The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 2 Oct 2007 19:34 In article <1191353294.340891.158310(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, ford_prefect42(a)hotmail.com says... > On Oct 2, 12:33 pm, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > BradGuth wrote: > > > 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 - > > > > Hey Braddie, > > I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is > > soda water! 8-) > > > > Charlie > > As an example of the scale of the issue, you can go to the local > welding supply store and for $100 get a 50 gallon tank of LOX, 50 > gallons of high purity H2O2 cannot be purchased *anywhere* without > some rather extravagant licensing and permitting. To be fair, there are good reasons to have LOX. -- Keith
From: BradGuth on 2 Oct 2007 20:48 On Oct 1, 8:25 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics,BradGuth > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote > on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0700 > <1191280799.545597.239...(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 renewable energy farm of such tower derived clean energy may be as few as one. Then there's offshore installations. Go figure. > > 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. We could all use a little extra shade. Global warming, you know. > > 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? Obviously you have no honest intentions of polishing or otherwise constructively contributing squat, much less pitching on our behalf. Of course neither would the likes of your friend GW Bush, but I'd bet Hitler would, especially if it meant winning a war, such as our war against global warming and otherwise salvaging our badly failing environment. In that case, we'll just run our cars, SUVs, trucks and most everything else under the sun that's orbiting your flat Earth on nasty old coal and mostly N2, just the way "The Ghost In The Machine", ENRON and the ExxonMobil swarm of denial and naysayers like it. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 2 Oct 2007 21:10 On Oct 2, 9:33 am, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > Hey Braddie, > I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is > soda water! 8-) OK, then put your relatively safe "soda water" tank worth of LOx to work within a Hummer or GM Volt, and basically go for it, especially if it's supposedly so much better off than h2o2. What's the combined LOx+c12h26 of clean Mj/kg worth these days? How much LOx per gallon of c12h26 or fossil whatever are we talking about? What's the well insulated storage tank of that amount of LOx going to take, in outside measured gross volume, if looking at only a 5%/month loss? Is that insulated amount of LOx any smaller than a locomotive tanker car? - Brad Guth -
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2007 21:32 BradGuth wrote: > Where the hell do you think all of that solar and moon contributed > energy is going? The only energy we get from the moon that can be harnessed is tidal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage has been discussed since 1925. Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2007 21:33
BradGuth wrote: > Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > Hey Braddie, > > I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is > > soda water! 8-) > > OK, then put your relatively safe "soda water" tank worth of LOx to > work within a Hummer or GM Volt, and basically go for it, especially > if it's supposedly so much better off than h2o2. Neither H2O2 nor LOX will improve a Hummer's fuel efficiency. Graham |