- #36
taylaron
Gold Member
- 397
- 1
thats how they power low energy electronics in cold environments. they use the hot energy from the nuclear cell with the cold outside temperature to run a sterling engine. ingenious.
taylaron said:thats how they power low energy electronics in cold environments. they use the hot energy from the nuclear cell with the cold outside temperature to run a sterling engine. ingenious.
taylaron said:im afraid i don't understand your statement on electric gears ivan because you can't generate more energy by uping the gears. you will only lose or gain torque in proportion to your gear ratio. loss of energy from friction. but you know all this.
i suppose i don't understand your concept..
Once a highly variable power source like wind becomes more than some small percentage of the the over all power grid then, yes, some method will have to be implemented to store the energy, as has been discussed at length in other threads. Hydro power plants can store excess wind power for instance. Then the wind has to have a transmission connection to the hydro, and unfortunately not much hydro is located in the wind belt Pickens plans to develop. It doesn't make good technical or economic sense to rely heavily on large, centralized coal or nuclear plants for a 1:1 backup as suggested here. Large boilers can not be quickly turned on and off, and the boiler runs less efficiently this way. Gas turbines can be, but then Mr Pickens wants to move all the CNG over to transportation. And for any large plant, the owners want to run it at maximum capacity for economic reasons, selling every possible kWh to pay for that large initial investment.OmCheeto said:...No, you do not need to store the energy.
If you have 3 electric plants online supplying the grid(coal, nuclear, natural gas), and a wind farm comes online, you reduce the output of the least desirable source of energy, thus extending the life of that fuel source.
FredGarvin said:I'd like to see someone divert the obscene amount of energy used for the big lift to get water to southern California. Put some energy into making that area self sufficient in water and the country could save a very large amount of energy.
http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/swp/swptoday.cfm
Water flowing down the East Branch generates power at Alamo Powerplant then is pumped uphill by Pearblossom Pumping Plant. The plant lifts the water 540 feet. From there, it flows downhill through an open aqueduct, linked at its end to four underground pipelines which carry the water into the Mojave Siphon Powerplant, which discharges the water into Lake Silverwood. When water is needed, it is discharged into Devil Canyon Powerplant and its two afterbays.
LowlyPion said:Of course they should fund alternative energy. Not sure that the question about giving it to Pickens is exactly the right choice, but surely with no limits set on population growth world wide, the only choice on the population/energy treadmill is to develop more energy.
OmCheeto said:But since we didn't, it didn't, and all we can do now is fix it.
This is entirely incorrect. The wind energy in the atmosphere by itself, or the solar energy incident on the Earth's surface by itself, both far exceed the current energy demands of the planet. And that is only counting energy realizable with existing technology. The problems lie in issues like matching the energy source to the demand type (electricity vs gasoline/diesel for transportation), location (Arizona sun vs Maine winters), having the energy when you need it (calm days/ cloudy days), and of course the economics - even if the technology exists does the renewable source cost much more than existing fossil or nuclear sources. Regards demand growth, the energy required per $ of GDP has been dropping for some years in the advanced industrial countries. One can expect the third world demands to grow but as those countries mature economically their energy demand growth will also slow. Regards ecological impact, the only issue I'm aware of that might be called ecologically significant is the use of biofuels (like corn) that compete for food crop land; alga oil or cellulosic switch grass are better upcoming alternatives.rolerbe said:[RANT = ON]
There are 3 basic "energy independence" problems to be solved:
- 'Alternative' energy sources (including grow your own corn for ethanol, etc.) have their place, but do not have sufficient total energy capacity to meet even current world population needs, let alone the needs generated by growing future demand. Also if alternative sources were utilized to the full, there would be significant ecological ramifications.
Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.OmCheeto said:I'd never heard of the "Big Lift" until you mentioned it. (Proper name: Edmonston Pumping Plant)
Researching the California Aqueduct, the Big Lift only consumes about a third of the energy to run the whole thing; 2.87 gigawatt's. http://wwwswpao.water.ca.gov/publications/bulletin/95/view/tables/ti-3.htm"
hmmm...
12,563,473,215 kwh/yr to run the California aqueduct system(assuming running at 50% capacity 24/7)
0.1 $/kwh
$1,256,347,321.47 annual cost
Powering this set of pumps would require about 2.5 billion dollars worth of the 1.5mw ge wind turbines. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/" .
mheslep said:This is entirely incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gasNatural Gas Vehicles
A Metrobus using natural gasCompressed natural gas (methane) is a cleaner alternative to other automobile fuels such as gasoline (petrol) and diesel. As of 2005, the countries with the largest number of natural gas vehicles were Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, Iran, and the USA. [16] The energy efficiency is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. Gasoline/petrol vehicles converted to run on Natural Gas suffer because of the low compression ratio of their engines, resulting in a cropping of delivered power while running on natural gas (10%-15%). CNG-specific engines, however, use a higher compression ratio due to this fuel's higher octane number of 120-130.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_114/If you're thinking of joining the league of CNG drivers in the U.S., your choice of new vehicles is limited this year to one: The Honda Civic GX, a natural gas-powered version of the Civic. Compared with a Civic Hybrid, you'll pay $2,290 more for the Civic GX, although you'll be eligible for a $4,000 tax incentive instead of the Civic Hybrid's current credit of $2,100. In addition, CNG vehicles such as the Civic GX are eligible for most of the same parking and carpool lane privileges as hybrids; in many states, CNG vehicles were using HOV lanes long before hybrids.
Is it possible for individuals to pump CNG into their vehicle from home? Yes. FuelMaker developed Phill, the world's first home-based fueling appliance, which can be mounted to a garage wall, indoors or outdoors, to allow natural gas-powered vehicles to be refueled overnight directly from a homeowner's existing natural gas supply line.
...Early in 2006, the average price of CNG in the United States was $1.99 per GGE, while gasoline was $2.23 per gallon. While a 24 cent-per-gallon price advantage sounds attractive, CNG vehicles have lower fuel efficiency than hybrid vehicles. A Civic GX, for example, averages 32 mpg, while a Civic Hybrid is rated at 50 mpg. So while a GGE of CNG is cheaper, the Civic GX needs more fuel to operate, and therefore costs per mile are actually higher. [continued]
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116325157/abstract... Dynamometer testing of the natural gas hybrid prototype on the certification FTP-72 duty cycle revealed very low emissions and mileage greater than 33 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent. This hybrid option utilizes a domestic, cost-effective fuel with renewable sources. With multi-fuel capability (methane, hythane and gasoline) it is also designed for use within the emerging hydrogen market. This hybrid option offers reliability and cost-effective technology with immediate wide spread market availability...
rolerbe said:[RANT = ON]
...
Are we doomed to go dark, or is there an out? Yes -- Fusion. Leads to solutions for all the issues above. But, its too long of a play for the corporate world to take on. We need to push our governments to start doing what governments should be doing -- which is looking long term -- 60+ years, not just the myopia of the 6 year election cycle. We need to fund Fusion research big time, not the piddles it is currently getting. If the US were serious about maintaining the premier superpower position, they would lead this charge, not just tag along as an ITER also ran. Write your congressman!
[/RANT]
...Recent cost comparisons by Deutsche Bank's auto analysts suggest electric cars will be cheaper to operate than conventional vehicles. Fuel costs per mile for gasoline-fueled cars are $0.27 in Germany, $0.24 in Britain, $0.17 in Brazil and $0.11 in the U.S., with differences driven by local fuel taxes. For electric vehicles, the cost per mile is a mere $0.02. Adding in a battery amortized over the life of the car, the cost is still only $0.10. Batteries will be expensive, at least in early years, but electric cars won't need costly engines or complex transmissions like today's autos...
mheslep said:Ok, they do, now, letting you know.
Ivan Seeking said:Pickens will be on Lou Dobbs, next Monday.
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
As for the potential for fusion discussed earlier: No time. Just like McCain's battery, fusion is a forty year old promise.
The day for each may come, but we can't wait for all of these already dated, pie-in-the-sky promises. Also, I doubt that fusion would prove to be the ideal source of energy that many people expect. IMO, if there is one lesson to be learned from the pursuit of the ideal energy source, it is that there is no perfect option.
Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.
Ivan Seeking said:Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.
taylaron said:I completely agree with you Cheeto. from my perspective, the world knows that using fusion to generate the electricity to power the world is possible. Of course there are speed bumps and mountains that must be traversed as usual. But this was also the case during WWII. They knew a massive uncontrolled fusion reaction capable of leveling a city was possible; given the money and resources, they succeeded. I think this is just as important if not more than this case.
After all, its about saving the planet; not just the USA... (there's some perspective for ya)
With these spirits in mind, could someone give me a rough estimate of how much $ would have to be spent to just get this research going steady? Excluding the funding money for the following years; who knows how long and how much money would go into it. but Fusion is a topic for another thread.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp"Before you plan to install your own wind turbine or wind farm, you must know if the wind resource in your location is adequate.
vanesch said:For sure it isn't "too cheap to meter", but concerning the competition with coal, have a look here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
link said:Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
dlgoff said:http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp"
If we only had wind everywhere.
Oh. I agree.Ivan Seeking said:To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344
Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall:vanesch said:...There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. ... Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it...
Albert Einstein 1932 said:There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
mheslep said:Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall:
Controlled fusion may appear easy one day too.
Perhaps we could both be more precise then and drop the 'price of two cars' rhetoric and stick to exactly how much battery is required, and at what price.Ivan Seeking said:This is verging on misinformation, which is worth a third of the points needed for banning.
There is not a viable battery for electric cars; not cars that can meet the practical needs of drivers, less a small percentage of the population. If you only want to drive a golf cart ten miles a day, of if you can afford $50K or $60K worth if Li ion batteries every few years, that is another matter.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1793313&postcount=121Ivan S said:...So it would take $11,000 worth of batteries to get the energy storage and output of one gallon of gasoline.
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1337Impact of Drive Cycles and Powertrain Configurations on PHEV Battery Requirements
Date Published: April 2008
Author(s):
Jason Kwon - Argonne National Laboratory
Aymeric Rousseau - Argonne National Laboratory
Abstract:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) offer the ability to significantly reduce petroleum consumptions.. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), working with the FreedomCAR and Fuels Partnership, participated in the definition of the battery requirements for PHEVs. Previous studies have demonstrated ...
[5]NREL said:A Preliminary Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Wind Energy Markets
...PHEVs
...For the average driver, the use of a relatively small battery delivers much of the benefits of a pure electric vehicle, without the disadvantages of prohibitive cost or limited range...
mheslep said:Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
vanesch said:... I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us: