The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 01:28 Rich Grise rich(a)example.net posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:11:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000, Willie.Mookie(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. >> > > Anybody remember when they first started using nuclear, and > electricity was going to be virtually free? > > I guess that one didn't pan out either. )-; > > Thanks, > Rich Golly, nuclear power, didn't naysayers, NIMBYs and big oil hornswoggle the greens to stop it? They are certainly still making political hash out of the waste disposal issues.
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 01:43 BradGuth bradguth(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Oct 3, 8:49 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> BradGuthbradg...(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 3, 3:01 pm, me <m...(a)here.net> wrote: >> >> Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote >> >> innews:1191443349.557862.97250(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >On Oct 3, 12:45 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> >> >> snip >> >> >> >The hydrogen is sent through teflon coated pipelines at high >> >> >presure >> >> >to underground strorage in old oil wells. The US has over 1 >> >> >million >> >> >of them. A 100 day supply is retained for system stability. >> >> >Oil is produced from these wells and separated in traps and the >> >> >hydrogen is purified with molecular sieves (ceramic filters >> >> >with tiny pores that allow hydrogen to pass and no other gases >> >> >to pass) >> >> >> 1 million? So we have drilled 20 per day for the last 136.986 >> >> years (roughly) ? >> >> >> rubbish! >> >> > Rubbish is in the eye of the beholder, and I do not behold >> > rubbish. >> >> > William Mook's perfectly good idea 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 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 >> > way too complicated for the naysay likes of yourself, and besides >> > by then our dollar may not even be worth $.50 anyway. >> > - Brad Guth - >> >> Perception here is the issue. Everybody who has tried to beat >> standard physics has failed. If you know so much better, build it; >> on your own money. Then, when it works, you may speak. You are >> reminded of Pons and Fleischman. Everybody who tried to duplicate >> the result failed. Until then go away. > > Prototypes plus actual installations that function have been built, > and the likes of William Mook and myself tend to stick within the > regular laws of physics and otherwise put to good use the best > available science, such as those fuel cells running so nicely on > natural gas hasn't polluted the environment or taken a bite out of > our badly overloaded grid that's getting mostly electron pumped via > coal plus h2o and extensively N2 fired, of which that nasty coal > obviously works as long as we don't mind a few thousand dead coal > miners per year, accepting global gigatonnes worth of CO2 and > otherwise butt loads of NOx and many other sorts of nasty elements > contributed down- wind or put back into surface and ground water, as > well as taken such volumes of having outright consumed and/or > vaporised precious fresh water. > > Those 4+ MW producing towers have been a done deal in other parts of > this world that are not nearly as all-knowing arrogant and bigoted > as you'll find right here within this usenet cesspool of naysayers > in denial about everything that rocks their status quo good ship > LOLLIPOP, and it's mostly a Jewish ship of fools and/or rusemasters > to boot. > - Brad Guth - So where are your products? You allege _you_ have built them and that they work. Where are they? Many of us would like to test them to verify your claims. Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary backup, as you have been told before. Otherwise, see "your problem is obvious".
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2007 02:51 Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > >(7) Adding an inverter and peak power matching hardware to solar > > >panels cost $2 per peak watt. > > > > That sounds exhorbitant. I can buy small PF-corrected switching > > supplies for 25 cents a watt, > > Their efficiencies are far less than unity, and this is but one step > in the inversion peak power matching process and then synchronizing > with the AC grid in such a way as to contribute that power > efficiently. Grid tied inverters here at retail for under $1 a Watt. Around 95% efficiency too. http://www.grid-tie.com/Xantrex-GT-Inverters.html I'd expect larger capacity units to be less expensive and it seems pretty clear to me that as a very large customer you would be paying no more perhaps than 30-40c a watt > You're not really getting it. Or rather, you are letting your > prejudices dictate to your mind what's possible. Which is why you are > making foolish mistakes. It seems YOU are the one with prejudices here actually. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2007 02:53 Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: > To intertie to the grid would increase costs to 6 cents per kWh at > best Based on a silly estimate of the cost of grid tied inverters which you have overestiamted thge cost of by at least 3 times and probably more. With a sensible supply of inverters that would be 2 cents / kWh or less. Graham
From: Willie.Mookie on 5 Oct 2007 07:16
