| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Herm
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
 |
|
The generating capacity now available in the US would be enough for 80% of
transportation energy usage if the vehicles were charged at night. It will
be a long time before we reach that level.
There are schemes for load leveling using electric cars plugged into the
grid... but batteries would have to be very advanced and cheap before I
would allow my car to do that.
Here is a link for electric motors for bicycles.. they are getting pretty
fancy!.. and with modern LIFE lipos you can get an inexpensive system with
a 20 mile range. I am tempted!
http://www.electricrider.com/crystalyte/phoenix.htm
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:46:00 GMT, henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <FMKdnd_dj4UP0PjbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@dls.net>,
Paul F. Dietz <dietz@dls.net> wrote:
And to the degree that electricity can better become a substitute for
petroleum (for example, by improvements in batteries for vehicles)
then SSP isn't needed, or even particularly helpful. Huge numbers of
PHEVs could be charged on the US power grid with existing capacity
(mostly during off-peak times) before they would require new capacity
additions.
With one small caveat: some of the generating capacity now used only for
peak loads, which would have to run 24x7 if some new big off-peak energy
use appeared, is not suited to providing base-load power -- too expensive,
too polluting, etc. (Some utilities use older plants, or inefficient but
low-capital-cost technologies like gas turbines, to help meet peak loads.)
It would have to be replaced with new base-load generating capacity in
this scenario.
That's a detail, though; Paul is still basically correct.
|
Herm
Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Paul F. Dietz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
Joe Strout wrote:
| Quote: |
It's not just about adding new capacity as needed -- it's about reducing
existing emissions, by replacing existing fossil-fuel-burning plants.
|
To provide power when existing sources reach limits, you have to
be cheaper than the other currently non-competitive alternatives.
Excluding fossil fuels, this means competing with nuclear.
To provide power instead of expanding existing sources, you have
to be cheaper than that (we still have lots of coal).
And to DISPLACE existing dirty sources, you have to be cheaper
than the MARGINAL cost of those existing sources. The existing
sources get to ignore their sunk capital cost, but you can't.
Even if you insist on reducing CO2 emissions, you have to compete
against retrofitting those existing plants with CO2 capture/
sequestration equipment, again ignoring the sunk capital cost.
Frankly, I will be utterly astounded if SSP can compete with
terrestrial power sources (even excluding coal) in my remaining
lifetime, and not at all surprised (in some theoretical sense,
after I'm dead  ) if it can't compete this century.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Paul F. Dietz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
Henry Spencer wrote:
| Quote: |
Unfortunately, even Arizona gets clouded out at times, and atmospheric
absorption cuts available power early and late in the day (a particular
annoyance for the latter, since that's when the highest demand peak is).
And there is quite a bit of 24x7 base load to be supplied, and there'll
be much more of that if electricity is used to manufacture or replace
petroleum-derived liquid fuels.
|
However, if electricity is replacing liquid fuels, this will likely
require large amounts of battery capacity in vehicles. So you
automatically have most of a load-leveling system already in place.
You can do even better if the vehicles are hybrids, using sparing
amounts of some liquid fuel to tide themselves over rare periods when
generating capacity is unusually impaired.
Seasonal constraints are probably dominant, so the SSP ability
to wheel power between hemispheres can't be entirely countered.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
| Quote: |
Joe Strout wrote:
It's not just about adding new capacity as needed -- it's about
reducing existing emissions, by replacing existing fossil-fuel-burning
plants.
To provide power when existing sources reach limits, you have to
be cheaper than the other currently non-competitive alternatives.
Excluding fossil fuels, this means competing with nuclear.
To provide power instead of expanding existing sources, you have
to be cheaper than that (we still have lots of coal).
And to DISPLACE existing dirty sources, you have to be cheaper
than the MARGINAL cost of those existing sources. The existing
sources get to ignore their sunk capital cost, but you can't.
Even if you insist on reducing CO2 emissions, you have to compete
against retrofitting those existing plants with CO2 capture/
sequestration equipment, again ignoring the sunk capital cost.
Frankly, I will be utterly astounded if SSP can compete with
terrestrial power sources (even excluding coal) in my remaining
lifetime, and not at all surprised (in some theoretical sense,
after I'm dead ) if it can't compete this century.
|
All these SSP advocates completely miss the point. What we want to do is
demonstrate SSP on a small scale, for on orbit energy production and
consumption, in order to drive solar technology for use on Earth.
