Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Pressurized Air Car?

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 11:13:12

The shaft connected to the wind turbine, havn't you been following along?


Wind Turbines do not produce near the electricity as a 3500 rpm turbine generator, is dependant on the wind, and cannot be cycled up as needed.

Any fool can figure that out. I cannot name names but I am speaking with person who is commissining a wind farm in the Pac. NW and he said the only reason they are doing this is because of state requirements to have 15% Green energy. I am not saying it is not a good move, it is just not going to replace what we have now...
Last edited by clueless on Wed 21 Mar 2007, 11:43:54, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 11:15:54

Aaron wrote:5 pages on the AirCar?
...

Some of you folks will chat about anything... yeesh.


Hey. This beats the heck out of the thread where they're convinced I'm the cause of AIDS, or the one where I'm the murdering abortionist. :-D

Aaron wrote:If you believe in Aircars, I want my tax money back for your education.


So help me out. Maybe I'm a bit naive about the subject. You think the can't be built? They won't perform as promised? What am I missing?
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 11:19:19

clueless wrote:

I do not have the time to waste debating a guy who believes we will power a Ford and GM manufacturing plant on solar panels..



Do you have time to read the thread before you post? What are Ford and GM going to be manufacturing post PO? Its very unfortunate that such a shortsighted idiot is in the research and development field.


OK - Substitute a food processing factory or whatever - I was using it as an easily recognizeable example. Do you have the ability to see a bigger picture than the one displayed on your computer screen ?

I can see it now - Mass Chaos, Poor families are having to steal to eat, 7$ gas takes 30% of the workforce off the road which leads to a 25% jump in the crime rate , the list goes on and on...

But Jbeckton has his solar panels and $30 a month electric bill so everything is OK.

Again I say, what a joke...
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 11:23:07

Aaron wrote:If you believe in AirCars I want my tax-dollars back for your education.


You paid for my education? That explains a a lot. I want what little money you paid for my craptacular state funded edjewmakatshun back. If not, I'll sue you for wasting decades of my life in pitifully funded naptime classrooms. Although if the quality is indicative of what you paid, I doubt I'll get much. :-D
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 11:26:13

You paid for my education? That explains a a lot. I want what little money you paid for my craptacular state funded edjewmakatshun back. If not, I'll sue you for wasting decades of my life in pitifully funded naptime classrooms. Although if the quality is indicative of what you paid, I doubt I'll get much.


I like this guy -

Aaron - I think he could be a potential Hawkman convert.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby Aaron » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 12:11:10

My mind refuses to accept that I must explain why AIR CARS are a stupid idea to you folks.

I could tell you... but it would be like matter touching antimatter & the Universe would be destroyed.

I originally read of this idea in 1978 in the Congressional Record actually.

And it was just as ridiculous then as it is today.

Praise HawkMan.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 12:22:14

My mind refuses to accept that I must explain why AIR CARS are a stupid idea to you folks.


I was scolded by Jbeckton for "not reading the thread" prior to posting..

All this time I thought it was a joke, Are you saying there are people here who actually believe this ???

But again, another person here seems to believe industrial civ can be powered by solar panels and wind turbines. I can see it now, thousands of travelers stranded on the interstate awaiting not a gallon of gas mind you, but a boost of hot air to get their 1000 lb dethtraps off the freeway, in order to make it to their solar powered homes, through the maurauding gangbangers who are coveting the solar powered lifestyle of the new suburbanite who have replaced the Turbine driven 3500 rpm generator, with a windmill....

Sound like bliss to me.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby jbeckton » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 12:28:17

clueless wrote:
The shaft connected to the wind turbine, havn't you been following along?


Wind Turbines do not produce near the electricity as a 3500 rpm turbine generator, is dependant on the wind, and cannot be cycled up as needed.


Silly fool, what turbine generator are you operating at 3500 rpm? All of ours are at 3600 rpm, you are on the 60 hz freq right?

The shaft spins at 10-30 rpm for a wind turbine and is geared up for the generator. Hydro turbines don't spin at 3600 rpm either, whats your point? You have don't have one.

The only reason that wind and solar are not more widespread is because they are not cost compeditive with coal. The simple fact is the coal is cheaper now than it will ever be agian. Wind and solar get more efficient and more compeditive every year. At some point these two markets will meet, what then bright guy?

