Indian scientist invents bloom box for electricity production
in [Physics]
|
From: Dean Hoffman on 27 Feb 2010 18:15 On Feb 26, 7:46 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > It is economically more benficial to use the land in question for the > production of ethanol than to use it for the production of food crops. > It is entirely possible to grow corn in Death Valley. But it is > economically stupid. I'm not too sure about raising corn in Death Valley. The extreme heat would mess up the pollination even if it was heavily irrigated. We had a really hot dry year here in Nebraska one particular year. The crop consultants were claiming that the corn could literally be standing in water but couldn't take up moisture fast enough. It's an article of faith here that corn processed for ethanol loses none of its feed value for cattle. That's probably the most common use for field corn. > > -- > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Michael Coburn on 28 Feb 2010 15:14 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:56:15 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:53:48 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> On 2/26/2010 8:46 PM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:22:25 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2/26/2010 10:49 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:19:13 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/26/2010 1:32 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:36:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2010 1:01 AM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:41:19 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2010 4:41 PM, Michael Coburn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:38:51 -0800, Benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 4:09 am, "Cwatters" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From what I can tell it's "just" a fuel cell. No >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google are interested so they can run it off biofuel. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Electricity from food. Burning food for energy has >>>>>>>>>>>>> already begun to work out real well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Typical oil company shill response. There are a lot more >>>>>>>>>>>> biofuel efforts that use non food resources these days. Corn >>>>>>>>>>>> was a disaster and it is the gift that keeps on giving for >>>>>>>>>>>> the oil company shills. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So how much of this biofuel comes from non-cropland resources? >>>>>>>>>>> That's the issue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the case of switchgrass and woodchips and algae there is no >>>>>>>>>> use of "cropland". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So where do the switchgrass and wood chips and algae come from? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From land that cannot grow food crops economically. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And yet it can grow switchgrass. Hint--if it's a grass it grows >>>>>>> in the same kind of conditions as other grasses, and "other >>>>>>> grasses" includes wheat and corn. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> I see. So show us switchgrass growing in a place where wheat or >>>>> corn won't grow. >>>> >>>> It is obviously more economically beneficial to grow the switchgrass >>>> or it would not be the crop of choice. You lose. >>> >>> In other words you know of no such place. >> >> I just gave you the "place", lying pig. >> >> Actually, the use of the land surrounding the Sea of Cortes for the >> purpose of algae farms is a very good example. You will not be using >> that land to grow any food crop because there is not enough fresh >> water. The algae biofuels produced in that area would come on line at >> $10 a gallon. But there is no way in hell you could economically raise >> food crops there. > > I notice you switched the subject from switchgrass. > > Nice red herring. The subject was always economics and the lying and stupidity of Clark. As posted by Dean Hoffman, corn needs a lot of water and it also requires planting each and every crop. Switchgrass can be mowed year after year, requires little water, resistant to bugs, and thus consumes far less energy in production. But if you can raise corn as opposed to switchgrass without irrigation then you can net a lot more money. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: jimp on 28 Feb 2010 18:16 Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:56:15 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>> Actually, the use of the land surrounding the Sea of Cortes for the >>> purpose of algae farms is a very good example. You will not be using >>> that land to grow any food crop because there is not enough fresh >>> water. The algae biofuels produced in that area would come on line at >>> $10 a gallon. But there is no way in hell you could economically raise >>> food crops there. >> >> I notice you switched the subject from switchgrass. >> >> Nice red herring. > > The subject was always economics and the lying and stupidity of Clark. No, the subject was the use of "crop-land" for growing fuel. Algae has nothing to do with "crop-land". > As posted by Dean Hoffman, corn needs a lot of water and it also requires > planting each and every crop. Switchgrass can be mowed year after year, > requires little water, resistant to bugs, and thus consumes far less > energy in production. But if you can raise corn as opposed to > switchgrass without irrigation then you can net a lot more money. And corn isn't the only "crop" that is grown on "crop-land". If you are so concerned about honesty, at least compare switchgrass with a similar grass crop. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Brad Guth on 2 Mar 2010 19:34
On Feb 22, 1:42 pm, hab...(a)anony.net wrote: > videohttp://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=125809&provider=top > > http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=125809&provider=top > > One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 > percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 > percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other > words: the price is cut in half. > > "We have FedEx, we have Walmart," Sridhar explained. > > He told Stahl the first customer was Google. > > Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They > use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a > traditional power plant. > > Sridhar told Stahl that three weeks in at Google, suddenly one of the > boxes just stopped. > > Asked if he panicked, he told Stahl, "For a short while... yes." > > He fixed that; then there was another incident. "The air filters clog > up and air is not coming into the system because the highway is > kicking dirt. You just flip the system around, and the problem is > gone," he explained. > > Another company that has bought and is testing theBloombox so > Sridhar can work out the kinks is eBay. Its boxes are on the lawn in > the middle of its campus in