The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2007 11:43 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:05:18 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 3, 5:31 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: >> BradGuthwrote: >> > John Larkin wrote: >> > >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. >> >> > And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus clean >> > energy is ???? >> >> There is no 'spare energy' nor is there ever likely to be. Simple economics will >> prevent it. > >You mean that Yids and others of your kind will prevent it. Trust me, >we understand. It's remarkable how little you do understand. It's easy to imagine things when you are unencumbered by numbers. And what's this "Yid" obsession about? That makes as little sense as the rest of your ravings. John
From: Robert Adsett on 3 Oct 2007 22:12 In article <1191461312.039456.307350(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, bill says... > On Oct 3, 9:11 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > 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 ? > > > > Graham > > 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 Well, it'll certainly produce CO2 (and probably some CO but hopefully not much). Robert -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Robert Adsett on 3 Oct 2007 22:25 In article <i987g31m9r55h0kmokp3ohgbd6q6kbgoj7(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin says... > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 20:11:34 -0400, Robert Adsett > <sub2(a)aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote: > > >In article <qji5g350cptmj32odgpri3r3hobin24fcj(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin > >says... > >> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:59:32 -0400, "daestrom" > >> <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote: > >> > >> Presumably you locate a windmill where there's lots of wind, which > >> will now and then blow away the solar arrays. > > > >That's why you put the solar cells on the windmill blades :) > > > > Cool. Arrange for them to spin at 60 Hz and avoid inverter losses! > > But solar cells are so last century. The new new thing is sun-pumped > lasers. Well obviously we gots to add som of those! Robert -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Charlie Edmondson on 4 Oct 2007 12:07 BradGuth wrote: > we understand. > > BTW, why don't you not like anything William Mook has to say? > - Brad Guth - > Hey Braddie, We LIKE what Bill has to say. He is an engineer, and often asks pertinent, engineering questions on this forum (SED) that provoke interesting discussions. He has also done MATH on his proposals, and admits that some of them are a little over the top, but we respect his ideas even as we critique them! It is a whole different idea between "I don't think it will work." and "What color is the sky on your planet?" ;-) Charlie
From: Rich Grise on 4 Oct 2007 12:28
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:35:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics bill <ford_prefect42(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 3, 12:45 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: .... >> > > You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2. >> > >> > Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake >> > and compression strokes are for. > >> ummmm.... no, the intake stroke is to pull the air into the >> cylinder. the compression stroke is to generate compression. you're >> right that nothing will ignite in liquid form, however, atomising >> liquids into hot cylinders tends to liquefy them rather quickly. > > Most of the fuel vaporization takes place during the intake stroke. > > The compression stroke is to get the piston back to the top so the > ignition has something usefull to do. > > Squirting LOX into a cylinder will tend to cool everything off > rather quickly, and perhaps too quickly. Or maybe: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/Ambrosia_Times/September_95/2.5HowTo.html Cheers! Rich |