The coal will all be burnt, don't worry. But every year more and more focus is given to renewables. I bet your company has a lot of gas CT's lying around all over the country that don't run anymore because of NG prices. What if we start breaking down the coal in CTL when we start to see PO effects? How stupid are companies not diversified in generation going to look then? Don't put all of your eggs into one basket, even if it looks like the best basket today.

You said yourself that you were adding windpower to apease state requirements of 15% greenpower. Look into your crystal ball and tell me which way that precentage is going to go in the future smart guy?

Like I said, its obvious that regulations are going to drive FF prices up before PO even kicks in. Power companies know this so they are starting to look into renewables. Unfortunatly your comapany has a guy hiring for R&D who has no hope for anything other than coal. I guess you will be bought out when you can't afford your emmisions credits.

Are you sure you work in R&D?


If you want to continue to debate all renewables there are several discussions going on, no need to derail this thread.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby lawnchair » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 12:33:58

smallpoxgirl

I think the problem with doing any kind of math on this is that you're reading their hyped numbers the way they want them read.

Is it possible to transport a human 200km on said tank of compressed air? Yes.

Is it possible to get to 80 km/h using said tank of compressed air? Yes.

Those are the (separate) promises in the article and none other.

Is it possible to transport 500 kg for 200km at largely 50-80 km/h, but speeding up and slowing down at numerous lights (F=ma) on inclined terrains on that tank of air? Probably not even within an order of magnitude. That's what they wanted you to believe.
User avatar
lawnchair
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 12:55:23

Silly fool, what turbine generator are you operating at 3500 rpm? All of ours are at 3600 rpm, you are on the 60 hz freq right?


Again - A semantec..I missed 100 rpms, you are right - I bow down before you. BTW: I am not an Engineer and don't claim to be one, I forgot it was 3600 rpms. I do remember European Turbines run at 5k though - Do I get any brownie points from you for knowing that ?

The shaft spins at 10-30 rpm for a wind turbine and is geared up for the generator. Hydro turbines don't spin at 3600 rpm either, whats your point? You have don't have one.


My point is they do not bring the bang for the buck...If they are such a great idea then why are they so unused ? Don't bother repsonding we will get nowhere on this point, time will tell.

The only reason that wind and solar are not more widespread is because they are not cost compeditive with coal. The simple fact is the coal is cheaper now than it will ever be agian. Wind and solar get more efficient and more compeditive every year. At some point these two markets will meet, what then bright guy?


Not when there is massive demand destruction - It plainly and simply will not be affordable for everybody that has afforded it in the past. It will be available, sure for the rich people.

The coal will all be burnt, don't worry. But every year more and more focus is given to renewables. I bet your company has a lot of gas CT's lying around all over the country that don't run anymore because of NG prices. What if we start breaking down the coal in CTL when we start to see PO effects? How stupid are companies not diversified in generation going to look then? Don't put all of your eggs into one basket, even if it looks like the best basket today.


Americans are living on credit now - How much more can they borrow to pay their power bills, and over 50% of our energy is imported, there is no soluiton to that other thn learn how to live with less, and Americans do not like that idea -

You are the one claiming to have all the detailed cost analysis info, not me I am merely stating the obvious, which ic Americans are addicted and dependent on cheap hydrocarbons, and that is going to change fairly rapidly.


You said yourself that you were adding windpower to apease state requirements of 15% greenpower. Look into your crystal ball and tell me which way that precentage is going to go in the future smart guy?


I am not the one making assumptions here my friend - You are. Same thing applies to LNG, people complain about Natural Gas, is LNG the solution ??? Can people afford 35 pcf ??? Same thing will happen going from Combined cycle to Wind Turbines, massive demand destruction caused by supply side dynamics.

Like I said, its obvious that regulations are going to drive FF prices up before PO even kicks in. Power companies know this so they are starting to look into renewables. Unfortunatly your comapany has a guy hiring for R&D who has no hope for anything other than coal. I guess you will be bought out when you can't afford your emmisions credits. Are you sure you work in R&D?


I don't work in R&D - I support R&D. You don't need to worry about my company being bought, but you should be concerened with vise versa.

If you want to continue to debate all renewables there are several discussions going on, no need to derail this thread.


Please spare me the lecture on edicate, as always these threads are dominated by nintendo generation engineers that have very little common sense or understanding how things work for the average american
Last edited by clueless on Wed 21 Mar 2007, 13:23:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 13:15:24

Jbeckton - Here is just a snapshot of what will happen as Americans scramble for cheap alternatives. They may beleive the hype about them, but in the end there are none. And staying on the wind turbine (or air car) topic, as long as we have abundant , and not even necessarily cheap, hydrocarbons ; Air cars, wind turbines, fuel cells and the like sound like a great idea - But no matter how you slice it the US (and world) economy runs on black liquid, coal and smelly gas extracted from the ground...When demand outstrips supply for those, that is the end of the game, and Wind Turbines, Air cars, and Fuel Cells will be history - I'll bet the farm on that.

As the main ingredient for ethanol rises to $4 per bushel and oil prices dip, many are concerned about an industry shake-out.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Financing for ethanol plants has tightened as rising corn prices have made it tougher for producers to turn a profit and an industry shake-out could follow, according to sector bankers and executives.

The price of corn, the main ingredient of U.S. ethanol, has risen to $4 per bushel, making it more difficult for ethanol plants to turn a profit. At the same time, oil prices have fallen since peaking at more than $78 a barrel last summer, cutting into demand for a lower priced alternative.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 16:12:39

Based on grid connected home use, one of these cars has crap in terms of efficiency because small air compressors have crap efficiency. But, there are places where coupling them with wind power could result in some seriously cheap transportation. This definitely wouldn't be for everyone, but if we had strong nightly winds and doubled the tank size, we could use the car as an energy sink and go with a smaller battery pack that's just for home use. The damn thing would probably run forever, and ~200 miles of range wouldn't be half bad. So instead of having a big battery system to collect all that electricity, and either compressing air, or charging an EV with batteries that have a noticeably finite lifetime, we can reduce the cost of the home batteries, and eliminate the cost of any EV batteries, if we had an EV.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 16:24:16

YesPlease

Concern about a peak in oil production is like throwing nine out of ten meals in the trash and thinking you may not have enough food to get by.


I am intrigued by your caveot (or moniker or whatever it is called)...What is your definition of concern ? I guess I could be concerened, but I would describe myself as being curious more than concerned. But nonetheless there are some pretty educated folks who you could say are "concerned".

And the paradigms brought about by "peak oil" (I prefer vital resource depletion) will be much different in the rest of the world than those faced by the U.S.

Just wondering what you baseline for this type of statment is - You seem pretty humble and intelligent on this matter.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: IS THIS THE END OF PEAK OIL?

Unread postby SolarDave » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 01:36:56

smallpoxgirl wrote:
jbeckton wrote:The article stats that it costs less than 1 euro to travel 100 kilometers.

1 euro = 1.33 dollars
100km=62.14 miles

So you are looking at $0.02 per mile.

I saw that. They don't give any derivation for those numbers. How did they decide it costs 1 euro /100 km?

OK. I found an error in my calculation. The 90 m^3 is probably at STP. So the tank holds 0.3 m^3 at 300 bar.

0.3 m^3 at 300 bar is 9 mega joules. That's 0.07 gallons of gasoline.

That makes the efficiency 1800 mi/gal!

9 mega joules = 2.5 Kwh. Assuming 33% efficiency for the compressor, that's 7.5 kwh per fill or about $0.75.

Those numbers still don't seem right. Can this thing really be getting 1800 mi/gal equivalent efficiency!?!?!


For comparison:

1. Two 6 Volt 220 AH golf cart batteries contain roughly 2.5 KWH if you drain them down agressively. Lead Acid charge/discharge efficiency is typically better than 70% round-trip. Electric motor efficiency is pretty high. It's impossible to know and compare the powertrain weights but those air tanks and the air motor together have to weigh something.... So even a "stone age" Lead-Acid battery system seems like it could outperform the air tanks/motor - to say nothing of more sophisticated batteries.

2. Hop on a bike. Crank out 100 Watts of effort. You will probably be riding close to 25 MPH. Keep it up for an hour. 100 Wh total input to the bike. 25 miles of travel. 4 Wh/mile. I have a Corbin Sparrow three-wheel one-seater. On level ground at constant speed of 25 MPH it uses 100Wh/mile. Riding a bicycle is 25 times as efficient. Can this Air Car really claim to travel 120 miles on compressed air storing the equivalent 2.5 KWh of electricity, which would only take the Sparrow 25 miles? Or that it uses only 20 Wh/mile - just 5 times what a BICYCLE uses?

Call me suspicious.
100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html
Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer
User avatar
SolarDave
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby jbeckton » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 07:17:38

clueless wrote:
Americans are living on credit now - How much more can they borrow to pay their power bills, and over 50% of our energy is imported, there is no soluiton to that other thn learn how to live with less, and Americans do not like that idea -
......
Same thing applies to LNG, people complain about Natural Gas, is LNG the solution ??? Can people afford 35 pcf ??? Same thing will happen going from Combined cycle to Wind Turbines, massive demand destruction caused by supply side dynamics.


You don't seem to know a lot about anything. Why would we solve a FF shortage with another finite FF source? Are you following along? LNG is not renewable either.

You just keep arguing that FF is too cheap to make other things compeditive but at the same time hint that we are running out of FF. Are you under the impression that one day there will be no more oil? Do you not see a slower decline of oil lasting decades? DO you really think that in say 5 years there will be no more oil?

There will always be oil for those that can afford it. Unemployed R&D support guys might come out on the short end of the stick though. If FF are in short supply, renewable construction and agriculture will always be able to afford oil becase there will always be buyers while the average Joe cannot.

Just wait until they start regulating mercury.

Natural gas is not smelly, we add that smell so people know if there is a leak. But I'm sure you knew that too.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby Heineken » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 09:35:02

smallpoxgirl wrote:I'm with you on that Heineken, but I don't run the world. The rest of the creatures are pretty into their creature comforts. They are going to leap upon any workable scheme to maintain the status quo. If this thing actually works as claimed, it could allow them that luxury. Is it a good thing? Of course not. It just sets us up for a bigger eventual fall, but it does seem workable. Who knows. Maybe it doesn't work half as well in real life as it does in the marketing materials, but if it does, there's enough coal around to power this thing for a good long time.


I bet these things don't work well going up steep hills. A lot of those here in Virginia. Testing of such cars is usually done on "treadmills."

It's amazing how much more power you need to go uphill.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby kolm » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 10:00:22

jbeckton wrote:Everything requires a huge capital investment.


Wrong. Gas turbines are relatively cheap to build. The capital investment is roughly ordered currently as

gas - hard coal - brown coal - water - wind - nuclear - - - - - PV.

[Wind, water depend strongly on location etc.]

The first law of thermodynamics basically states you don't get something for nothing.


The first law basically states that the total energy of the universe won't change, regardless of you building a nuke or a coal or a wind power plant. People always throw in 'laws of thermodynamics' in order to spice up a debate about energy economics (what's the cheapest way to do things), full of vague generalities only in the loosest sense connected to rigorous laws of physics and even less relevant for the point in question.

It's not the question whether you will need eggs for an omelett or not, but which chicken you should buy for laying them.

We will use the remaining FF anyways, why not use them to build
renewables, a net energy producer no matter what way you look at it.


Because
(a) energies are not all alike,
(b) net energy calculations are not always the only thing that matters,
(c) people won't act 'rational' (maximize energy flow over lifespan of humanity), but what economists call 'rational' (maximize short-time earnings).

"Accounting tricks" are great but even without them wind turbines now cost about 4-7 cents per kwh, whats not cost effective about that?


The problem is that they are not very reliable. (Ask the danes about it.) People don't want unreliable power supply, so power suppliers need backups, either by call options on power or by back-up plants. Both choices cost money, which comes on top of the wind power price. Moreover, if you want to sell every kWh produced (which you need to meet those price forecasts), you need other power plants balancing the load. This will cost you dearly again, since those other power plants cannot operate at maximum efficieny, but in much less efficient constant change of load.

Additionally, all those nice 'look how cheap' calculations make, of course, very favourable assumptions about location. The energy yield increases like the (averaged) cube of wind speed, so the wind speed plays an enormous role in the price of power. And you can bet that the sites with such optimal wind conditions are taken first and fastest; the price of wind power is thus, essentially, inversely related to the amount of wind power already installed.

You are not sure about a lot of things. Steam turbine and CT plants are not efficient at all! (about 33%)


First of all, Parson type steam turbine couples work at about 40%, not 33%, and they are used in the power industry if it pays off economically. In NPP, you usually don't want many things that can jam, because down-time and maintenance costs you dearly, hence you usually accept lower efficiency than theoretically achievable. Second, even 33% is not too far from carnot efficiency, hence I do not understand what you mean by 'not efficient at all'. Of course, a gas-cooled NPP etc. can achieve higher efficiency, since it can achieve higher gradient of temperatures, but this comes bundled with possibly higher building costs, a maybe more sophisticated cooling system and higher discharge of cooleant in case of leakage, not to mention the higher nuclear fuel temperature. It is always a payoff to be balanced, and just pointing at one single number and claiming 'inefficiency' seems absurd to me.

