The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: jimp on 6 Oct 2007 21:05 In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote: > > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> It does not seem to be stated quite that way. Plus there is always > >> the compression issue in an IC engine. Gasses compress but liquids > >> don't. > > > > If one were to make an injected, hypergolic, IC engine, you would > > squirt the fuel in at the top of the piston stroke; no compression > > required. > > > > You have a point to all this nonsense? > Yes - the Official Term is "Shooting The Breeze." ;-) Roger that. What I find especially amusing is that in a hypergolic reaction such as the KKK dude is pushing, the liquids break down into gases in a highly exothermic reaction and it is the resultant gases that actually burn. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 21:32 On Oct 6, 8:08 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:23:42 GMT, 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 > > Neither wind nor solar needs storage to be economically viable. It does need storage to be more than 4% of the total energy budget. DEFINITELY needs storage (or intercontinental transmission) to provide 100% of our needs. > Solar > in particular complements the usual daily load curve, Yes. And that's the point. If you want it to be more than 30% of the power at its peak, or more than 4% of the total energy in a year, you need storage. > so its energy > can be sold at top-dollar peak pricing. These are arguments conventional solar folks use (who are dependent on oil companies and major energy companies to fund their losses). This is not a recipe to dominate the energy marketplace. > 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 costs of switching power plants on and off, and the costs of using more peaking power - properly should be added to the intertie costs. Most often due to regulatory difference between the way transmission and genration, and especially 'alternative' generation or 'distributed' generatoin - manyof these costs are hidden. Hiding costs may be politically acceptable, but for anyone who really wants to see alternatives to major energy really and truly compete against major energy where they live, these costs MUST be brought out analyzed and solutions found. I've done that. I'm reporting it here. I'm getting roundly attacked for it. Which just goes to show how easily manipulated even knowledgeable people are. > The hydrogen thing is just a good way to sink a presumably efficient > solar power generation concept. What? Efficiently making hydrogen with DC solar power when the sun is shining is the lowest cost per joule and the greatest value per joule around. Check it out; Solar panels directly tied into a conventional generator system cost about $1 billion and generate about $120 million per year, and that adds about $2.4 billion to the utilitiy's valuation. Solar panels generating hydrogen gas that 100% replaces all fossil fuels, and eliminates all carbon emissions, cost $5 billion eliminate $800 million per year in fuel costs, and create $1,000 million per year in carbon credits - adding $36 billion to the utility's valuatoin. - basically doubling the value of the utility going forward. One provides a 2.4:1 increase in valation at 4% total revenue, while costing nearly 50% of the utility's capital budget,the other provides a 7.2:1 increase in valuation at 100% of the total revenue of the utility while costing 200% of the utility's capital budget. Clearly direct intertie is a way to be a secondary source forever, while providing fuel at very low costs is a way to dominate the energy business. In fact, one should be in the business of buying utilities with this technology. An LBO would be easily paid for. So, buying faltering utilities, especially in the sunbelt, and providing them with hydrogen fuel is a way to realize huge increases in valuation. Direct intertie; $0.07 per peak watt - low-cost photocell $0.70 per peak watt - intertie ------------ $0.77 per peak watt - total AC on grid Limitations: 30% peak power levels 4% total energy contribution EXAMPLE: 4,000 MW utility 1,200 MW solar add on 35 million MWh - utility contribution 1.5 million MWh - solar contribution $2,000 million - main utility generators $ 924 million - solar generation $120 million solar energy value @ $80/MWh $2,400 million value of solar generators. $794 million per year recurring fuel costs. 4% rise per year in fuel cost. $16,000 million - npv recurring fuel costs. 50 million tons carbon-dioside $20 per ton carbon credits $1,000 million per year recurring carbon costs $20,000 million - npv recurring carbon costs Solar Hydrogen $0.07 - per peak watt - low cost solar $0.02 - variable load electrolyzer ----------- $0.09 - total solar hydrogen setup Limitations: 100% of fuel supply 100% of energy EXAMPLE: 4,000 MW utility 38% efficient 20% insolation 52,632 MW solar hydrogen 35 million MWh per year solar contribution $2,000 million - main utility generators $4,736 million - solar hydrogen systems $0 - recurring fuel costs $0 - npv recurring fuel costs. 50 million tons AVOIDED CARBON $20 per ton carbon credit value $1,000 million carbon credit revenue $20,000 million - npv carbon credit value $80 per MWh - electricity value $2,800 million per year electricity revenue $56,000 million - npv electricity generation. When one considers the 14.5 million tons of stranded coal each year that this example utility throws off, merely by adding another 1.4 million tons of hydrogen to this coal 4.9 billion gallons of gasoline can be synthesized without producing emissions - and at $1.80 per gallon - this adds $8.8 billion per year in revenues. Well worth the added $7 billion in capital costs for the Bergius reactors and added solar panels. In fact, buying a coal company that has its own power plants combined with buying an oil remarketer - a gas station chain that doesn't have its own integrated supply line - and creating a solar supply - is one way to realize huge valuations and control your own future without being dependent on major oil or utlities. Westmoreland Coal and Sunoco are interesting in this regard. My technology added to these companies with this business plan, could increase the value of these companies from $15 billion to something on the order of $400 billion - easily supporting an LBO and all the capital expenditures needed to create this value. .. > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 21:38 On Oct 6, 10:50 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:19:34 -0000, Willie.Moo...(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. > That was a typo - it was 20 million barrels per quarter. > >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. Why?
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 21:48 On Oct 6, 6:26 pm, Rich Grise <r...(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? No. > I was once a paralegal assistant Really? > in a litigation based on almost the exact same scam. So, you've seen my financing documents have you? You are publicly and categorically making statements about my business practices based on a careful legal review of my financing documents? > They lost. Haha.. Did they now? > Thanks, > Rich http://www.emfi.biz/oil_gas_financing.asp I would suggest that anyone interested read up on how oil and gas fields get financed. Basically if you have rights to the property, have a geology report that says there might be oil or gas on that property,and an engineering report from qualified vendors that give an estimate of production cost, you can sell a portion of the potential output to build up productive capacity on that property. In similar fashion, I have rights to 1.5 billion tons of coal. I have rights to 36,000 hectares of sunny land. I have independent confirmation that I can make 7 bbls/ gasoline for each ton of coal, and I have vendor reports that give precise costs and time frames. Why shouldn't I sell a poriton of the potential output to build up this productive capacity on that property? Fact is, I can.
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 21:58
On Oct 6, 8:11 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:26:55 GMT, Rich Grise <r...(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. Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is? > That's the pattern of > so many "breakthrough" technologies. I've seen dozens of breakthroughs > that just faded away, along with heaps of investment. I'm not selling anything to the US public or to anyone in the public domain. I'm not selling a financial instrument. I am selling aa portion of the proved reserves of a specific piece of land to fund a specific project. That project is legally and financially independent of any other projects. Buyers of forward contracts will receive gasoline at an agreed upon price at an agreed upon time. They will not receive dollars. The buyers are sophisticated players in the oil business already. They are non-US companies and they have an interest in developing productive capacities in OPEC nations that are facing fall-offs in their historical production. I am not selling equipment, I am not selling equity, i am not selling facilties. I build own and operate all facilities. I am selling fuel at a discount to people who normally and routinely buy fuel at a discount from new producers of fuel in unproved newly discovered fields. New discoveries are falling off, and I was able to interest these parties in funding a few projects. They will receive their gasoline on schedule and since I own the balance of the produciton,I will take those revenues and use them to carry out the program I've outlined in the US, and from there,remake the energy business. Throughout it all, direct solar to AC grid will be a tertiary development - something done after conventional generators are fueled 100% by solar hydrogen. In less developed regions the order of battle is different, but less developed regions use far less power and energy than developed or developing regions. |