It's a technological development program, not meant to solve any energy
or carbon dioxide crisis directly, at least not in near term scenarios.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:54:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
<fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
|
We're all in this together. A great deal of "US" manufacturing has
been out sourced to China and other countries, even when they produce
goods less efficiently, in terms of pollution per product. So we
"own" a share of China's excessive C02 output. A great deal of US
consumption is driving, and perhaps exploiting, China and other
nations ineffient production, even aside from the outsourcing issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:48:33 -0500, "Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
John Schilling wrote:
SSP doesn't connect to oil prices, because SSP generates electricity and
oil is almost exclusively used in applications where electricity is *not*
an adequate substitute.
And to the degree that electricity can better become a substitute for
petroleum (for example, by improvements in batteries for vehicles)
then SSP isn't needed, or even particularly helpful.
|
As long as you recognize that that "degree" is quite small. I suspect
that if a miracle battery is ever developed that is cost effective,
with the useful energy density of petroleum based fuels, that the
government will ban it as a potential terrorist device, or for other
safety concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Derek Lyons
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henry Spencer wrote:
Unfortunately, even Arizona gets clouded out at times, and atmospheric
absorption cuts available power early and late in the day (a particular
annoyance for the latter, since that's when the highest demand peak is).
And there is quite a bit of 24x7 base load to be supplied, and there'll
be much more of that if electricity is used to manufacture or replace
petroleum-derived liquid fuels.
However, if electricity is replacing liquid fuels, this will likely
require large amounts of battery capacity in vehicles. So you
automatically have most of a load-leveling system already in place.
|
Not true - as current assumptions are built around the electric
vehicle charging at night, precisely when solar isn't available (and
normal electric demand is at it's lowest). Charge them during the
day, and they compete for power rather than serving a load leveling
function.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Combs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4698e001.297976818@news.giganews.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:32:08 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hyper
hyperboreea@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Powersats in LEO to me doesn't seem to be much better than just building
the thing on the ground. At night, a powersat visible from the ground
will probably also be in the Earth's shadow.
In shadow only twice a year during equinoxes, and only for an hour or
so per day.
That's the case only for GEO. We were talking about LEO.
|
I guess the only advantage of a LEO SPS over ground-based solar is no
interruptions due to cloud cover. At least you'd have a solid 50%
availability of solar power.
Even if a SPS was built in LEO just as an experimental proof-of-concept
prototype, I'd still like to see it raised to GEO eventually.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Alan Jones" <alanvj@nospam.mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3dhd63de3gsovfmav1fmts3t1utfmsb0i1@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
As long as you recognize that that "degree" is quite small. I suspect
that if a miracle battery is ever developed that is cost effective,
with the useful energy density of petroleum based fuels, that the
government will ban it as a potential terrorist device, or for other
safety concerns.
|
Therein lies the problem. I remember reading over 10 years ago an article
about energy density of various power sources. Gasoline was the highest
commonly used, at about 400kW/kg. The common lead acid car battery was
60kW/kg, while the best available battery discussed, a zinc/air model that
had a core temperature of 600 degrees, weighed in (pun intended) at
200kW/kg.
The folks pushing ethanol don't seem to want to talk about energy density.
Ethanol has less energy density than gasoline, so by adding it to gasoline,
your mileage will *drop*. You will need more fuel to go the same distance if
you cut gasoline by adding ethanol. Never mind the fact that ethanol takes
more energy to produce than gasoline.
Once again, "consensus" has decided that something that is nonsense is the
thing to do, and woe be unto anyone who dares use actual data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Alan Jones" <alanvj@nospam.mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:r6gd63l6r5aprkdi35nhlp9bolj45te0q1@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
We're all in this together. A great deal of "US" manufacturing has
been out sourced to China and other countries, even when they produce
goods less efficiently, in terms of pollution per product. So we
"own" a share of China's excessive C02 output.
|
In that case, *China* should be required to comply with whatever standards
are applied to the US, to the extend that the US share of China's emissions
are mitigated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:29:55 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" <dinehnmNOSPAM@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
"Alan Jones" <alanvj@nospam.mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3dhd63de3gsovfmav1fmts3t1utfmsb0i1@4ax.com...
As long as you recognize that that "degree" is quite small. I suspect
that if a miracle battery is ever developed that is cost effective,
with the useful energy density of petroleum based fuels, that the
government will ban it as a potential terrorist device, or for other
safety concerns.
