The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: bill on 7 Oct 2007 12:18 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. 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 you're talking a kind of apples to grapes comparison. The "places" you are talking about that are furnished with wind electricity are small enclaves within much larger energy grids so that shortfalls and overages can be dispersed to much larger conventional energy sources. The example I suspect you are thinking of is the german power grid, made possible by the 80% nuclear power grid in france and the fact that of the total EU power grid, wind and other unreliables make up a more typical 2% of the total grid. there are no examples of total power grids where unreliables make up more than 5% of the total energy production. William seems to be making plans for providing an 80-90% total energy solution using solar, now, honestly, there hasn't been much done with inverters on the scale he is talking about. at that scale, a good number of things become a deal more complicated. He is also correct that if you are simply dumping the energy on the grid, once you start dumping measurable percentages of total demand on the grid, you must start honestly accounting for the backup system that the utilco has to maintain (idled coal plant) which still has to be there. In addition, it is a fact that electrolyzers frequently exceed 90% efficiency, and the coal liquefaction process is also 90+% efficient and intensely hydrogen demanding. If it were possible to drive cars on electric energy at even 50% efficiency, that would be an absolutely revolutionary advent, even at 10 cents/kwh. IF he has the goods to produce electricity at .2 cents/kwh, he has a point that selling directly to the grid is a pretty limited option. It is still the thing to do *first* because tens of thousands of megawatts worth can be deployed in that format before the other dis- economies of scale come into play, however, after that, another plan needs to be found, the efficiency of which will be lower than that of the "free" direct connect.
From: John Larkin on 7 Oct 2007 13:26 On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:16:40 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 6, 3:07 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote: >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barr...(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." ;-) > >But apparently that's not allowed unless you're a born-again Yid. >- Brad Guth - You have a serious inferiority complex. Did some Jewish kid beat you up or something? Or is it just that you know you're not as smart as they are? John
From: John Larkin on 7 Oct 2007 13:55 On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:18:36 -0700, bill <ford_prefect42(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. 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 > > you're talking a kind of apples to grapes comparison. The >"places" you are talking about that are furnished with wind >electricity are small enclaves within much larger energy grids so that >shortfalls and overages can be dispersed to much larger conventional >energy sources. The example I suspect you are thinking of is the >german power grid, made possible by the 80% nuclear power grid in >france and the fact that of the total EU power grid, wind and other >unreliables make up a more typical 2% of the total grid. there are no >examples of total power grids where unreliables make up more than 5% >of the total energy production. > William seems to be making plans for providing an 80-90% total >energy solution using solar, now, honestly, there hasn't been much >done with inverters on the scale he is talking about. All those gigawatts won't go through one inverter! There's no reason that existing kilowatt-to-megawatt grid-tie inverters can't be produced in volume; in fact they'd get cheaper. Hell, houses in my neighborhood have panels on the roof and inverters for sellback to PG&E. The inflated cost of inverters is not an impediment to selling top-dollar solar peaking power. It's an excuse to pile on the hydrogen and coal conversion fantasies. >at that scale, >a good number of things become a deal more complicated. More copies of a system isn't "more complicated." >He is also >correct that if you are simply dumping the energy on the grid, once >you start dumping measurable percentages of total demand on the grid, >you must start honestly accounting for the backup system that the >utilco has to maintain (idled coal plant) which still has to be >there. They maintain considerable spinning reserve as it is. And the weather won't change over hundreds of square miles all at once; any changes in solar-power output would be mostly predictable and certainly gradual, nothing remotely resembling the trauma of a gigawatt generator or transmission line tripping offline, which happens routinely now. John
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 13:55 On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:15:56 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > > > Besides, the general idea is *not* to use fossil fuels > > whatsoever, if I understood you correctly. H2O2, > > presumably, would simply replace them, distributed in gas > > stations much like gasoline is today. > > > (Yeah, right.) > > Well, if it wasn't so expensive, and resource-hungry, it could > theoretically make for a real simple internal "combustion" engine- > just get some BHP (basic hydrogen peroxide - essentially 100% > H2O2); and instead of a spark plug, a lump of catalyst, like > MnO2; it'd be a two-stroke - at TDC or so, squirt a dollop of > H2O2, it catalyzes into H2O + O2 + heat; driving the power > stroke; then there's an exhaust stroke, which consists of, > Ta-Da! water and oxygen; then you do it again. ;-) I believe that is correct, and to also remember that we're talking of a one cycle ICE, so there's only the power stroke to deal with, or the more limited 2-cycle version of accommodating whatever a piston has to go through in order to get back into that starting point of each power stroke. Perhaps an opposed 2 cylinder of a two-stroke configured little engine that's given h2o2+c12h26 would easily outperform a four-stroke 6 liter V8 that's running itself on gasoline, a little O2 and otherwise mostly N2. h2o2+fuel can also each be 1000 bar injected for as long as you'd care to force energy into that power stroke. Too bad that anything of an ICE rotary or radial power turbine can't possibly work. (just kidding) BTW, hot air balloons could also become h2o2 powered, as well as given a touch of whatever fossil fuel for a little added thermal kick. - Brad Guth -
From: John Larkin on 7 Oct 2007 13:57
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:50:43 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 6, 11:34 am, John Larkin >> Oh, I did find your patent (looked under the wrong name first try) >> >> http://www.google.com/patents?id=PER6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7081584&num=20 >> >> That looks both interesting and challenging. Why burden its chance of >> success by betting on hydrogen generation, distribution, and use too? > >Why are you folks so deathly afraid of having a commercial cache of >hydrogen made efficiently and affordably, not to mention h2o2? >- Brad Guth - Nobody is afraid. It would just have to be made to work, economically. And in the near term, it has to compete with natural gas and coal. John |