Where does nuclear energy suck air out of the atmosphere?


At its ventilation openings. Cool air is used to cool cooling water.

It uses a nuclear reaction to boil water, the rest is no different from a coal plant.


Hell yes it is. If you have a leakage in the cooling water containment of the coal plant, you can make a guesstimate how long you can run this thing and go on; in the NPP, you have to shut down immediately and file an incident report.
User avatar
kolm
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu 11 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby kolm » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 10:23:47

jbeckton wrote:No one is claiming that a air powered car would be more practical, more efficient, or a better option than a FF power car. Just that it might get us from point A to point B after the FF cars are gone.

Whats so hard to understand about that?


That's easy to understand. However, it is hard to see any relevance in such a statement. You can replace 'air powered car' with 'horse', and it works out, too. You could even insert 'appropriately genetically engineered hamsters', and the statement keeps kinda true.

If you claim that this is even remotely practical, I'm very sceptical. I do not know of any laws regarding efficiency of of pneumatic energy storage, but I would assume that even the ideal gas law will place a hefty penalty on all such trials. Not even to mention that a back-of-envelope calculation suggests that energy density will be at the very least ten times less than lowest-cost lead acid batteries.

It was hard to find three years ago and might be completely vanished today, but they had a hilarious 'test drive result' somewhere. They drove ~7km (IIRC) with their car; then their whole air tank was empty. Then the magic started; they started to extrapolate like "Well, if the car would weight only half, and the air friction would be zero, and some flying pigs would carry it over hills" and came out with an expected reach of 250 km. Brilliant guys, those are. After that stunt, I lost all interest in their promises. Even a lemon-powered golf cart would seem more realistic to me than this compressed hot air.
User avatar
kolm
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu 11 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 10:41:04

You don't seem to know a lot about anything. Why would we solve a FF shortage with another finite FF source? Are you following along? LNG is not renewable either.


Please explain what you are talking about ? I am saying going from Hydrocarbon (there is nothing "fossil" about oil and gas) energy to wind is the same as going from domestic gas to LNG, far more impractical and cost intensive - And my very point is there is no "supply" side answer, it lies in demand. Seriously - Am I confusing you or am I not making my points clear ? I am sying there will be no "Engineering" our way out of this problem


You just keep arguing that FF is too cheap to make other things compeditive but at the same time hint that we are running out of FF. Are you under the impression that one day there will be no more oil? Do you not see a slower decline of oil lasting decades? DO you really think that in say 5 years there will be no more oil?


Read above - I cannot for the life of me figure out where you are coming from. Oil might get very cheap in a few years when the economy crashes and the masses cannot afford it - You are implicating a seamless transition to windmills & solar panels - Sorry Charlie, ain't going to happen.

There will always be oil for those that can afford it. Unemployed R&D support guys might come out on the short end of the stick though. If FF are in short supply, renewable construction and agriculture will always be able to afford oil becase there will always be buyers while the average Joe cannot.


Are you trying to scare me ? Or are you projecting your fears ? My house is paid off, I have no debt, live in a good place and have money in the bank, as much as the average person can prepare I am prepared. Speaking of which - want to know how many unemployed widget makers cannot find a job today that were fat dumb and happy in the 90's ? Engineers are (sadly) commodites these days - Once they are antiquated the parties over. PG is hot right now, but in ten years and massive demand destruction occurs PG Engineers will be hitting the unemployement lines like flies on cow manure - I have seen it over and over.


Just wait until they start regulating mercury.

Natural gas is not smelly, we add that smell so people know if there is a leak. But I'm sure you knew that too.


Yes I did know that, but thanks for reminding me...According to several books I have read, Sour Gas has quite an odor.
Last edited by clueless on Thu 22 Mar 2007, 11:16:33, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby clueless » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 10:59:03

First of all, Parson type steam turbine couples work at about 40%, not 33%, and they are used in the power industry if it pays off economically. In NPP, you usually don't want many things that can jam, because down-time and maintenance costs you dearly, hence you usually accept lower efficiency than theoretically achievable. Second, even 33% is not too far from carnot efficiency, hence I do not understand what you mean by 'not efficient at all'.


That is very interesting - I had no idea they were that inefficient. Why is that ? Is it due to thermodynamics (I mean heat loss) ?
So at 40% and figuring in line loss we are fortunate be able to use around 50% of the total energy used ?

What would be the most efficient for of PG ??
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests