The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 13:57 On Oct 6, 3:23 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! ;-) That's being done as we speak. We just need more of and lots bigger and/or higher dams. - Brad Guth -
From: John Larkin on 7 Oct 2007 14:01 On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:37:21 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Oct 6, 10:53 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:48:42 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >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. >> >> Well, it's just fairly seldom that our little electronic circuit >> design group is graced by billionaires who will soon be in control of >> most of the energy market of the world. >> >> Frankly, circuit design sounds like more fun. >> >> John- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >I understand. > >But please understand I have a daughter who's mom and whom are Swiss >citizens, and since I'm eligible and there are advantages in it for >me, I'm getting my residency papers and with those will buy a couple >of houses in Geneva and a chalet in the Rhone valley. > >One house is for my daughter and her mum, and the other for me, and >the chalet is to create an income neutral situation - the townhouse I >bought for them 4 years ago may be rented as well. > >The rent brings in enough every season to cover recurring costs on >all households. Which the accountants like. Meanwhile Swiss real- >estate is very stable - a good inestment - so,its well worth the money >- I'm obviously not carrying any debt. Hell, you're already a billionaire. All that level of expense is way below the noise floor, not worth an hour of your time. John
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 14:05 On Oct 6, 5:08 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. As is the makings of h2o2, aluminum or even the reverse pumping on behalf of hydro energy storage. There's only 350,000 teraWatts of solar photon energy to start off with, although perhaps only 20%(70,000 teraWatts) is surface accessible. Wonder what the gross solar and/or moon tidal energy is actually worth. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 14:12 On Oct 6, 5:54 pm, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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. You've got to be kidding, that you and those of your all-knowing swarm of expertise doesn't know about such things. Gee whiz, what a surprise. Of course it's always best to simply increase the vertical offset and reservior capacity to start off with. Our local ROSS dam (screw Canada) should go up by at least another 50 feet. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 7 Oct 2007 14:32
On Oct 6, 6:58 pm, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is? If it's anything like the known rusemasters and orchestrated naysayism of what most folks right here within this mostly semitic anti-think- tank usenet land, where next to nothing ever gets fairly treated or even allowed to coexist on its own, as then we do in fact know of what Ponzi (most likely another Italian Yid gone bad) was all about. Of us village idiots being continually snookered by those in charge, and thereby so easily dumbdounded past the point of no return is the ultimate faith-based Ponzi scheme on steroids, along with having introduced massive collateral damage and carnage of the innocent to boot. - Brad Guth - |