San Jose. > > John Donahoe, eBay's CEO, says its five boxes were installed nine > months ago and have already saved the company more than $100,000 in > electricity costs. > > But not everyone is convinced that even if the technology works,Bloom > - that now makes one box a day - will ever be able to be as big as its > backers say. > > "Going from a few to mass-manufacturing's going to be tough. And then > making them so people won't run away at the price tag. It needs to be > cheaper than solar. It needs to be cheaper than wind," GreenTech > Media's Michael Kanellos told Stahl. > > "What if he can get the price way down? He claims he can," she asked. > > "And if he can, the problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other > conglomerates probably can do the same thing. They have fuel cell > patents; they have research teams that have looked at this," Kanellos > replied. > > "What do you think the chances are that in ten-plus years you and I > will each have aBloombox in our basements?" Stahl asked. > > "Twenty percent," Kanellos replied. "But it's going to say 'G.E.'" As oil runs nearly out and/or gets so spendy that alternatives need to be taken seriously, perhaps even Steven Chi would have to agree with Bloom Box Energy that needs to become widespread enough that its capability and capacity to convert natural gas into electrons on demand isnt underestimated. I'm certain that such Bloom energy as derived from natural gas does work, although it's spendier than what we're being informed of. I'm thinking the initial energy cost of $0.22 < 0.25/kwhr once everything is taken into account, and then we prey the cost per therm doesn't skyrocket, such as in the winter when demand is greatest.. As a reliable and clean UPS alternative that'll cost loads to buy, install and maintain, perhaps $0.25/kwhr isn't half bad, and especially good news if the CO2 per KW is half that of what an internal combustion engine represents. Here's my revised estimate: I'd believe its more like at least $36,000 for a 24 kw Bloom unit ($1500/kw), and by then the price per natural gas therm at perhaps twice whatever it's currently running seems likely. The retrofit cost of getting a commercial grade of NG into an average residence is by itself worth tens of thousands of dollars (figure another $50,000 if that NG utility upgrade includes their HVAC and all major appliances), as well as something for multiplying those number of residential fires, explosions and CO2 caused deaths from this increased NG infrastructure and usage should be fairly obvious. Of course you may require up to half of that 24 kw Bloom Box energy just to recharge your $50,000 all electric cars (at least two per residence at perhaps 32 kwhr each) that'll each also require a new spendy battery at least every three years. The average mid/upper-class residential NG consumption of 1200 therms/ year should w/Bloom in place of whatever electric utility from the local grid, might go upwards towards 12,000 therms/year, and at $3/ therm that's going to hurt a little, not to mention those having to pay $4/therm (only the lucky ones will ever get to pay $2/therm). You dont seriously think those future natural gas prices and their soon to be applied energy taxes are ever going to fall from here on out, do you? The natural gas utility as a mandatory community infrastructure and subsequent property assessment where I live could easily exceed $50,000 all by itself, and that's not even including getting that NG into my home. In most places current provided with piped in NG, at times theres not sufficient capacity as is w/o Bloom Boxes, so were talking about a nation-wide upgrade in that volumetric supply of methane and a verity of other elements, none of which are environmentally friendly. What's the annual maintenance cost on a 24 KW (100 amp at 240 VAC) Bloom Box? If theres any spendy batteries involved (especially on these 12 KW or lower capacity units), how much are those going to cost/year to maintain? Rental homes or condos will be lucky if such equipment (at 900 kg/kw) isnt often taken for its scrap alloy and black market value. So, perhaps wed need to include a substantial vault or secure jail as part of its installation. If we believe Blooms 60% conversion efficiency, this should give 17.5 kwhr per therm. If the cost per NG therm can be kept or market forced to stay at or below $1 would suggest $0.057/kwhr (not including the added investments and servicing necessary), whereas all-inclusive other cost of perhaps adding another ten cents per kwhr makes the Bloom energy gross out at $0.16/kwhr as based upon $1/therm thats highly unlikely, whereas $2/therm is more likely and will make that energy worth $0.22/kwhr. Refrigeration and HVAC cooling via absorption is simply not terribly energy efficient, as well as the equipment always has to be much bulkier and at least half again as spendy. One method of using a small internal combustion engine driven compressor and heat exchanging blower that might reach 25% efficiency has yet to be commercially developed for residential needs. So this means that conventional electric driven HVAC has to remain pretty much as is, not that heat recovery from a Bloom Box couldnt be taken for granted as part of that HVAC while utilized for heating. Bloom Box energy seems perfectly ideal for the rich and powerful (especially since theyre the only ones where those tax credits apply), or for those corporate and government usage where its all- inclusive investment and operational cost are seldom if ever considerations, but otherwise Bloom is not so great for most of us. Perhaps this is where William Mook's green H2 consumption is a whole lot better idea, or at least as a 25/75 blend of H2/NG, whereas <12 KW Bloom units could manage on the existing NG distribution capacity thats provided to residential clients if fewer than half the homes per community are taking their share in order to function off-grid. Perhaps even better yet would be having community substation installations of five 100 KW Bloom Boxes that could help offset the grid demand during peak hours, paid for by a 10% increase in their existing rate, as otherwise everyone (especially commercial and industrial) needs to use less energy. Oil and natural gas will probably never run entirely out, although its getting spendy and/or supply limited is unavoidable. So we simply have to make do with the most efficient usage and continually pay more than its worth, so that the trillionaires in charge dont cut us off. The future of paying more and getting less shouldnt be an surprise to those of us that realize what our governments and their special-interest groups have been doing to us. Individuals like William Mook have other viable alternatives, but they lack the global energy status to make any significant dent in what we get to pay. Even Steven Chu is unable to get his ball rolling on geothermal and thorium alternatives, as well as wind and solar unlikely to reach 10% market share by the end of this century, and Mook Energy at perhaps 0.1% because of what pressure Big Energy can have over government and local policy. ~ BG |