[PUP] PPM Electrical generation & storage

[Ross Anderson]

Following up on Arild's comments, I used Gell type on the old 10&2 and
got 9 years out of them and only changed them because I was planning a
trip around the Horn and didn't want to get stranded in the
puckerbrush.Now use ADM type and so far they seem fine. I do not
profess to know the technical issues involved but found the Gell's and
ADM's answer my needs. God Bless - Ross

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:09 PM,  <2elnav at netbistro.com> wrote:
>> Gentlemen, can we carry on with the PPM discussion, please?
>> John "Seahorse"
>>
>>
>>
>> I still love the PPM discussion, too. Here's a potentially arousing
>> thread:
>> How are we going to generate and store electrical power on the PPM?
>
>> In the past, Arild has advocated (persuasively, to me) using a DC genset
>> and maybe making that big enough to serve as a good wing engine.
>> That advice seems even more persuasive when we consider that new Thin
> Plate > Pure Lead ("TPPL") battery technology claims to be able to
> charge the
>> battery with considerably more speed than an ordinary AGM unit.
>> A good starter question then, might be: how fast can a big TPPL bank be
>> charged from how deep a discharge? And does the answer to that mean we
>> could have some truly BIG alternators on that wing engine to do the job?
>> Regards, Bob Frenier
>
>
> REPLY
> If I might add a little something to the discussion. The cost of lead has
> escalated in recent times. In addition, light weight has proven to be a
> desirable aspect of cruising boat design. Especially in power cats but
> also in other boats.
> It begs the question; does it really make sense to lug around a ton or two
> of lead batteries in order to never go below about 25% depth of discharge?
> So far conventional wisdom has suggested that avoiding severe depth of
> discharge promotes long life in the house batteries. By doing this we end
> up buying a huge bank of lead acid batteries, suffer the penalty of
> powering this large mass around with our propulsion engine and on occasion
>  suffering a premature failure due to some miscalculation or other or
> omission in maintenance.
>
> Have we reached a point where the cost involved means it is cheaper to go
> for deeper depth of discharge and live with only four years of battery
> life but save on fuel burn by reducing the run time on the genset. And
> since each change out of the battery bank involves less mass it cost
> correspondingly less.
> I'm thinking  we need to consider total life cycle costs over five years
> or more rather than just the initial cost of acquisition.
>
> regards
> Arild
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
>
> To unsubscribe send email to
> passagemaking-under-power-request at lists.samurai.com with the word
> UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
>
> Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.