The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Sep 2007 04:51 Martin Brown wrote: > Dan Bloomquist <publi...(a)lakeweb.com> wrote: > > Martin Brown wrote: > > > > Yes, I know where the cultivation will take place. But this is about the > > product's destination. And how nice for D1-BP that there are bio > > requirements legislated to take effect starting in 2009 for the UK. > > Yes. Shipping the stuff half way round the world to use it in the UK > makes no sense at all. No more or less sense than shipping almost *anything* of decent value half way round the world surely ? > The only good thing that can be said for cultivating jatropha as a bio > fuel in the tropics is that it probably does provide a reasonable net > return on the minimal energy input needed to grow it. That is not so > clear for bio ethanol production from grain at temperate latitudes. And especially not from corn, which is a poor feedstock choice for ethanol production. > And anyway turning useful quality food into a poor fuel is insane on > multiple levels unless you are a grain farmer. The price of surplus grain is currently so low that it's become economic to burn it as a fuel in conventional space heating applications. > Some calculations suggest that the net energy returns from bio-ethanol > production may be > less than zero when you include all the energy costs of industrial > scale planting, fertiliser, irrigation, harvesting, fermentation and > distillation. And those calculations are invariably based on 'worst case' assumptions. Jatropha needs no fertiliser AIUI nor much in the way of irrigation. It also only needs to be planted the once. In India, the harvesting is likely to use plenty of manpower as opposed to fossil fuel. A sensible location for bio-ethanol plants would be next to power stations. They could use the waste heat from the cooling cycle to power the fermentation and distillation. This would require an element of 'joined-up thinking' though which is a very rare commodity. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Sep 2007 04:52 Martin Brown wrote: > Dan Bloomquist <publi...(a)lakeweb.com> wrote: > > > > Jatropha is a labor intensive crop and the working class that supports > > this endeavor will see little, if any, of the booty. > > Of course. I don't envy the poor sods that will have to work the crop. Expect Dan to claim they will be 'like slaves'. This is what he claims about the Brazilian bio-ethanol workers. Graham
From: Punjab The Sailor Man on 5 Sep 2007 08:23 BradGuth wrote: > On Aug 8, 5:47 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs >>>>>> have too many limitations. >>>>> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out >>>> What about these? >>>> http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html >>> Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. >>> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html >> Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the >> ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre. >> What are you, a greedy Republican? >> >> Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's >> why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men >> not afraid to take on the special interests, leading >> by example. >> >> -- >> Rich > > I agree, that our badly failing environment needs that do or die kick > in the butt, whereas the all electric car is technically doable, > especially with the enviro safe and clean h2o2/aluminum battery, along > with as much global renewable energy that's put in charge of producing > the h2o2 and aluminum. > > However, there's no such thing as 100% safe energy, or even of those > products made with said energy. I'm certain there will be those > deaths associated with getting fusion energy up and running, > especially if any of that required bulk or volume of He3 is derived > from our moon. > > Klondike III wind project: tower failre likely due to excessive > torque. > http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2720796920070828 > Chadd Mitchell, 35, was killed on Saturday afternoon when a 242-foot- > tall tower he was working on toppled over, said a dispatcher for the > Sherman County Sheriff's Department. > > Mitchell, of Goldendale, Washington, was working at the top of the > tower -- essentially a hollow tube -- when it buckled. A second worker > in the tube was injured and a third worker on the ground was not hurt, > according to The Oregonian newspaper. Federal officials are > investigating the incident, it said. > > "the turbine blades were manufactured in Denmark and the towers in the > United States" > > "The specific tower, W-1, was located at the easternmost row of towers > in the Klondike III project" > - > > Oddly there's no specific mention of the tower engineering firm or of > those in charge of having built such towers. > > - > http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200708300438DOWJONESDJONLINE000539_FORTUNE5.htm > Jim Johnson, a mechanical engineer with the federal National Renewable > Energy Lab's wind technology center, discounted the possibility of a > structurally deficient tower. > > "It's not impossible, but it's extremely unlikely for a tower to be at > fault on its own and to buckle and fall," he said. > > But Johnson also found it difficult to come up with a scenario under > which the blades turned quickly enough and the braking systems came on > suddenly enough to torque or vibrate and buckle the tower. > > Paul Gipe of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association in Toronto > maintains the only worldwide database on wind tower deaths. > > According to his figures, there have been 33 previous deaths > worldwide associated with wind towers since 1975, with 18 of them in > the United States. > The most recent accidental death took place when a worker fell 210 > feet in Chandler, Minn. in 2005 > Last year, a wind gust bent and twisted a tower at the Condon > Wind Project in Gilliam County, but there were no injuries associated > with that accident. > - > > Obviously the rotational braking torque was unavoidably 100% > transferred into twisting that support tower, and with that tonnage of > blades in motion along with maximum braking applied would have placed > all of that rotational energy into the tower itself. Why such blades > have to be so decelerated to such a complete stop and so quickly is > clearly not understood. I'd like a look-see at the mechanical specs > and results of subsequent testing of those towers, which obviously had > little if any structural reserve to work safely within such torque > issues. > > Americans seem genetically mutated as to specialize in cutting corners > at every opportunity, and then some. Hopefully our future of He3 > fusion derived energy will become as robust and reliable as my LSE-CM/ > ISS. Otherwise, we know that most anything of fossil and yellowcake > derived energy is birth to grave deadly in more spendy, lethal and > toxic ways than we can count, not to mention the ongoing collateral > damage and carnage of the innocent related to 9/11 and our ongoing > efforts at taking control of Iracq's oil. > - Brad Guth - > Forget it. We are already past the point of no return. Yes, co2 is increasing greenhouse but particulates are blocking sun light. When we clean the particulate emissions out of the air the temperature will double, melt all the glaciers left and kill mankind.
From: Erdemal on 5 Sep 2007 08:42 Punjab The Sailor Man wrote: <snip> > Forget it. We are already past the point of no return. Yes, co2 is > increasing greenhouse but particulates are blocking sun light. When we > clean the particulate emissions out of the air the temperature will > double, melt all the glaciers left and kill mankind. And nothing of mankind will remain, forgotten forever. like in "Cien A�os de Soledad". Erdy
From: Eeyore on 5 Sep 2007 09:04
Erdemal wrote: > Punjab The Sailor Man wrote: > > <snip> > > > Forget it. We are already past the point of no return. Yes, co2 is > > increasing greenhouse but particulates are blocking sun light. When we > > clean the particulate emissions out of the air the temperature will > > double, melt all the glaciers left and kill mankind. > > And nothing of mankind will remain, forgotten forever. > like in "Cien A�os de Soledad". You're not actually gullible enough to believe that are you ? Graham |