The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 6 Oct 2007 18:25 In article <1191684736.925653.88910(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bradguth(a)gmail.com says... > 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. You'e out of your mind (I know, stating the obvious). "Mookie" hasn't shared anything, other than hand waving. Patent numbers would be a start. -- Keith
From: Rich Grise on 6 Oct 2007 18:26 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:12:49 +0000, Willie.Mookie 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. So, in other words, you're a swindler? I was once a paralegal assistant in a litigation based on almost the exact same scam. They lost. Thanks, Rich
From: John Larkin on 6 Oct 2007 20:08 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:23:42 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:34:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:39:10 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>Please consider the practical difficulties of taking a variable output >>>solar generator that varies its output in response to season, weather >>>and time of day operating with Direct Current and connecting that >>>source reliably to a grid of Alternating Current loads. When you do >>>large-scale intertie studies, something more than charging car >>>batteries,then you have diseconomies of scale that suggest $2 per watt >>>on the first go round, that over time and with experience will likely >>>drop to $0.70 per watt. At these prices your costs rise to $0.06 per >>>peak watt and tend toward $0.02 per peak watt. >> >> I don't see that. At 0.2 cents per kwh, essentially free, it would >> seem easy to dump power into the grid when it was available, >> specifically on hot sunny days when a/c loads are at their maximum. >> Relatively small peak solar output, say 5% of the relevant grid load, >> would be welcome for their fuel savings. Of course, without some >> storage mechanism, big percentages are less appealing, but 5% is still >> big bucks, especially as you can charge premium pricing for >> peak-period power. > >Since we're talking billions and billions of dollars here anyway, how >about using hydro dams for storage of excess energy - just run the >turbines backwards and pump water back into the reservoir! ;-) > >Cheers! >Rich Neither wind nor solar needs storage to be economically viable. Solar in particular complements the usual daily load curve, so its energy can be sold at top-dollar peak pricing. There are places where 20 or even 25% of the total load is furnished by essentially unpredictable wind power, and the existing grid (which used to handle 100% anyhow) adapts. The hydrogen thing is just a good way to sink a presumably efficient solar power generation concept. John
From: John Larkin on 6 Oct 2007 20:11 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:26:55 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:12:49 +0000, Willie.Mookie 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. > >So, in other words, you're a swindler? I was once a paralegal assistant >in a litigation based on almost the exact same scam. > >They lost. > Problem is, if he is running a ponzi scheme or such, we won't find out for years, and then only by noting the silence. That's the pattern of so many "breakthrough" technologies. I've seen dozens of breakthroughs that just faded away, along with heaps of investment. John
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 20:54
On Oct 6, 6:23 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:34:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:39:10 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>Please consider the practical difficulties of taking a variable output > >>solar generator that varies its output in response to season, weather > >>and time of day operating with Direct Current and connecting that > >>source reliably to a grid of Alternating Current loads. When you do > >>large-scale intertie studies, something more than charging car > >>batteries,then you have diseconomies of scale that suggest $2 per watt > >>on the first go round, that over time and with experience will likely > >>drop to $0.70 per watt. At these prices your costs rise to $0.06 per > >>peak watt and tend toward $0.02 per peak watt. > > > I don't see that. At 0.2 cents per kwh, essentially free, it would > > seem easy to dump power into the grid when it was available, > > specifically on hot sunny days when a/c loads are at their maximum. > > Relatively small peak solar output, say 5% of the relevant grid load, > > would be welcome for their fuel savings. Of course, without some > > storage mechanism, big percentages are less appealing, but 5% is still > > big bucks, especially as you can charge premium pricing for > > peak-period power. > > Since we're talking billions and billions of dollars here anyway, how > about using hydro dams for storage of excess energy - just run the > turbines backwards and pump water back into the reservoir! ;-) > > Cheers! > Rich- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - where would the water come from in front of the dam? The water is flowing downhill in front of the dam, and so you run the turbines backwards and water flows downhill and a little uphill and then you're just running turbines backwards to beat the water back. |