SolarDave wrote:1. Two 6 Volt 220 AH golf cart batteries contain roughly 2.5 KWH if you drain them down agressively.
That is a very good point. Kinda puts it in perspective doesn't it?
SolarDave wrote:1. Two 6 Volt 220 AH golf cart batteries contain roughly 2.5 KWH if you drain them down agressively.
kolm wrote:(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).
kolm wrote: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.
kolm wrote: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'.
Where does nuclear energy suck air out of the atmosphere?
kolm wrote: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.
kolm wrote: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.
Sure, but where does the steam burn oxygen which was the point I was making? Exactly, thats just taken out of context.
smallpoxgirl wrote:I just saw this:http://www.theaircar.com/Mines_reports.html
They had the engineering audited by a firm in Paris who confirm that it has a range of 70 miles at 31 mph or 416 miles at 12 mph! They don't even mention speeds above 31mph. That's stable speed, BTW. No slowing down, speeding up, hills, etc. I'm pretty sure you could get further faster with a horse and buggy.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
clueless wrote: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
clueless wrote:Oil might get very cheap in a few years when the economy crashes and the masses cannot afford it.
clueless wrote:Sure, but where does the steam burn oxygen which was the point I was making? Exactly, thats just taken out of context.
You are the one taking things out of context - I ASKED if Nuclear used oxygen in the combustive process, you claimed I said that it did.
Jbeckton - What are you threatened by ? I am clearly not an engineer and do not claim to be one. I certainly do not have all the head knowledge you have, but I am more aware than the average person. WHy do you have such a chip on your shoulder ?
Are you actually claiming that natural gas and oil are not fossil fuels?
Oil will get cheap when people can't afford it because its in short supply and the production methods get more expensive ? Wow, we are all dumber having read that. You shoud put a disclaimer above your posts. There will always be buyers for oil.
.I'm guessing any general knowlwdge of economics isn't required to hire engineers to research and develop fuel cells. Yeah your company is making good moves; starting with you
How can you know that the shaddows are not real if you never look out of the cave.
clueless wrote:Are you actually claiming that natural gas and oil are not fossil fuels?
I am saying it is plant matter - That is what I am claiming. Fossils are burried skeletons (or whatever you want to call them).
Should I start giving footnotes ???
clueless wrote:To what level will there be buyers for oil ? Our society, no matter how you slice it is built on $1 gas and $100 electricity bills - The price trend is in an upward swing and the average American is going deeper into debt to pay his fuel bills due to a falling dollar and increasing global demand (both directly and indirectly becasue all products and services are produced and made from energy), which is not sustaninable in any fashion.
organic remains
So you think that if gas was 1$ and electricity bills wer $100 people would not be in debt? They are in debt because they can't budget their expenses, not because things are too expensive because fuel prices are high.
They would be just as much in debt, they would just get more stuff along the way.
yesplease wrote:smallpoxgirl wrote:I just saw this:http://www.theaircar.com/Mines_reports.html
They had the engineering audited by a firm in Paris who confirm that it has a range of 70 miles at 31 mph or 416 miles at 12 mph! They don't even mention speeds above 31mph. That's stable speed, BTW. No slowing down, speeding up, hills, etc. I'm pretty sure you could get further faster with a horse and buggy.
Only if you want to kill your horse! ~35 hours of straight work... Poor thing. But this is definitely considered to be an Urban vehicle. It'd be great for West or East coast rush hour traffic, nearly useless for open highway, probably something like 10-20 miles of range. This could probably be doubled with aerodynamic improvements (Wow, 40 miles! ), but since it's being marketed as a practical urban vehicle, they aren't worth looking into in that context.
If their calculations were true, replacing the air motor and tanks with a set of pedals would provide similar range and performance - and address all of the "where will the power come from" questions in this thread
If their calculations were true, replacing the air motor and tanks with a set of pedals would provide similar range and performance - and address all of the "where will the power come from" questions in this thread
SolarDave wrote:I would expect 0-12MPH times on the order of 1-2 hours at this power level
SolarDave wrote:If their calculations were true, replacing the air motor and tanks with a set of pedals would provide similar range and performance - and address all of the "where will the power come from" questions in this thread
clueless wrote:My road bike only weighs 16 lbs - Doesn't that make my machine far more efficient ???
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
Nevermind the air car, my point is, and always has been, that if were could develop an infastructure that was dependent on electricity alone, we have a chance to achieve sustainability. Sure there are a lot more pieces to the puzzle.
yesplease wrote:According to your calcs, this can go 12 miles on 70watts for an hour, or 70wh per 12 miles. So 6wh/mile. My hat's off if anyone could bike for 35 hours straight at 6wh/mile with peaks in the kw range.
yesplease wrote:SolarDave wrote:If their calculations were true, replacing the air motor and tanks with a set of pedals would provide similar range and performance - and address all of the "where will the power come from" questions in this thread
According to your calcs, this can go 12 miles on 70watts for an hour, or 70wh per 12 miles. So 6wh/mile.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 179 guests