The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 1 Oct 2007 19:19 On Sep 30, 11:20 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > > Where? Oh, you must be seeing things again. In any event, anyone > who knows chemistry can figure out the above fact. I'm still curious > as to how you get 40 kW/m^3 from variants of solar energy. A 100~125 meter tall tower will take up roughly 100 m2 worth of surface footprint at it's base, that which can't easily be utilized for all that much other than a fluid storage tank or perhaps on behalf whatever fluid processing that could rather easily be contained within the somewhat less than 100 m2 interior. However, on top of this sucker is a good 3.5~4.5 MW wind turbine, and well enough below the blade sweep is a very large DVD like disk of those 25% efficient PV cells (we're talking better than twice that amount if using William Mook's multi-band and special lens enhanced PV cells) that'll track sunrise to sunset, as well enough elevated above the local terrain and whatever trees so that full solar benefit is easily maintained. Of course, further below the 8000 m2 PV disk or array of solar energy collection that'll more than added those daytime 500 kw is either common/public open space that's usable as is, as well as capable of accommodating whatever multi-(<3)-story light commercial structures or perfectly safe habitats for us humans that can't seem to ever get enough energy to badly waste. Of course the tower portion above the large primary disk/array of PV cells can itself be covered in those conventional PVs of 25% efficiency, as quite possibly contributing yet another 100 kw by day without measurably degrading the huge wind turbine aspects of this tower that's likely made in China. Thus far that's capable of off-the-shelf averaging more than 4 MW per 100 m2 of a given tower's surface footprint (there's a little more that's underground, but that doesn't count because it's out of sight and doesn't detract from land usage), just like I've told each of those other "The Ghost In The Machine" individuals before. Of course not every location on Earth is best suited for extracting wind energy, but most places suited for wind farming or those of individual private installation sites are typically also good solar PV sites. So, all and all it's offering a clean and renewable win-win that's good for safely delivering 40 kw/m2. Like I'd asked before; how many spare/surplus teraWatts of clean energy would you folks like Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself to deliver? One million towers and we're speaking of 4 squeaky clean teraWatts. 1e6 towers X $1e7 each is merely $1e13 of our hard earned loot as wisely spent over as little as a decade, would have cost us far less than our 9/11 fiasco, and we'd all be clean energy set for life. I'd call this one an all out war on behalf of extracting clean energy, except there wouldn't be any spendy shock and awe of collateral damage and such massive carnage of the innocent. Perhaps fewer towers and more of tidal and geothermal derived energy might become the compromise, of having merely 100,000 such towers, and the rest of the clean/renewable energy pie coming in from those tidal and geothermal considerations, plus watever hydroelectric and nuclear we can mange without causing ourselves more harm than good. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 1 Oct 2007 19:22 On Sep 30, 6:20 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...(a)uniserve.com> wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:470046B1.1046610C(a)hotmail.com... > > > BradGuth wrote: > > >> > Please tell us all, in every excruciating detail just how you manage > >> > to live without any neurons. > > >> Now you're being that of a silly jewboy, arnt you. > > > Your racist obsession makes you look exceedingly stupid. > > Belief that "evil jews control the world" is very common in schizophrenia. > > Don't forget Guth's Venus illusions:http://www.crank.net/space.html Thanks for the Venus plug. How about the other (we didn't walk on the moon) plug? or how about plugging my LSE-CM/ISS or just Venus L2 POOF City? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 1 Oct 2007 19:33 On Oct 1, 3:05 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > Your racist obsession makes you look exceedingly stupid. > > > And the lack of truth makes you and others of your kind look how? > > You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you round the face. You're living in a > world of fantasy ideas. Interesting that you folks consider the regular laws of physics and the best available science as a "world of fantasy ideas". Is that what yout think of Einstein or the likes of Warren Buffett? Why are you silly Yids so deathly afraid of what other Yids invented and/or improved upon in the first place? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 1 Oct 2007 19:38 On Oct 1, 9:30 am, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > BradGuth raved: > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 3:32 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> > > wrote: > > >>"BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>Why bother with h2o2? Straight O2 would result in even higher temperatures. > > > LO2 or LOX is a wee bit spendy/tough to store in sufficient volume and/ > > or for any extended time, whereas a composite reinforced storage tank > > of high-test h2o2 is good for at least a month at a time without > > losing 10% of its poop (possibly as little as -5%/month). > > > - Brad Guth - > > LMAO! Braddie thinks LOX is hard to store, when he is talking about > high-purity H2O2! At least LOX doesn't spontaneously decompose if you > get a speck of dust in it! ;-) NO, instead LOx makes most everything extremely testy and very explosive worthy, as otherwise being a very use it or lose it kind of fluid. It's sort of why LOx is so often used for rocket fuel. - Brad Guth -
