The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 6 Oct 2007 10:39 On Oct 5, 6:22 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > BradGuthbradg...(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > > > > > On Oct 4, 10:15 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>BradGuthbradg...(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > >> > On Oct 3, 7:08 pm, John Larkin > >> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:26:55 -0700,BradGuth<bradg...(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. > > >> > That's true, as I haven't invented or even discovered one damn > >> > thing. It's all old science and much older physics that hasn't > >> > changed nor > >> > will it likely ever change. The hard question is about > >> > accomplishing clean energy alternatives, not about whatever's the > >> > least spendy forms of energy on Earth that disregards human > >> > safety as well as having otherwise pillaged, raped and trashed > >> > mother Earth for all she's worth in the process, not to mention > >> > the likes of collateral spendy, mostly innocent bloody and > >> > otherwise extremely polluting wars that you folks can't seem to > >> > ever get enough of. > > >> > A sufficient mass production of those 100+ meter towers, along > >> > with their wind turbine driven generators plus whatever extent of > >> > the best available PVs that can also take advantage of each given > >> > tower without devouring or otherwise contaminating precious > >> > surface ground area seems entirely worth our doing, that is > >> > unless we surcome to the ENRON/ ExxonMobil naysay likes of > >> > yourself and of other coal burning and yellowcake polluting > >> > bigots for a buck, that are anything but birth-to- grave > >> > efficient or without having traumatised our frail environment > >> > past the point of no return. > > >> > Can you say again as to why you folks so hate humanity, and care > >> > less about our environment? > >> > - Brad Guth - > > >> Brad your problem is obvious: > > > Apparently it's so obviously that you and other rusemasters of your > > kind don't have a clue. > > - Brad Guth - > > If you do not like the reception you get here do not post here. > Nobody here is forcing you to post here. The reception here usenet naysay land is exactly what I'd expect from such a cesspool of Yids or pretend Atheists. I'm just glad that I can return the warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I and my trusty battery of lose cannons can muster. What part of humanity and that of our frail environment are you folks planning upon screwing today? - Brad Guth -
From: John Larkin on 6 Oct 2007 10:50 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:19:34 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Oct 5, 9:34 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:12:49 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >I am not selling equipment. I sell on forward contracts commodities. >> >The people who buy the commodities don't care about where they get >> >them. They just need them by a certain date. But they pay me today >> >for a discounted price. And they accept the execution risk. Which is >> >equivalent to discovery risk in developing resources. There are of >> >course no market risk since these are commodities. >> >> >With this money I build own and operate facilities that use solar >> >hydrogen to make gasoline from coal by direct hydrogenation, >> >facilities that make fresh water and salt crystals from sea water >> >using solar heat in a multi-stage flash evaporator, and facilities >> >that upgrade residual oil to gasoline using hydrogen in a direct >> >hydrogenation process. >> >> Show us some links to some such facilities. Nothing like that could be >> done off the public record. >> >> John > >Haha.. actually that's what I thought. But it appears that the US >media has a few blind spots in their unflinching eye. lol. > >A five page article appeared in Trust Magazine in Jakarta August 2006, >when we signed the deal. And there is a strong continuing interest in >Asian press. But there seems to be a disconnect between Asian and >Western press. I was invited to New York City and was interviewed by >reporters for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. And >articles were written. However, editors wouldn't run them. In time, >the reporters moved on seeking to get their name in print. > >I did get a copy of A GAME AS OLD AS EMPIRE by Hiatt, from one of the >reporters which describes in one of the sections how stories get >canned from time to time > >http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp#7 >http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf > >Page 5 of the .pdf file describes briefly what I'm doing under COAL >LIQUEFACTION PRODUCTION INDONESIA. 20 million barrels of solar-powered coal-oil conversion per day, by 2011? I'll check back and see how you're doing. >Now, I had a few websites and thought I could put information out >there. But upon review I decided to drop the whole marketing thing >when the project financing approach worked so well. After all, I'm >not selling equipment or facilities. I'm selling commodities. How I >make them doesn't really interest those who are buying them. > >Now, the risks involved are important to evaluate, but as long as >excution risk is equal to or less than discovery risk in a more >conventional development, that's acceptable to the investors I'm >working with. > >At present I'm dealing with people who are willing to make rather >large bets to solve some big resource problems and this technology >looks interesting to them since it has the potential to do that and >provide for the needs they've outlined for themselves. > >As far as the other programs are concerned, UAE is even less >forthcoming and less connected to the Western media engine than >Indonesia! lol. The Palms and similar developments >notwithstanding. > >But in all cases as I mentioned folks are interested in solving major >resource problems and are willing to make big bets to do that. > >Indonesia is an OPEC country, and the very first OPEC country to run >out of oil. They entered secondary -that is declining - production in >2004 and those folks who invest in oil field exploration and >development for OPEC nations were willing to do something out of the >box to increase the oil reserves of Indonesia. This is one of many >solutions they're working on, though I think mine the best. > >Australia is in the grip of a drought and is spending billions on >increasing their water supplies. I was asked by an Aussie who read >the articles in the Asian press could I do something about making >water with sunlight. As a result I designed a thermal version of my >system. And I proposed to a group of investors a method of using >solar energy to drive a multi-stage flash evaporator that delivers not >only fresh water, but salt also. These investors agreed to my build- >own-operate facilities model. They pre-purchased the entire output of >a facility I am now building in Australia at a discount, and agreed to >pay a small continuing fee for water as its produced. > >I'll be in Sydney in a few weeks, you'll likely see more in the press >at that time. > Can't wait. Please post the links. John
From: BradGuth on 6 Oct 2007 11:03 On Oct 5, 7:15 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics,BradGuth > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote > on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:55:17 -0700 > <1191452117.181775.313...(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:39:36 -0700, bill wrote: > > >> [about LOX, H2O2, etc.] > >> ... > > >> >> > I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its > >> >> > effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might > >> >> > make tinkering with it a winter project. > > >> >> 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. > > >> Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd > >> ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need > >> a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however. > > > Use at least 100 bar injection, if not 1000 bar. > > > Using h2o2 + fossil whatever will likely ignite itself, as should LO2-- > >>O2 and fossil whatever. > > - Brad Guth - > > It might very well do so, at that. Of course, depending on the > circumstances one might get a rocket or a bang, neither of which > is very desirable from a controllability standpoint...and you've > yet to answer the question regarding where one gets the hydrogen > peroxide from, precisely. h2o2 is rather easily derived from those teraWatts of spare/surplus and squeaky clean energy, just like you've been told a million times before. > > Besides, the general idea is *not* to use fossil fuels > whatsoever, if I understood you correctly. As in this case, you never undstand me correctly. (but that's entirely intentional of yourself, isn't it) > H2O2, presumably, would simply replace them, distributed > in gas stations much like gasoline is today. Along with whatever fossil and/or biofuel, exactly like I've clearly stipulated a million times before. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 6 Oct 2007 11:14 On Oct 5, 7:00 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics,BradGuth > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote > on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:48:56 -0700 > <1191372536.757674.226...(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > > 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. > > One tower of 100 m radius would create 4 MW. Hardly enough > for powering the entire state of California, though one > might build a neighborhood around it (it would presumably > power about 1000 homes or so surrounding it, on a good > day). > > Assuming it worked, of course, as specified. > > > > >> 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. > > Shaded land can't grow crops as well. Silly me, that's right, as apparently global warming and pollution does not exist in your world, nor does technology. Are you Muslim, or something far worse? How many other innocent humans have you and others of your kind killed today? > > >> 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. > > I am not the one making the proposal. You are. Your orchestrated naysayism and intent to topic/author bash is noted. > > > 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. > > GW Bush is many things, but "friend" he is not. Your actions are what clearly proves otherwise. > > > 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. > > N2? You are a confused puppy. The most likely fuel source > would be converted coal -- and that has many problems. > But it would work for awhile, coupled with ambient oxygen (O2). Your new drugs are not performing as they should. Try LSD. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 6 Oct 2007 11:32
On Oct 5, 3:00 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > What's your problem this time, Willie.Moo? > > Even Willie's not good enough for you now ? > > I thought you said you were big time buddies. I support his honest research and better ideas of utilizing existing technology, not the fact of his being another officially snookered and dumbfounded soul that has gotten past that point of no return about accepting each and every word of government and of their faith-based puppeteers, is what I'd ever go along with. At least our William Mook/Willie.Moo has always shared his talent and expertise, so unlike yourself. - Brad Guth - |