The Electric Car

B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
In sci.physics,BradGuth
<[email protected]>
wrote



The only problem is that those solar cells cast a shadow. Is there
anything nearby? Oh, another tower? Won't do that other tower
much good, will it?

Oops.




If one likes shade.








There's only one, numbnutz. Unless you want to claim I have multiple
personalities. (Maybe I do. Depends on my mood. You can't tell.)




How many hectares of land (1 hectare = 2.47 acres or 10000 m^2) would
it require, even assuming your 40 kW/m^2?

And how much would that land cost?

Also, the current power utilization of the US is about 4
trillion kWh/year, or 456 gigawatts. Oil consumption is
about 20.73 million bbl/day, or 1.46 terawatts (since 1
barrel of oil is about 6.1 gigaJoules).

The good you've got enough power.

The bad it'll cost.




Highly debatable, mostly because PV fab costs are relatively high.
They are, however, coming down to the point where ROI thereon
might be 5 years, if one is lucky.

Also, there's still the shadow issue. A 100 m high tower
is going to cast at least a 100 m shadow. This will more
than double the acreage requirement ... and may quadruple
it, depending on how much usable sunlight one wishes over
the course of a day.

A renewable energy farm of such tower derived clean energy may be as
few as one. Then there's offshore installations. Go figure.
A naive calculation, taking into account the shadow
problem, suggests about 400 megahectares, or 1.5 million
square miles. This is more than twice the size of the
state of Alaska.

We could all use a little extra shade. Global warming, you know.
That would be quite a facility, and be readily visible from
space.


$1e13 is about the yearly GDP of the entire US at present.



You have written your Congressperson with this proposal, right?

Obviously you have no honest intentions of polishing or otherwise
constructively contributing squat, much less pitching on our behalf.
Of course neither would the likes of your friend GW Bush, but I'd bet
Hitler would, especially if it meant winning a war, such as our war
against global warming and otherwise salvaging our badly failing
environment.

In that case, we'll just run our cars, SUVs, trucks and most
everything else under the sun that's orbiting your flat Earth on nasty
old coal and mostly N2, just the way "The Ghost In The Machine", ENRON
and the ExxonMobil swarm of denial and naysayers like it.
- Brad Guth -
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
It's you who doesn't understand *practical* physics you MORON.

What's not "*practical* physics" worthy about solar, wind, tidal,
geothermal and even improved hydroelectric derived energy?

Where the hell do you think all of that solar and moon contributed
energy is going? and why shouldn't we take our micro fair share of
such clean energy before it summarily kills us all for not having done
such?
- Brad Guth -
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hey Braddie,
I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is
soda water! :cool:

OK, then put your relatively safe "soda water" tank worth of LOx to
work within a Hummer or GM Volt, and basically go for it, especially
if it's supposedly so much better off than h2o2.

What's the combined LOx+c12h26 of clean Mj/kg worth these days?

How much LOx per gallon of c12h26 or fossil whatever are we talking
about?

What's the well insulated storage tank of that amount of LOx going to
take, in outside measured gross volume, if looking at only a 5%/month
loss?

Is that insulated amount of LOx any smaller than a locomotive tanker
car?
- Brad Guth -
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuth said:
OK, then put your relatively safe "soda water" tank worth of LOx to
work within a Hummer or GM Volt, and basically go for it, especially
if it's supposedly so much better off than h2o2.

Neither H2O2 nor LOX will improve a Hummer's fuel efficiency.

Graham
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Or worse, modules around the one tower. The idea of one 8000 m2 PV disk
tracking the daily sun is pretty daunting. But if you break it up into
several smaller modules, say 100 of 80m2 each,

Calculate the wind loading on them!

John
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
Or worse, modules around the one tower. The idea of one 8000 m2 PV disk
tracking the daily sun is pretty daunting. But if you break it up into
several smaller modules, say 100 of 80m2 each, then when the sun isn't
directly overhead, the modules closest to the sun are casting shadows on the
ones directly behind them. Space them out far enough that you can get full
sun on all of them for about six hours a day and you just about double the
distance between them. Any more than that and simple trigonometry expands
the spacing needed very quickly.


Yep, it's a pretty big 'oops'.

There's no such "oops", other than we see that you're still trying to
create that new and improved black hole of denial and naysayism vortex
again, arnt you.

Why don't we just plug everything that needs energy into your
infomercial spewing butt of soot that runs on coal, h2o and
extensively N2. Of course we should also come to think, that within
much negative derived energy that's so sooty and badly CO2 and NOx
polluted (not to mention responsible for those massive conversions of
fresh water into acidic vapor by consuming nearly as much tonnage in
fresh water in order to keep those soot and nasty NOx contributions
down to a dull roar), might actually blow or otherwise suck out the
entire grid.

You and others of your all-knowing kind that never have to
constructively contribute or much less take into account the all-
inclusive birth to grave energy cycle, must have entirely missed out
on your final masters degree in physics duh-101, therefore independent
thinking or that of a deductive thought isn't allowed, much less
shared.

Our public utility energy grids that are in rather sad shape, as well
as mostly pumped via coal is also representing our nations biggest
consumer of fresh water, that when the likes of CO2 and NOx is
contributed becomes acidic and otherwise directly toxic to most life
as we know it, not to mention having puked a dozen other contributing
negative factors as also having placed that much greater tonnage of
fresh h2o as vapor directly into our global plus moon warmed
environment that has more than it's fair share of atmospheric moisture
to deal with as is, thereby dragging Earth's albedo down while having
increased nature's storm sucker punch my yet another measurable
factor. At the rate we're going, within the next century Greenland
well actually start becoming noticeably green as viewed from space, as
well as physically elevated because of all that teratonnage worth of
ice removed.

To hear you folks spew those mainstream status quo or bust rants, we
should not only stay the polluted course but greatly increase our
fossil fuel consumptions at all possible cost and rates of converting
such into as much soot and nasty environmental contributions as we can
muster, and call it good even if yellowcake is our only secondary best
alternative of traumatising whatever's left of our badly failing
environment, that has gotten most of everything more spendy than we
can afford to use or much less fix. Mean while, we have your born-
again resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) that's taking us into WWIII.
Gee whiz, does life in your fossil and yellowcake fast lane get any
better?
- Brad Guth -
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuthwrote:

The only energy we get from the moon that can be harnessed is tidal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage
has been discussed since 1925.

More than half wrong again. Besides those vast clean teraWatts of
tidal flow energy, try a few other vast teraWatts of geothermal, and
that still doesn't account for what's between Earth and that
physically dark and nasty moon of ours, or the gravity/tidal influx by
our sun that has nothing whatsoever to do with those visible or even
IR photons.

If that sun were a spent star or of less thermal energy than a brown
dwarf status, we'd still be getting our 98.5% fluid Earth heated from
the inside out, that is unless Earth wasn't spinning. Add that
massive and nearby moon's gravity/tidal force and it's hotter yet
because, moving so much mass about can't but help cause friction, of
which can't but help case heat.
- Brad Guth -
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuthwrote:


Neither H2O2 nor LOX will improve a Hummer's fuel efficiency.

Which off-world conditional laws of physics are you using this time
around? or is that another Yid secret that you'd only share with the
likes of Hitler?
- Brad Guth -
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's why you put the solar cells on the windmill blades :)

Robert

I like it; blades with PVs as engineered by Robert Adsett.

At least that's a constructive thought, of waste not, want not.

In addition to the potential of each tower hosting as much as that
8000 m2 disk array or plate of cells that's residing well enough below
those 4 MW blades, tile most every surface with those PV cells, as
well as the more blade mass the better as long as those ceramic
bearings hold their load.
- Brad Guth -
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuth said:
More than half wrong again. Besides those vast clean teraWatts of
tidal flow energy, try a few other vast teraWatts of geothermal

Not practically accessible on most parts of the planet. Iceland is just lucky.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuth said:
Which off-world conditional laws of physics are you using this time
around? or is that another Yid secret that you'd only share with the
likes of Hitler?

Learn some basic science you moron.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuth said:
I like it; blades with PVs as engineered by Robert Adsett.

At least that's a constructive thought, of waste not, want not.

Let me see.

Wind turbine blades flex.

Photocells break if flexed.

Stupid, stupid idea.

Graham
 
B

bill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Learn some basic science you moron.

Graham

in all fairness, using lox as an oxidizer would in theory increase the
hot side temperature of an ice, which would increase the carnot
efficiency. in addition, if both the oxidizer and the fuel were in
the liquid state, it *may* be possible to run an engine without the
intake and compression strokes, injecting both the lox and the fuel at
the top of the stroke under full compression and then igniting
quickly, and exhausting the waste gasses on the return stroke. This
would *if possible* increase the ice efficiency.
I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might
make tinkering with it a winter project.
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
in all fairness, using lox as an oxidizer would in theory increase the
hot side temperature of an ice, which would increase the carnot
efficiency. in addition, if both the oxidizer and the fuel were in
the liquid state, it *may* be possible to run an engine without the
intake and compression strokes, injecting both the lox and the fuel at
the top of the stroke under full compression and then igniting
quickly, and exhausting the waste gasses on the return stroke. This
would *if possible* increase the ice efficiency.
I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might
make tinkering with it a winter project.

Think 2-cycle, think ceramic piston and liner, think h2o2 instead of
LOx, and above all increase your life insurance to its maximum.
Otherwise, with a little common sense and some dumb luck it'll work
rather nicely.

BTW, there's far better than piston ICE technology that's suited for
this task, although the initial R&D is a whole lot more spendy.
- Brad Guth -
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's why you put the solar cells on the windmill blades :)

Robert


Cool. Arrange for them to spin at 60 Hz and avoid inverter losses!

But solar cells are so last century. The new new thing is sun-pumped
lasers.

John
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuthwrote:



Let me see.

Wind turbine blades flex.

Photocells break if flexed.

Stupid, stupid idea.

Your insurmountable naysayism and total negativity is noted. There's
another incoming important call for you, it's from Hitler or perhaps
GW Bush (silly me, I can never tell them two friends of yours apart).
- Brad Guth -
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuth said:
Your insurmountable naysayism and total negativity is noted.

Your total ignorance of reality is noted.

Graham
 
B

BradGuth

Jan 1, 1970
0
BradGuthwrote:


Not practically accessible on most parts of the planet. Iceland is just lucky.

That's more than 100% wrong again. Clearly you are not having such a
very good naysay day, are you.

A decade ago the thought of extracting oil from greater than 25,000'
below our two left dumbfounded feet was nearly impossible. Guess
what?

There's more accessable geothermal energy than each of us can shake
our fist full of burning sticks at, and then some.

Therefore of excluding off-world energy alternatives, there's still
good old terrestrial wind, tidal, solar and geothermal that's offering
a thousand if not a million fold more sustainable energy than we're
currently pillaging and raping out of mother Earth, and having been
rather badly polluting our frail environment in the process.

I suppose you don't think there's any such renewable energy on Venus.
Besides the obvious family incest you have to deal with, what the puck
is your physics and science problem?
- Brad Guth -
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's more than 100% wrong again. Clearly you are not having such a
very good naysay day, are you.

A decade ago the thought of extracting oil from greater than 25,000'
below our two left dumbfounded feet was nearly impossible. Guess
what?

There's more accessable geothermal energy than each of us can shake
our fist full of burning sticks at, and then some.

Therefore of excluding off-world energy alternatives, there's still
good old terrestrial wind, tidal, solar and geothermal that's offering
a thousand if not a million fold more sustainable energy than we're
currently pillaging and raping out of mother Earth, and having been
rather badly polluting our frail environment in the process.

I suppose you don't think there's any such renewable energy on Venus.
Besides the obvious family incest you have to deal with, what the puck
is your physics and science problem?
- Brad Guth -

As long as oil, gas, and coal are cheap, more expensive alternative
sources won't get developed. We *will* pump all the available oil out
of the ground, and all the gas, so energy prices will creep up. That
will force conservation and allow at least some alternate energy
sources to become commercially viable. The big impediment to
increasing the cost of energy is coal, which there's still a lot of.

So relax. Most perceived problems fix themselves, as this one will.

John
 
Top