clueless wrote:What happens as coal regualtions push price up and renewables continue to become cheaper?
Not meaning to attack you, but this way of thinking has to be changed.
Everything requires a huge capital investment. The first law of thermodynamics basically states you don't get something for nothing. 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.clueless wrote:"Cheaper" is a realitive term. Chepaer means nothing, nothing ever really gets cheaper. Wind Turbines require huge capital investment that will never be recouped by the company building them.
clueless wrote:They get "cheaper" from subsides and accounting tricks, but the reality is in the long run they will never be profitable or make any real impact on the supply side.
clueless wrote:Renewables may become more usable, but they do not get cheaper. Same with photovolatics, they will never come close to generating the bang for the buck that Combustion or Steam power generation will - You should know that.
clueless wrote:I am not sure if Nuclear Energy uses air, but CT's and Steam do - That is the reason why they are so efficient is the largest componet used in the combustion process is air which is simply sucked out of the atmosphere. That is why the ICE will never be replaced - Because it does not have to transport the air it uses in combustion, which in most cases is (What) 20:1 ??
smallpoxgirl wrote:Those numbers still don't seem right. Can this thing really be getting 1800 mi/gal equivalent efficiency!?!?!
clueless wrote:This site claims there are more than two, but who knows? Here in CA, we supposedly have turbines from U.S. Windpower, Kenetech & Vestas, and probably GE. May even be more...
There two manufacturers in the US. -
Siemens and GE will be the owners of the wind biz in the US. Vestas and Suzlon people are leaving like mad, and due to mandates from the federal govt and tax incentinves all the small guys will be out of business or purchased in a matter of a few years.
clueless wrote:I'm curious, how did the US dept of Wind Energy run us into a 10 trillion dollar deficit?
Their they are part of the US Dept of Energy aren't they ? Which is a part of the US govt. Correct ?
onequestionwonder wrote:And yet none of you geniuses has answered with a single equation, why it is impractical.
Answer a question, or be silent.
Why is it impractical?
jbeckton wrote:I don't know where they got the numbers but you don't want to quantify energy of a gas per unit volume unless you are absolutly sure of the temp and pressure (or enthalpy, or entropy) or you can be off by a wide margin.
smallpoxgirl wrote:I'd love to hear from someone how it is possible to get such fantastic efficiency from the engine when it's function isn't that different from an ICE. I'm still in disbelief about it getting the equivalent of 1800 mpg.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
smallpoxgirl wrote:If you were to heat the cylinder, that would increase it's pressure, and thus it's potential energy. I understand that the exhaust is much colder than the cylinder and some of the potential energy is lost in that way, but that relates to the efficiency of the car, not the potential energy of it's "fuel".
If their numbers are even close to correct, and this thing can really go 200 km on that amount of compressed air, this is clearly a huge quantum leap in automobile design. I've driven gasoline vehicles that had not much more range than that, and I can totally believe compressed air stations. This seems to me a much more plausible approach than electric cars.
Heineken wrote:And the way things basically are is not sustainable, no matter how personal vehicles running on vast road networks are powered.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
jbeckton wrote:Where are you heating the cylinder? Are you talking about adiabatic heating from compression? It will be lost energy not potential energy.
Are you considering the fact that the car is about the size of a large golf cart and is made of fiberglass and glue? Also, if the engine doesn't put out a lot of horsepower, which I suspect is the case, the efficiency goes way up.
Most operations at most factories operate on electricity period. Its method of generation has nothing to do with it. A steam turbine or a combustion turbine produce exactly zero electricity! Only the generator produces electricity and the generator requires no FF to burn.
So is my mailman.
I'm going to grab him today and demand an anwser for the deficit. I'm sure that bastard had a big hand in it.
The work that I'm interested in achieving is moving my posterior from point A to point B. They say it can move my posterior 200km with that amount of potential energy.yesplease wrote:Well... First off, you're not going to get useful work from all of that potential energy. Like my previous blurb stated, you may only get a little over half of that energy, which is the equivalent of 1000mpg.
The use (aka energy transfer) in the Air Car, or Electric Car is relatively efficient because the lossy transfer of chemical energy to thermal energy is done offsite. While the ICE powered vehicle does it onsite, and makes an already inefficient energy transfer even worse. There are also design constraints. Since the AC has such poor energy storage density, it must be small, slow, and efficient. EVs follow the same idea, and most ICEs can be the size of houses because the fuel has very high energy density. So the different sizes also throws off a mpg equivalent comparison.
These are just numbers that I pulled out of my bum and should be taken as such. But, the point is that EVs/ACs are efficient in terms of mpg equivalent because the process they use to transfer energy in the car is relatively efficient, and the offsite process is inefficient. ICE powered cars are the opposite, with most of the energy being lost onsite.
I am not sure if Nuclear Energy uses air, but CT's and Steam do - That is the reason why they are so efficient is the largest componet used in the combustion process is air which is simply sucked out of the atmosphere. That is why the ICE will never be replaced - Because it does not have to transport the air it uses in combustion, which in most cases is (What) 20:1 ??
You are not sure about a lot of things. Steam turbine and CT plants are not efficient at all! (about 33%) Where does nuclear energy suck air out of the atmosphere? It uses a nuclear reaction to boil water, the rest is no different from a coal plant.
Actually thats just an ignorant remark; especially from someone who subscribes to PO. Today PV is closing the gap as coal plants are now being required to build $700,000,000 scrubber systems onto their plants to avoid fines. This cost is being passed on the consumer, look for it in you bill in the next 1-3 years. Also, we're getting close to reglulating mercury as well, get ready for another price hike from FF. All the while PV cells are approaching 40% efficiency and silicon shortages are being resolved through new materials and manufacturing processes. Even if you don't want to put down $15,000 to insure an average electricity bill of ~$60 a month for the next 30+ years, you can lease a system with no up front cost for ~$80 a month.
http://peakoil.com/fortopic27418-0-asc-0.html
$15,000 to insure an average electricity bill of ~$60 a month for the next 30+ years,
clueless wrote:Most operations at most factories operate on electricity period. Its method of generation has nothing to do with it. A steam turbine or a combustion turbine produce exactly zero electricity! Only the generator produces electricity and the generator requires no FF to burn.
What drives the generator pal ??
clueless wrote:Photvoltaics will power a coffee pot but not an automated factory.
clueless wrote:You are using semanitcs to try to discredit my statements, I am full aware a generator is powers by a turbine..Give me a break.
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..
They can easily power an entire house. Tell me why they can't power a factory? Thats just a dumb statement.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests