hill to recharge. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Go easy, I know you might be on flatter land, but with 10 inches of snow, I could be a little of my rocker today.
> 
> Larry


There's been a number of such proposals, and in fact, much the same thing is being done with "commuter type" stop-n-go electric vehicles today... we call it "regenerative braking". Basically, on "conventional" IC engine powered vehicles, (internal combustion), the engine turns heat from burning fuel into rotary motion in an engine, converts that through various speeds and torques through a transmission supplying a final drive that turns the wheels to propel the vehicle. Part of that energy is "conserved" in the vehicle as "momentum" (inertia), which is why you push the pedal to the floor (well, *I* do) to get the vehicle up to speed (LOL and then back off and hold the pedal a little ways "off idle" to MAINTAIN speed... you only have to keep pouring power into the system to make up for losses in the system through air drag, tire heating, and other forms of friction drag in the powertrain and environment to keep the vehicle going at a steady speed (assuming level ground here). When you step on the brakes, on a CONVENTIONAL vehicle, you turn that STORED MOMENTUM (inertia) into WASTE HEAT which is then dissipated through the brakes into the surrounding environment... ALL that heat ORIGINALLY came from the fuel powering the vehicle-- though it was "stored" as momentum of the mass of the vehicle going "XX" mph down the road.

Now, in some modern electric vehicles, they use a system called "regenerative braking" that instead of using a friction material and spinning disks (wheel rotors) to turn that momentum into waste heat and dissipate it to the environment, it instead turns the powertrain on "backwards" in that the electric motor switches over to being an electric GENERATOR... thus the momentum flows back from the vehicle into the final drives and spins the drive motor against magnetic resistance, and turns the inertia momentum into electrical energy which is forced out of the motor's windings and back through the system into the battery. Similar regenerative braking systems have been proposed for non-battery powered electrical (hybrid) vehicles as well, in that since they get their electrical propulsive power from an IC engine powering an on-board generator/alternator, which then turns electric wheel motors, and since they do NOT have massive on-board batteries to store electrical power generated by regenerative braking systems, they would need an ALTERNATIVE form of storage-- one proposed system would use massive (heavy) flywheels equipped with magnets operating in a vacuum containment vessel (a "can" from which all the air has been pumped out), running on "magnetic frictionless bearings" (or air bearings, which complicates the vacuum part, so they usually propose magnetic bearings). The vacuum canister would be surrounded by windings which would receive the electrical energy from regenerative braking and use that power to speed up the flywheel like an electric motor, storing the energy as "inertia" in the magnetically driven flywheel. The flywheel, spinning in a vacuum with no air drag and no friction drag from the magnetic bearings (well, NEARLY none-- it's never actually "zero") would store this energy until it's needed by the vehicle... at which point, say during acceleration, the external magnetic coils would switch from "motor" mode to "generator" mode and use the magnetic energy of the spinning flywheel to create electricity to feed to the wheel motors, propelling the vehicle forward (assisting anyway), which of course slows down the heavy flywheel until it stops, (or nearly so) at which point all the "momentum" stored in it has been extracted as electrical energy.

Note that this is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the "regenerative braking" as currently used on diesel-electric railroad locomotives, which DO turn the electric drive motors propelling the locomotive into GENERATORS when descending long/steep grades to minimize brake wear and heating, BUT, the difference is that this power created by the electric drive motors in "generator mode" is then EXHAUSTED to the environment through massive electric resistance coils on top of the locomotive cooled by oil, which then gives up the heat to the surrounding air as WASTE HEAT through massive RADIATORS. The power is NOT stored for reuse-- it's simply DUMPED OVERBOARD as waste heat... (using electrical means instead of spinning wheels and friction material (brake shoes on the train).

Now, that's ONE BIG benefit to electrical vehicles operating in hilly terrain-- the possibility of "coasting" downhill and recapturing PART of the energy expended as gravitational energy (being propelled downhill by gravity) and inertia (momentum of the machine)... the trick is regeneratively capturing and STORING that energy in the battery for use when climbing "the next hill".

Even the railroads don't do that, BUT, it IS possible!!! An electric vehicle with batteries for propulsion (or part of it in the case of a battery/engine hybrid vehicle) would be ideally suited to recapture this "lost" energy... In a way it's surprising that the railroads haven't come up with some sort of "battery tenders", railroad cars equipped with massive amounts of batteries to store electrical energy from regenerative braking of trains going downgrade in hilly/mountainous terrain, and then providing that stored electrical energy BACK to the propulsion electric wheel motors on the next upgrade climb, to assist with pulling the train uphill. I'm sure SOME genius engineer has looked at it at some point, and I suppose that IF it were economically advantageous, some railroad or other WOULD be using such a system on its mountain-route locomotives or trains... I guess maybe the cost of modifications to the locomotive for the high-current equipment necessary to send and draw power from a "battery tender" and then the cost of manufacturing such a massive battery-on-wheels as a railroad car, and the extra energy to lug it up and down in the mountains, would make the idea economically "non-viable", which is probably why it isn't done...

Oh well, another idea bites the dust... LOL

Later! OL J R : )


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

CowboyRam said:


> Of course all of those Greenee's want us to use only renewable energy; put windmills and such, but Oh not in my back yard, because they don't want to have to look at them.


EXACTLY...

Then the enviro-whack-jobs start coming out of the woodwork because birds fly into the blades and get killed, destroys migration routes, puts wildlife in danger, etc.... always SOMETHING...

Can't have the cake and eat it too... there will ALWAYS be *some* cost to ANY technology, no matter what it is, and ALWAYS be "the law of unintended consequences"....

Later! OL J R


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Luke,

We used electric hi-lows in the plant for one other reason. No exhaust (plus we had flammable products around). IMHO, electric hi-lows also have a good positive factor and that is the weight of the battery verses having to add weight for a IC powered hi-low. Whereas, out in the farm field that extra weight, could be a huge negative.

But point well explained, even with the car and short trips, the fuel inversion (if ALL costs are included), is most likely worse, than just using gas.

You hit it on the head about our eclectic grid, along with the amount of 'excess' capacity in our present system.

The greenies what the wind, water and solar power, just not in their back yards. Here in my neck of the woods, the local city just took 250 acres of productive farm land and are installing the largest solar farm east of the Mississippi. Now that the town folk can see the solar farm, they are up in arms, because their 'view' is terrible. They all seem to want this stuff in 'some one else's back yard' and not theirs. They seem to miss the point of the efficiencies of producing the power as close as the consumption. But, the city leaders are happy spending the new found rental income.

Goes to my saying "you just can't fix stupid"

Larry


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Yesterday's AgWeb perspective.

Regards, Mike

http://www.agweb.com/article/john-deeres-electric-concept-tractor-sparks-interest-naa-ben-potter/


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

r82230 said:


> Luke,
> 
> We used electric hi-lows in the plant for one other reason. No exhaust (plus we had flammable products around). IMHO, electric hi-lows also have a good positive factor and that is the weight of the battery verses having to add weight for a IC powered hi-low. Whereas, out in the farm field that extra weight, could be a huge negative.
> 
> ...


I think they are making up those stats. I don't know the number status off the top of my head, but near here 100s of acres of solar have been installed this summer. Slightly east of the mighty Mississippi.

https://www.google.com/amp/minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/10/19/north-star-solar-project-north-branch/amp/?client=ms-android-verizo


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I think the watts per m2 numbers mentioned above are wrong, I heat my house part of the winter with passive solar. 6 picture windows, 4x6 ft in dimension facing south on a sunny day produce more heat than my large wood stove burning full tilt. It can be -20 F outside but we have to pull the shades because its approaching 100 F in our not particularly well insulated house.

We originally had 12 windows on the south face of that size and it was unbearable in the winter, temperatures would hit 100 F within a few hours of the sun hitting the windows. We basically had to have them covered always and couldn't look outside. The windows were almost free is why we had so many.

Given this is in the winter when the solar power is its weakest, even with the inefficiencies of PV's the summer sun should be able to power something.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

deadmoose said:


> I think they are making up those stats. I don't know the number status off the top of my head, but near here 100s of acres of solar have been installed this summer. Slightly east of the mighty Mississippi.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/10/19/north-star-solar-project-north-branch/amp/?client=ms-android-verizo


Moose, yep the one you point out is bigger, just goes to show how the politicians / media spit out stuff. The one here is suppose to power 9,000 homes (but then again that is the numbers the politicians / media are spitting out).

http://thecountypress.mihomepaper.com/news/2016-01-24/Marketplace/DTE_Energy_Inovateus_Solar_reps_detail_100M_solar_.html

Then again, maybe the my local government people don't know their whereabouts / geography either. After all I didn't say they were the 'sharpest tacks in the box'. 

Larry


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

A couple being built in my area.I happened to drive by them last fall delivering.Some prime farmland comeing out of production!

http://www.startribune.com/largest-minnesota-solar-array-wins-approval-from-utility-regulators/365982891/

http://www.marshallsolarproject.com/about.html

Marshall is about 50 miles from me.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

r82230 said:


> Luke,
> 
> We used electric hi-lows in the plant for one other reason. No exhaust (plus we had flammable products around). IMHO, electric hi-lows also have a good positive factor and that is the weight of the battery verses having to add weight for a IC powered hi-low. Whereas, out in the farm field that extra weight, could be a huge negative.
> 
> ...


Yep... lotta "stupid" to go around, especially nowdays...

I think solar and wind and all this other stuff has it's place... solar on every rooftop makes a LOT of sense to me... making these big "solar farms" out of productive farmland seems incredibly stupid to me. We're slowly drowning in citiots moving in around our farm, which has been in our family for 114 years... but I can see the handwriting on the wall and don't plan to be around here "for the long haul". This USED to be a fairly nice place to live (other than the town being run by a 'good old boy network' of idgits) but now that we're neck deep in citiots... LOL If you didn't laugh you'd cry. Thing is, they've turned some of THE best farmland in the region into subdivisions and strip malls... all under concrete now. The rest is being divvied up into farmettes like the new neighbor's "Rancho Troaz" across the road... A five acre "ranch" with a fancy stone and steel arch entryway with lights and crap-- light pollution out the gazoo-- place is lit up like a friggin prison yard over there... (first thing these citiots do is put up enough stinking sodium lights so it's brighter than daylight around them all night-- I HATE those stinking things-- just light pollution and a waste of energy. Heck you can walk on the rooftops from the other side of town to downtown Houston now without a foot touching the ground-- WHY NOT put solar on all those rooftops? But no, IF they built solar out here, they'd take over some farmland to do it...

There's been a LOT of "better ideas", most of which never come to ANY fruition, or if they do, they're TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what the early proponents were proposing... Remember all the hoopla about "biofuels"?? Course we're STILL immersed in that one, though the shine has started to come off the corn-based ethanol to some extent, but "institutional inertia" is still carrying it along quite nicely, for the time being. I can remember a number of years ago when that ball was just getting rolling well talking to people who were saying "we should replace ALL our gasoline with grain-based ethanol... then we wouldn't have to import Middle Eastern oil". Of course they didn't realize (and some still don't) that to produce a gallon of ethanol (energy equivalent) takes 4-5 gallons of oil (energy equivalent) by the time you figure up all the fuel energy it takes to do the work and create the materials necessary to prepare a seedbed, plant, spray, harvest, dry, transport, process, distill, dry the grain remnants, and transport and deliver for use the ethanol produced... I'd point out that we'd have to import FIVE TIMES as much foreign oil to grow and produce enough ethanol to replace ALL our current motor fuel use of foreign oil we presently import, and their eyes would just glaze over with this dumb look stuck on their face...

Oh well... "back to the old drawing board"... LOL






OL J R


----------



## Three44s (May 21, 2016)

I can see small utility jobs being done by battery/electric but a 400 HP tractor plowing is beyond the pale of common sense.

As many have noted, the grid and generating capacity on hand are the first stumbling blocks.

You gotta generate it before you can charge it and that also includes transporting it to it's end use.

On site generation by "clean" means is absurd .......... wind is too fickle and solar is both too costly and it would take three farms' space to be able to charge one tractor to farm the area of one!

To generate even a modicum of juice for such an enterprise you'd be left with more conventional sources of power ........ and by the standards envisioned, you'd generate pollution just as if you'd just run grampa's dumb 'ole tractor in the first place!

So it gets back to smaller utility type jobs ......... the future is in robotics as various levels ........ and I can see where electric motors would be more adaptable then internal combustion engines.

That's my take on it anyway.

Three 44s


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Vol said:


> Yesterday's AgWeb perspective.
> 
> Regards, Mike
> 
> http://www.agweb.com/article/john-deeres-electric-concept-tractor-sparks-interest-naa-ben-potter/


LOL that's funny...

"Back to the old drawing board" indeed...

This quote jumped out at me... "When the tractor is stationary, there is no energy loss," according to the press release. "It produces no emissions and virtually no noise. Currently, a full battery charge can work about four hours in normal use or drive around 55 km on the road. The charging time for it approaches three hours. The lifespan of the battery is approximately 2,100 charge cycles."

Um-kay... lets look at this using their own "figures". There's "no energy loss" when an IC powered (internal combustion) tractor is stationary EITHER, IF the engine is shut down (no emissions either). In actuality, there IS a negligible but nevertheless REAL energy loss when the electric tractor is shut down, because OVER TIME the batteries WILL naturally deplete and "go dead" if not continuously charged and "topped up" by the charger. The same argument can be said of IC engine tractors because their starter batteries will go dead over time if not maintained, but since they're not the PRIMARY source of power to operate, but only to start the IC engine, it's apples to oranges... the closest comparison would be fuel evaporating from the fuel tank, which is basically what's happening as an electric vehicle's batteries naturally discharge over time without recharging... I haven't seen much diesel evaporating out of modern IC engine tractor fuel tanks, have you? Even most older Farmalls and stuff had fuel tank caps sufficient to prevent undue evaporation of the gasoline from the tanks... but batteries WILL go dead over time, regardless. An IC engine makes no noise and no emissions when shut down, either. So basically this argument is a straw-man "wash" at best... Now if you IDLE the tractor for long periods to keep the cab warm/cold, yeah an IC engine will produce emissions and use energy, but then the electric tractor would use energy AS WELL to keep the cab AC going or heater going.

Now the interesting part... "Currently, a full battery charge can work about four hours in normal use or drive around 55 km on the road." LOL How many guys work their tractor FOUR HOURS a day in 'normal use' (normal to WHOM-- normal "plowing", normal "disking", normal "shredding", or normal "spraying, spreading, or planting" or normal "moving bales around" or other light duty work? Without the definition of "normal" use, it's a pretty worthless statement!) Oh, but it CAN drive about 55 km on the road... okay, that's a tiny bit over 34 miles... SO, IF you have to work a farm 17 miles away, you'll only have 50% battery power left when you get there! Better have electric service there and a charger, or else start back as soon as you get there, because otherwise you won't have enough power to get back! Just for S&G's, here's a comparison of ranges of the US-available fully-electric vehicles on the market when this was written... http://evobsession.com/electric-car-range-comparison/It'll give you an idea of the ratio between energy density and availability of on-board stored energy in the batteries vs. the weight and resistance of the vehicle (efficiency) of converting that stored energy into distance traveled for the vehicle and occupants.

Then there's THIS little tidbit... "The charging time for it approaches three hours." Again, what does "approaches" mean?? Does it mean "2.75 hours" or does it mean "3.25 hours"... Okay, knowing how these PR people phrase things, if it were LESS than 3 hours they'd be shouting it from the rooftops... "approaching 3 hours" almost certainly means "well, it's actually MORE than 3 hours, BUT it's "close enough to 'call it' "almost" 3 hours... so we'll say "approaching 3 hours". Wow... giving them the benefit of the doubt, that's 3 hours of charging to every 4 hours of use... a 75% 'duty cycle'... SO, you work 4 hours, charge it for 3 hours, then work another 4 hours... then go home for the night and plug it in to recharge overnight for the next morning's work... but your 8 hour work day has now taken 11 hours to complete... Gonna take a LONG TIME to get the work done when you can only do, realistically, 8 hours of work a day with the tractor in an 11-12 hour workday... Might as well figure 12 hours, because it'll take time to drive back from the field to the charging station (presumably on-site) and get everything set up and plugged in and in "charging mode", and then unplug and get "field ready" and drive back to the field when it's charged up and ready to go back to work... a diesel IC powered tractor, OTOH, you can figure maybe an HOUR to refuel at some point in the day, IF NECESSARY, so you're getting say 11 hours of work in a 12 hour workday, figuring stopping once in awhile to pee, grab a sandwich, and maybe diesel up if needed. I guess a 3 hour "siesta" waiting for the batteries to recharge would be nice... go back to the house, get a HOT lunch, sit in the recliner, and watch some episodes of "Adam-12" and "The Rockford Files" on MeTV, have a little nap, and go back to the field at 3pm... could be nice! (but doesn't pay the bills or beat the next rain!)

Then, to top it ALL OFF, there's this jewel, which is the REAL kicker-- "The lifespan of the battery is approximately 2,100 charge cycles." Awrightythen... sounds great, right?? Lets put that into perspective... We already figured to get 8 hours of work a day out of the tractor requires TWO 3 hour charge cycles... one in the middle of the day when it goes dead around lunchtime, another when you finish up at about 8 pm when the battery is flat again and you plug it in for the night and go home. SO, with a battery "lifetime" of 2,100 charge cycles and an 8 hour workday out of the tractor, that's 1,050 eight-hour workdays out of the tractor before the batteries are TOAST. Assuming the tractor is used DAILY for 8 hours a day, that's only 2.87 years of use before the batteries are smoked. Let's say you don't work Sundays, that's 52 days off of 365, that's about 3.3 years of battery life. If you use it say only ONE 4 hour shift per day, that'd be about 6.5 years or so of battery life, never working on Sundays.

Okay, so someone will say "yeah, but we never run our tractors THAT much... in actuality there's periods of days or even weeks when it sits in the barn and doesn't do ANYTHING, interspersed with periods of working long, hard hours when "the clinch is on" and there's planting, harvesting, baling, etc. to do..." Okay, I can buy that... BUT-- HOW many of us have rechargeable batteries that STILL work reliably and well that are over 6 years old?? "Not many" comes to mind. Rechargeable batteries die not only from use, but from OLD AGE. The older they get, the more they're used, the less charge they seem to be able to take and hold, and the less power they seem to be able to produce before needing charged AGAIN... so over time, the performance deteriorates... What do you do when your 4 hour "normal work period" on a charge dwindles to 3 hours or 2.5 hours and the tractor suddenly "goes dead" in the middle of the field because the batteries are getting old or worn out?

Okay, so let's give the benefit of the doubt-- let's say they hold up pretty well and their performance doesn't taper off too badly with age... let's say, for instance, they last 8-10 years, because the tractor isn't being used really hard every day, sits in the barn for weeks at a time on charge to keep the batteries fresh and full, etc. So, HOW MUCH is a new set of these batteries going to cost to fix the tractor when the inevitable day comes when the "magic smoke" comes out of them or they just up and die and "no workee no more"... That of course isn't something they're keen to discuss, but it can be said WITH CERTAINTY "a LOT"... Folks who've found their Tesla car's batteries up and died and wouldn't take a charge, requiring replacement, typically have costs of up to about $40,000 quoted for replacement batteries... AND, given the size, shape, and work that a TRACTOR is expected to do (and the WEIGHT) compared to an over-the-road passenger vehicle like a Tesla CAR, it's probably not out of line to think that it might have batteries 2-3 times larger than the typical Tesla car battery pack... so for purposes of comparison, replacing 3 Tesla batteries COULD cost up to $120,000... BUT, again, let's give the benefit of the doubt-- let's say it's just $40,000 to replace the battery packs after 10 years of use... How does that compare to a complete overhaul on an IC engine tractor?? How much is the lifespan of a PROPERLY MAINTAINED IC ENGINE compared to the battery packs, and how much would an overhaul cost versus the battery packs? What if the battery packs DO croak after about 6 years instead of 8 or 10, how do the maintenance costs compare THEN?? What if the tractor is used daily in hard service and they only last 2-3 years like we calculated earlier??

