The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Sep 2007 13:16 BradGuth wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > > > OK, refresh my memory: if we convert aluminum oxide to metallic > > aluminum by electrolytic smelting, and convert the aluminum back to > > electricity in a Al-H2O2 battery, what's the net efficiency? > > What does it matter, if the original resource of those electrons came > from a 100% renewable and squeaky clean resource? Aluminium smelting ISN'T squeaky clean however. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Sep 2007 13:17 BradGuth wrote: > Isn't 10% of something that's clean and renewable better off than 100% > of what's further pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth > that's anything but renewable? Meaningless MORONIC mumbo-jumbo. Graham
From: BradGuth on 24 Sep 2007 14:29 On Sep 24, 10:05 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > >BradGuthwrote: > > > >> Wild idea breakthroughs are a staple around here. The burden of proof > > >> is on the presenter, to explain why it might work and then to explain > > >> why it isn't already being done. Sorry, conspiracy theories are not > > >> accepted. > > > >I've posted such numbers dozens of times, and your PC or MAC can > > >otherwise search for and thus uncover all the fancy numbers you'd care > > >to review. However, from time to time I'll edit and thereby revise > > >upon a given application. > > > OK, refresh my memory: if we convert aluminum oxide to metallic > > aluminum by electrolytic smelting, and convert the aluminum back to > > electricity in a Al-H2O2 battery, what's the net efficiency? > > Brad Gruth doesn't care about efficiency. In his world there will be limitless > FREE solar power to do this. I guess you know lots more than most of us village idiots, as to where that 64,000+ teraWatts of solar energy is going, along with the 7.2e20 kw that's continually existing somewhere between us and our moon, not to mention terrestrial wind that's seriously kicking our AGW butts, plus tidal flows and geothermal energy that's clearly for the taking by those half as smart as Warren Buffett, and that's only demanding that you be 1% as smart as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). Are you saying thar Eeyore and company isn't 1% as smart as GW Bush? > > At which point of course he simply shows himself to be a clueless IDIOT. At least the mindset of this supposed "clueless IDIOT" hasn't imposed or otherwise caused any collateral damage or carnage of the innocent. How about your energy sucking and global polluting self? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 24 Sep 2007 14:46 On Sep 24, 10:16 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > John Larkin wrote: > > > > OK, refresh my memory: if we convert aluminum oxide to metallic > > > aluminum by electrolytic smelting, and convert the aluminum back to > > > electricity in a Al-H2O2 battery, what's the net efficiency? > > > What does it matter, if the original resource of those electrons came > > from a 100% renewable and squeaky clean resource? > > Aluminium smelting ISN'T squeaky clean however. There's no such thing as any ideal or safe energy, as even hydroelectric dams and soon enough He3 fusion has it's negatives of environment impacting considerations, similar to the nuclear option that's rather chuck full of somewhat testy negatives once the all- inclusive and full birth-to-grave aspects are taken fully into account, though still much better off than burning coal that's about as dark-age pathetic derived energy with horrific consequences as it gets. On a scale of 1-10, h2o2/aluminum and h2o2/fossil are each right up there as being one of the good guys, especially once most of the required energy for producing and/or processing either of those items into consumer energy products is derived freom the 100% renewable technology of energy that's squeaky clean as can be accomplished without our having to cause such collateral damage or kill off more of those innocent folks in the process. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 24 Sep 2007 14:49
On Sep 24, 11:26 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > In any case your 'numbers' must be wrong. It barely requires high-school grade maths to show > > > that your ideas are completely INSANE. > > > > The most important fact is that H2O2 doesn't improve 'mpg'. In fact (taking the total energy > > > burden of manufacturing it) it degrades it. > > > Your insurmountable naysayism is noted. > > What I have stated are insurmountable FACTS ! Your "insurmountable FACTS" are fully supported by your ExxonMobil partners in crimes against humanity, and they do very much thank you from the very bottoms of their little sooty black hearts. - Brad Guth - |