Therein lies the problem. I remember reading over 10 years ago an article
about energy density of various power sources. Gasoline was the highest
commonly used, at about 400kW/kg. The common lead acid car battery was
60kW/kg, while the best available battery discussed, a zinc/air model that
had a core temperature of 600 degrees, weighed in (pun intended) at
200kW/kg.
|
Those are power densities, not energy densities. I'm not sure what it
even means to say that gasoline has a power density. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alain245@sympatico.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Jun 5, 2:20 pm, h...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <e7Z8i.13483$296.4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
robert casey <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It's probably a lot cheaper to just build the solar power plant on the
ground (like in a desert in Arizona), even though it can only work
during the daytime. But power consumption does peak during the daytime...
Unfortunately, even Arizona gets clouded out at times, and atmospheric
absorption cuts available power early and late in the day (a particular
annoyance for the latter, since that's when the highest demand peak is).
And there is quite a bit of 24x7 base load to be supplied, and there'll
be much more of that if electricity is used to manufacture or replace
petroleum-derived liquid fuels.
|
The production of liquid fuels by electricity could probably be
coordinated
with supply and demand of electricity. I think that massive solar
power
plants on Earth are more viable if you also have production of large
amounts of liquid fuels with electriciy.
Alain Fournier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alain245@sympatico.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Jun 5, 7:18 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Henry Spencer" <h...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ6C0o.2Kq@spsystems.net...
With one small caveat: some of the generating capacity now used only for
peak loads, which would have to run 24x7 if some new big off-peak energy
use appeared, is not suited to providing base-load power -- too expensive,
too polluting, etc. (Some utilities use older plants, or inefficient but
low-capital-cost technologies like gas turbines, to help meet peak loads.)
It would have to be replaced with new base-load generating capacity in
this scenario.
That's a point that a lot of those pushing electric vehicles miss. It still
takes x amount of power to move the vehicle (and the weight of batteries
often makes the vehicle heavier, requiring more energy). That energy isn't
free, it still has to be generated. Electric vehicles do not eliminate the
pollution cost of generation, it just shifts it from the vehicle itself to
the generating plant.
|
The big advantage of electric or hybrid vehicles comes from
regenerative
braking (there are other advantages but that is a big one). When you
push
on the brakes of a well designed electric car the motor becomes a
generator
and you recharge the batteries. That is why hybrid cars generally have
better
fuel efficiency in the city where you do a lot of stop and go, while a
typical
gasoline or diesel car will have better fuel efficiency on the
highway.
The extra weight of the batteries also give extra recharge when
braking.
So extra weight on a hybrid is not as bad as extra weight on vehicle
without
regenerative braking. Adding weight on a vehicle with regenerative
braking
will still lower the efficiency but not as much.
Alain Fournier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alain245@sympatico.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Joe Strout <j...@strout.net> wrote:
:In article <vcj963lp1o6ilgkti6m5jn46sskgpsm...@4ax.com>,
: John Schilling <schil...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
:> And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
:> that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
:> any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
:> better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
:
:China is certainly important, but the US is at the top of total CO2
:emissions at least as of 2003:
: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm
:
Get current. China is now at the top of the list.
|
I don't think so. I think China's annual increase in CO2 output is the
worlds greatest. But I think they still lag US CO2 emissions by a lot.
| Quote: |
:Of course I realize that what matters is current and near-future
:emissions, not total past emissions. But the U.S. is at the head of
:that "current" list too, at least as of 2005:
: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006_data.htm
:
Again, get current. It's not 2005, either. It's 2007 and China just
screamed past us in the last few months (a good year or two ahead of
the projections).
|
Cite?
| Quote: |
:Granted, China's got a lot of power coming online in the near future,
:but it's extreme head-in-the-sand-ism to say that US emissions don't
:matter. We're responsible for over 20% of the CO2 emitted on the
:planet. That's huge.
:
And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
|
Why should that be the metric? Why not CO2 production per capita?
(where
the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
treated
equally? If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
don't
make much with that is their problem, but shouldn't the poor have the
same
polution rights as the rich? If not it might be difficult for them to
get out of
poverty.
Alain Fournier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:39:37 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"alain245@sympatico.ca" <alain245@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Get current. China is now at the top of the list.
I don't think so. I think China's annual increase in CO2 output is the
worlds greatest. But I think they still lag US CO2 emissions by a lot.
|
Relative to GDP?
| Quote: |
And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
Why should that be the metric? Why not CO2 production per capita?
|
Because that would make no economic sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
215 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
