The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Willie.Mookie on 7 Oct 2007 18:25 On Oct 7, 5:10 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:05:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >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. > > If Willie can generate electricity for 0.2 cents per kwh, primitive > storage facilities, even inefficient things like compressed air, would > still make it the cheapest electricity source in the world, below US > market rates by about 10:1. > > And yes, one certainly could electrolyze aluminum from ore while the > sun shines. Make cement, too. > > So why isn't it happening? Yid conspiracy? > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Even so, there is a highest best use and most efficient order of battle and I believe I have that. Make hydrogen from water and use it to strand coal, and hydrogenate the coal into gasoline. This is the first step.
From: Willie.Mookie on 7 Oct 2007 18:39 On Oct 7, 2:01 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:37:21 -0000, Willie.Moo...(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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Really? That assmes a certain level of opportunity costs and a certain level of productivity and a competition for resources that doesn't exist. Actually, its just my way of having fun., Ah well, old habits die hard. I never rented an apartment in college. I rented a house and sublet rooms and lived for free. I signed a long-term lease and fixed up the place in my spare time, and made money from my housing. I never bought a car to drive. I bought nice convertibles (usually two and kept one to drive) in the fall that were definite fixer uppers (I'm an engineer dammit) and fixed them up in my garage over the school year, and in the spring sold two, at a nice profit, and drove a nice car all summer with some spending money in my pocket! lol. Then repeated the performance the following fall. So, I turned my cost centers into profit centers. Then, when I could I got a part time gig as a research associate at the university, and got insurance and so forth... And I began watching Wall Street Week on PBS back in the 70s and invested in the market when it was at 780 - which also produced a nice return and made me credit worthy citizen. The only thing I would do differently is I would have bought my house in school and sold it after I graduated rather than paying rent. But like I said, you've either got the knack or you don't! What else am I gonna do with my 'free time'? SPEND MONEY!? eew... haha.. I was thinking about breaking down and buying a boat, the 158' Laurison Mustang Sally was for sale recently by Rich Schaden of Quiizon's subs, but I couldn't figure a way to make it pay. So, I vacillated and someone else bought it. ah well.
From: Richard Henry on 7 Oct 2007 20:21 On Oct 7, 3:23 pm, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > While its true megawatts will be direct connected at some point, the > order of battle must take into account economies of scale as well as > diseconomies of scale. And when that happens you find you need about > $2 billion for your first solar panel plant to get the $0.07 per peak > watt. At that point you need something that can throw off $2 billion > profit today and absorb your entire output for a while. And one thing > that does that is a coal liquefaction plant that strands coal to about > 4 GW of coal fired capacity and and then converts the stranded coal to > gasoline. That's what I'm doing. I don't even have to sell one solar > panel. > > Once the factory is up and running, and fulfilling demand for panels > at company owned fuel facilities, I can begin supplying direct connect > systems where most appropriate. You spend too much time posting to this group to be doing anything profitable.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 8 Oct 2007 02:07 In sci.physics, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:15:20 GMT <pan.2007.10.06.22.15.50.756708(a)example.net>: > 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, Why would the engine be resource-hungry? Of course the fuel source would be -- but Brad's hypothesis, taken at face value, would assume terawatts of power available from these clean, simple towers, convertable into synthesizable hydrogen peroxide. Except that the towers are neither clean nor all that simple. - Cleanliness: The PV aspect is the most troublesome; the research continues and may very well solve this problem but at present the return on investment of a simple solar cell, at current electric rates, is approximately its expected lifetime -- about 20-50 years. Of course part of it is that the PV is not part of a sophisticated solar/wind powered tower, apparently (not that that would make all that much difference; wind power doesn't come out of nowhere, after all). - Simplicity. The tallest man-made structure is about 341 m in height (in the USA, anyway; I'd have to check for buildings in other places e.g. Petronas towers in Malaysis) with quite a bit of complexity such as a generally tapering structure (in the case of the Empire State Building, it's blocky). Modern skyscrapers are designed to flex. I've already mentioned the shadowing problem; I should mention that there's a certain issue regarding wind shadowing as well. Presumably the wind, hitting the blades of a windmill, gets deflected in various interesting ways, dissipating its energy -- and rendering the wind relatively useless for a windmill following. As for H2O2 synthesis from raw materials -- I'd have to look. > 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. ;-) Presumably this is Brad's notion more or less as well. However, AIUI crystallized H2O2 is very touchy to handle -- an issue if a vehicle has been sitting for too long. There's also the possible problem of spontaneous breakdown. Certain contaminants in the mix -- you mention manganese dioxide; I know nothing about it but that's certainly one possible contaminant! -- would break down the peroxide, either slowly over time, yielding relatively useless water and oxygen (from a power standpoint) -- or explosively. At least gasoline more or less vanishes through evaporation (though the result might be smog if there's enough of it). It is also explosive but only under relatively controllable conditions; it requires a rather specific fuel-to-air ratio. Of course its flammability is a concern, but then so are coal's, wood's, and chicken fat's, given the right conditions. And gasoline is long-term stable; it's not likely to do weird things such as polymerize or spontaneously decompose, under proper storage conditions. > > Cheers! > Rich > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1). (1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one". -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: BradGuth on 8 Oct 2007 09:29
On Oct 1, 1:55 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > > On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > > wrote: > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > > > The likes of Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself will gladly take > > > > care of supplying all the spare/surplus capacity of clean renewable > > > > energy for process of creating such nifty products of stored energy, > > > > as well as for boosting our nations's outdated and badly overloaded > > > > power grid, or on behalf whatever direct local applications you'd see > > > > fit to invest or waste such energy upon, and trust that this too is no > > > > lie, as being currently doable as is. > > > > > Of course as of 50+ years ago perhaps not, but we could and should > > > > have been deep into the R&D and consumer applications of accomplishing > > > > all of this as of a couple of decades ago, because it's all old > > > > physics and of the kind of proven science (much of which derived from > > > > smart Yids) that's replicated to death as of before then. > > > > - Brad Guth - > > > > I wonder if Warren Buffett knows that your trying to dirty his name > > > with your lies? I'll bet that you're the filthy little lying lizard in > > > his Geico insurance commercials. > > > > If he was interested in the subject his research would be going on > > > behind closed doors, and buried by severe NDA agreements. Why would he > > > back an ignorant know nothing like you, who can't keep his mouth shut? > > > Unlike your all-knowing self, Warren Buffett doesn't know all there is > > to know. Perhaps that's because he's merely human, and you are not > > quite. > > > BTW, what's "dirty" about his clean/renewable energy? Is there > > something about Warren Buffett that you are not telling us? > > - Brad Guth - > > 'Dirty' would be lowering hoimself to your level of ignorance and > hatred. Why do you and/or why would Warren Buffett hate the truth and otherwise have such disdain against our badly failing environment? - Brad Guth - |