Clearly there's some issues to deal with... it's a good idea, IN THEORY, but the reality is often very different and takes a lot of the shine off it. Would it be a great niche product?? SURE! For a tractor that never leaves the home farm or only goes "just up the road a piece" to a nearby worksite, only occasionally does any HARD work for a few hours at a time, works daily or a few days a week or sporadically doing fairly light chores for short periods of time, or where the work rarely exceeds the 4 hours of work time the batteries can provide and the 3 hour charging period isn't an issue, SURE! BUT, WHO is going to spend what this thing will INEVITABLY end up costing (what's a fair bet?? $500,000?? Nothing has been mentioned that I've seen, but given the prices of fully electric cars and "conventional" IC tractors, that's probably not far off the mark) to do that sort of work?? Most guys shelling out THAT kind of money are BTO's that are running the tractors 12-14 hours a day for weeks or months on end-- basically wear them out in a year or two, and replace them. WHICH of them are going to be willing to shell out that kind of money on a tractor that can't go more than 34 miles without needing a 3 hour recharge (and some BTO's are farming ground further than 34 miles away, in which case this thing would have to be HAULED between farms, presumably on a semi) and which cannot work but for "about 4 hours of normal work" before having to park for 3 hours or so to recharge?? (You can be sure that "normal work" isn't pulling a disk chisel... LOL WHICH BTO will be satisfied with a half-million dollar-ish tractor that they can't get more than 75% of the work out of in a day compared to an IC engine tractor that probably costs comparable or LESS money??

Oh, I bet it'll be a big seller on university ag research farms, maybe some niche operators for whom it's a good fit, or "going green" is the main selling point, regardless of cost... but for the 'rank and file' farmer-- not so much.

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Three44s said:


> I can see small utility jobs being done by battery/electric but a 400 HP tractor plowing is beyond the pale of common sense.
> 
> As many have noted, the grid and generating capacity on hand are the first stumbling blocks.
> 
> ...


Yep... the energy has to come from SOMEWHERE... Solar, wind, etc require about AT LEAST 3 times the generating capacity required to make up for 'slack times' when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining and you STILL need the power... that's the kicker with both of them. You have to STORE power for the slack times by generating extra during the 'good times' when the sun or wind are working full tilt.

Of course "on the grid" MOST of the power is coming from power plants... fueled by "whatever", be it oil, coal, nuclear, or natural gas, by whatever "cycle" or means-- oil, coal, or gas burners boiling water to power steam turbines, nuclear boiling water in the secondary loop to power steam turbines, or natural gas burning directly to power gas turbine generators without the steam loop... Either way, fuel is being burned and energy AND WASTE are being produced, and it has to go SOMEWHERE... and as I previously mentioned, EVERY TIME energy is converted from one from to another, there IS ALWAYS SOME LEVEL OF LOSS, due to INEVITABLE INEFFICIENCY in the transformation process... and that compounds, like bank interest, so the more times the energy is "converted" through the number of steps from the production to end use, THE MORE IS WASTED. That's why except in instances of GROSS inefficiency, it's generally most efficient to burn the fuel to produce the power as close to the end use of it AS POSSIBLE. IOW, by the time you figure up all the ADDITIONAL POWER needed to replace the LOSSES in transforming the power from one form to another through the additional steps required to burn fuel in a distant power plant and deliver it as tractive effort to do work on a distant farm field via electric tractor, it's probably going to be MORE EFFICIENT to just burn it in Grandpa's old IC tractor in the first place and skip all the additional crap...

Later! OL J R


----------