On Oct 5, 2:53 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > To intertie to the grid would increase costs to 6 cents per kWh at > > best > > Based on a silly estimate of the cost of grid tied inverters which you have > overestiamted thge cost of by at least 3 times and probably more. > > With a sensible supply of inverters that would be 2 cents / kWh or less. > > Graham Graham, you might be right that $2 per peak watt is high. But it is at the high end of the envelope. Fact is, no one is building DC intertie at the 50 MW scale and above so no one knows what all the costs will be. The first one won't be $0.40 per peak watt - which is what you're suggesting I think. Though with a dedicated effort you might get down this level. A real first system - for planning purposes - I think $2 per peak watt is a conservative number (that is its high - but likely the first go round) So, ask yourself, at what scale? It is true economies of scale and leaerning curve effects do reduce the cost of smaller units, and may reduce initial costs well below the $2 estimate my detailed engineering analysis came up with. You by comparison have merely indicated a suspicion of where intertie might be after a decade or more of large-scale development. The big question anyone who wants to have solar be an important source has to ask, is where to start? After 60 years of development far less than 1/1000th of our total energy supply comes from direct solar. That means we're doing something wrong. So, I decided to do something different! And I've described my reasoning and my approach and my success. To which a blindered and shuttered community of enthusiasts, stuck in a world where the solar industry is dominsted by the major oil companies, cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. There is adequate reason to believe that when you start engineering large DC powered interties (much larger than that found on homes) you will pay more than the $0.70 per peak watt (10 x more than my panel costs) first time out. More likely $2.00 per watt (3x a mature market0. None of this changes the fact that hydrogen can be made with solar electricity using my system costing $0.07 per peak watt for the panel and another $0.02 per peak watt for the electrolyzer and hydrogen system. So, even if I burned hydrogen in a boiler that converted 38 percent of the heat value to electricity, I'd still be under $0.21 per peak watt. AND I'd have the advantage of being able to replace ALL the other fuels, without the limitations of direct intertie. That is, direct intertie will never be more than 12% in the sunniest places farthest from the supply chain (Hawaii for example) where 100% of the power will be sunlight part of the day, and peaking generators (oil fired) the rest of the day. The average utilization of direct intertie will more likely be in the range of 4% where 40% of the capacity is shut down during the day (the peaking generators again0 And I agree that this 4% will be absolutely the most efficient way solar electrons get into our power system! haha.. But it won't be the cheapest. Because even at 2 cents per kWh, which is your figure, that 4% will be more expensive than the $128 per metric ton hydrogen - whose fuel cost is competitive. Now, having said all of this, I do have a research effort directed toward direct intertie. haha.. But this will not be rolled out until I am well established in the fuel biz. And it will be a secondary market compared to fuel long-term. But it will be an important one. The two technical innovations here are very low cost batteries that using the changing electrode area trick, can be variable load variable rate of discharge - these are variable load sodium sulfur flow batteries. I hasten to add that this is at present a research topic, but an important one. Success with this system will mean that part of the direct intertie cost debate will have been resolved in favor of intertie. The second technical innovation is a HVDC power transmission and the all DC home. Putting these two innovations together will allow the creation of a network of large solar collector sites that will seamlessly operate with a DC power grid backed by low- cost long lived flow batteries that respond physically to the needs of the system at very low cost and very reliably on a vast scale. This will work in conjunction with a DC powered home that replaces AC and also replaced natural gas with hydrogen gas. Going forward I am building 60 GW to 100 GW per year solar panel factories. All these are presently going to solar synfuel facilities in nations that have signed the Kyoto Protocol. To merely fill the growing gap between oil production and oil consumption in the world, I will need 14 of these factories to be built over the next 28 years. And they will all churn out panels at a prodigious rate. But within five years I will expect that with a successful development of a sodium sulfur variable load flow battery, that an increasing portion of these panels will be used to supply a growing national HVDC grid - that will supply electrical power at a substantial profit - sold at 2 cents per kWh. I will then introduce the DC/Hydrogen home (with hydrogen powered car) - attached directly to the grid, and for remote applications, independent of any grid. In this way, I see direct DC intertie through variable load sodium sulfur flow batteries - ultimately being 20% of our total installs, and remote independent installs (in the developed world) being 4%. In LDCs things are quite different. There I see DC powered tramways and roadways attached to the HVDC grid running low cost ($500,000 per lane mile) trans and ppersonal rapid transit systems, in those countries, that implement unpiloted instant package delivery as well as transport of persons, combined with low-cost advanced technology DC powered homes. Again at low cost. In developing countries, like Bangladesh, the percentages will be different, but total demand (due to inefficient older systems) will be far larger in the developed countries for quite some time. Before major changes take place in upgrading legacy power systems, newer uses and power systems will displace all these first generation solar networks. That is, my planning foresees beamed energy from space first augmenting large centralized collector sites, and then later beaming power directly to users from space. Here we see the entire world using energy at a far larger rate than today as we pass from ground transport to VTOL based aerial transport and from a group of regional and continental political powers to an integrated global community. |