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 1 Oct 2007 23:25
In sci.physics, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0700 <1191280799.545597.239290(a)n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: > On Sep 30, 11:20 pm, The Ghost In The Machine > <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> >> Where? Oh, you must be seeing things again. In any event, anyone >> who knows chemistry can figure out the above fact. I'm still curious >> as to how you get 40 kW/m^3 from variants of solar energy. > > A 100~125 meter tall tower will take up roughly 100 m2 worth of > surface footprint at it's base, that which can't easily be utilized > for all that much other than a fluid storage tank or perhaps on behalf > whatever fluid processing that could rather easily be contained within > the somewhat less than 100 m2 interior. However, on top of this > sucker is a good 3.5~4.5 MW wind turbine, and well enough below the > blade sweep is a very large DVD like disk of those 25% efficient PV > cells (we're talking better than twice that amount if using William > Mook's multi-band and special lens enhanced PV cells) that'll track > sunrise to sunset, as well enough elevated above the local terrain and > whatever trees so that full solar benefit is easily maintained. The only problem is that those solar cells cast a shadow. Is there anything nearby? Oh, another tower? Won't do that other tower much good, will it? Oops. > > Of course, further below the 8000 m2 PV disk or array of solar energy > collection that'll more than added those daytime 500 kw is either > common/public open space that's usable as is, If one likes shade. > as well as capable of > accommodating whatever multi-(<3)-story light commercial structures or > perfectly safe habitats for us humans that can't seem to ever get > enough energy to badly waste. > > Of course the tower portion above the large primary disk/array of PV > cells can itself be covered in those conventional PVs of 25% > efficiency, as quite possibly contributing yet another 100 kw by day > without measurably degrading the huge wind turbine aspects of this > tower that's likely made in China. > > Thus far that's capable of off-the-shelf averaging more than 4 MW per > 100 m2 of a given tower's surface footprint (there's a little more > that's underground, but that doesn't count because it's out of sight > and doesn't detract from land usage), just like I've told each of > those other "The Ghost In The Machine" individuals before. There's only one, numbnutz. Unless you want to claim I have multiple personalities. (Maybe I do. Depends on my mood. You can't tell.) > > Of course not every location on Earth is best suited for extracting > wind energy, but most places suited for wind farming or those of > individual private installation sites are typically also good solar PV > sites. So, all and all it's offering a clean and renewable win-win > that's good for safely delivering 40 kw/m2. Like I'd asked before; > how many spare/surplus teraWatts of clean energy would you folks like > Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself to deliver? How many hectares of land (1 hectare = 2.47 acres or 10000 m^2) would it require, even assuming your 40 kW/m^2? And how much would that land cost? Also, the current power utilization of the US is about 4 trillion kWh/year, or 456 gigawatts. Oil consumption is about 20.73 million bbl/day, or 1.46 terawatts (since 1 barrel of oil is about 6.1 gigaJoules). The good news: you've got enough power. The bad news: it'll cost. > > One million towers and we're speaking of 4 squeaky clean teraWatts. Highly debatable, mostly because PV fab costs are relatively high. They are, however, coming down to the point where ROI thereon might be 5 years, if one is lucky. Also, there's still the shadow issue. A 100 m high tower is going to cast at least a 100 m shadow. This will more than double the acreage requirement ... and may quadruple it, depending on how much usable sunlight one wishes over the course of a day. A naive calculation, taking into account the shadow problem, suggests about 400 megahectares, or 1.5 million square miles. This is more than twice the size of the state of Alaska. That would be quite a facility, and be readily visible from space. > 1e6 towers X $1e7 each is merely $1e13 of our hard earned loot as $1e13 is about the yearly GDP of the entire US at present. > wisely spent over as little as a decade, would have cost us far less > than our 9/11 fiasco, and we'd all be clean energy set for life. I'd > call this one an all out war on behalf of extracting clean energy, > except there wouldn't be any spendy shock and awe of collateral damage > and such massive carnage of the innocent. > > Perhaps fewer towers and more of tidal and geothermal derived energy > might become the compromise, of having merely 100,000 such towers, and > the rest of the clean/renewable energy pie coming in from those tidal > and geothermal considerations, plus watever hydroelectric and nuclear > we can mange without causing ourselves more harm than good. You have written your Congressperson with this proposal, right? > - Brad Guth - > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net "Woman? What woman?" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |