The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2007 21:58 bill wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Jamie wrote: > > > You guys are funny, near us, we have a gambling casino, "Mohegan Sun" > > > They have and have had for at least 4 years now that I know of > > > 3 Fuel cell generator complexes. These units operate the main facility > > > 100% with plenty of reserve. They obviously are self sufficient because > > > all they ever need to do is replace mechanical things that wear out, > > > which is normal in any generating facility. > > > > So where does the energy to replace 'the things that wear out' come from > > Is this solar powered electrolytic hydrogen being used ? > > > > How much did it cost ? How much power does it generate ? What's the price per > > kWh ? > > > It's 2 400kw watt natural gas fuel cells cogenerating for hot > water and heat. The emissions he was talking about are NOX, not CO2, > and there's no hydrogen involved anywhere. > www.mohegan.nsn.us/docs/Mohegan_Sun_Report_Final.pdf Thanks. It's simply an alternative to burning the gas to make steam to run turbines or burning the gas directly in gas turbines.. Sounds entirely sensible to me. Clearly not 'self-sufficient' in any way though unless the natural gas appears out of fresh air ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2007 22:02 Jamie wrote: > Like I said, the Casino is self sufficient. Clearly totally untrue as they use natural gas. www.mohegan.nsn.us/docs/Mohegan_Sun_Report_Final.pdf As ever you simply can't get anything right. Graham
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2007 22:08 On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:26:55 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 3, 4:58 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:40 -0700,BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT >> >> >> >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of photovoltaics to >> >> >less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use that DC power to produce >> >> >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that hydrogen in >> >> >empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed for a stable national >> >> >hydrogen supply system.. >> >> >> 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away from what >> >> anybody is doing, even at the research level. And if we had such >> >> power, the first rational use is to dump it into the grid, not convert >> >> it to hydrogen at absurd net efficiency. >> >> >> Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link to >> >> hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are predicated on >> >> ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste prodigiously. That >> >> ain't gonna happen. >> >> >> John >> >> >And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus clean >> >energy is ???? >> >- Brad Guth - >> >> There's some debate about whether silicon solar cell arrays *ever* >> deliver back the energy it took to manufacture them. >> >> And when I see projections of 20+ year lifetimes for solar arrays, >> with no significant maintanance budget, I know I'm dealing with >> dreamers. And let's not forget the batteries, the inverters, and the >> fun with wind storms. >> >> Here, in San Francisco, rooftop solar is a fad, despite being pretty >> far north and having maybe 1/3 of the days where the sun actually >> shines. It's going to be fun when all those roofs start leaking, and >> the panels need to be removed to get at the roof. > >Again I'll kindly ask, as to what would the all-knowing likes of John >Larkin otherwise do with whatever spare/surplus clean energy? Is such a thing existed, which it doesn't and probably never will, whoever owns it will sell it at market rates. >BTW, topic rubbish is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and I for >one do not behold rubbish. Your out of context rants are typical of >yet another ExxonMobil brown-nosed minion, whereas my rants are trying >to be as on-topic positive and constructive. Of course you and others >of your kind wouldn't see any difference, as you'd just as soon run >everything on coal and mostly N2. How can you run anything on N2? > >William Mook's perfectly good idea of effeciently creating and then >piping his H2 into those old but trusty oil wells should buy us a few >spare decades worth of spendy access to our very own raw fossil fuel >(though a shame to waste all of that nifty H2). However, I was >thinking along the lines of more like setting up 100 of my 4+MW tower >units per day, if necessary we'd also import those required 10,000 >assembly/installation workers at far less than $.10/dollar, especially >since it's all pretty much way too complicated for the naysay likes of >yourself or most other rusemasters in such naysay denial, and besides >by then our dollar may not even be worth $.50 anyway. You've gone from ranting to raving. Can you do the math on one of your towers? The best engineers and scientists can't get wind or solar generation up without subsidies. It's not like nobody has thought of these things before. John
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2007 22:09 On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:33:02 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gisin(a)uniserve.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:of88g39k5mfvu87fgf8q48psaf8h4q10hp(a)4ax.com... >> >> There's some debate about whether silicon solar cell arrays *ever* >> deliver back the energy it took to manufacture them. >> >There's no debate among the sane, it only takes a few years to payback. >Who is making these claims, >the idiots who claim it takes more energy to mine uranium than produced? > >> And when I see projections of 20+ year lifetimes for solar arrays, >> with no significant maintanance budget, I know I'm dealing with >> dreamers. And let's not forget the batteries, the inverters, and the >> fun with wind storms. >> >> Here, in San Francisco, rooftop solar is a fad, despite being pretty >> far north and having maybe 1/3 of the days where the sun actually >> shines. It's going to be fun when all those roofs start leaking, and >> the panels need to be removed to get at the roof. >> >You need to watch more South Park. >"Smug" is about San Frannies who drive hybrids. Yup, the Toyota Pious. John
From: krw on 3 Oct 2007 22:17
In article <4703c6a7$1(a)news.cadence.com>, edmondson(a)ieee.org says... > BradGuth wrote: > > 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 - > > > > Why bother when there is all this nice atmospheric O2 around to oxidize > my fuel. Sure, it has this nice regulating N2 mixed in, but that way > everything else don't burst into flames! I ain't going into outer space > in this thing, ya know! ;-) But if you had H2O2 you could be in outer space[*], like Brad. [*] Way out there. -- Keith |