Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Cost of Grid-Battery vs Diesel, Gasoline, Natural Gas and Ot

Sid9 · Guest

"turtoni" <turtoni@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:2b405835-12ee-4b9a-8c3f-4b3c9aa8ff7e@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the electric
in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block.

On Jul 24, 6:45 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
There are many ways to do it.
All America needs is the leadership to provide the motivation.
Republican have demonstrated that they haven>t got what>s needed.

Politicians are salesmen.

For example Clinton had eight years.

I>m not interested in salesmen.

I>m interested in Scientists.
[/quote]
Einstein had a letter from scientists that would have gone nowhere without a
politician.
FDR had the leadership necessary the start the Manhattan project.

I believe Obama has the
leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution
to our energy problem going.

Rob Dekker · Guest

"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in message news:g-GdndPpI_zjsBTVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[quote]
algortex@gmail.com> wrote in message news:91d6e299-90ed-4c85-9c37-ed6775178262@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill wrote:

Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation.

Al says,

Try our new and improved Low Temperature BEC, now with Rubidium!

Would you guys kindly remove "sci.electronics.basics" from the group list. It has nothing to do with electronics.
If you want to jump on Bret Cahill please do so on sci. energy, or alt. politics. , or alt philosophy, or what ever.

OK I>m calm now.
Best Regards,
Tom

[/quote]
Hi Tom,

I understand that it>s never nice to find a posting in your newsgroup that is about something other than what you think the
newsgroup should be about.
But you must admit that batteries are pretty close to the subject of science of basic electronics.
I have no idea why Bret put alt.philosophy here, but sci.electronics.basics seems rather applicable to me....
Besides, you can always ignore a posting.
Either way, isn>t this (a human written post) at least better than a robot posting spam on on the NGs ?

That>s my 2 cts.

Rob

Paul E. Schoen · Guest

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:R9bik.31195$co7.1630@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
[quote]
"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:HYOdnarlO6PkpBTVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@giganews.com...
..

Would you guys kindly remove "sci.electronics.basics" from the group
list. It has nothing to do with electronics.
If you want to jump on Bret Cahill please do so on sci. energy, or
alt. politics. , or alt philosophy, or what ever.

OK I>m calm now.
Best Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom,

I understand that it>s never nice to find a posting in your newsgroup
that is about something other than what you think the newsgroup should
be about.
But you must admit that batteries are pretty close to the subject of
science of basic electronics.
I have no idea why Bret put alt.philosophy here, but
sci.electronics.basics seems rather applicable to me....
Besides, you can always ignore a posting.
Either way, isn>t this (a human written post) at least better than a
robot posting spam on on the NGs ?

That>s my 2 cts.

Rob

OK Rob,
I block Google Groups because of the enormous spam.
I only see these post when someone replies.
From what I see its not electronics but a rant regarding energy of crop
farming.
I guess I can tolerate it.
My fingers got a little excited.
Really, its just light hearted poking based on what usually goes on
here.

Tom

Thanks Tom.

I>m not sure how you read the NGs, but maybe you can configure your
newsreader so that you can delete entire posting trails, from the top
down, so that all responses disappear.

Also, maybe you guys (at sci.electronics.basics) can help us out a bit
here :
We often talk about energy efficiencies on sci.energy, and efficiency of
power electronics is kind of getting important (we often see 90-100%
efficiency for power electronics).
Do you know much about that ? Efficiency of power inverters, voltage
regulators, transformers, brushless DC or AC motors etc ?
Any power electronics components that have much less than 100% efficiency
?

Rob

Electrical machines can be made very efficient at converting mechanical and[/quote]
electrical energy back and forth, as with motors and generators. Nothing
can be 100% efficient, except maybe a heat source, so if you want a motor
and a heater, you are in luck!

Converting electricity to light (and vice versa) is currently not very
efficient, and 20-30% is usually considered pretty good. CFLs have provided
about a five-fold increase in efficiency for producing light, and LEDs are
even better, with much longer life. Photovoltaics are also in the 20-30%
efficiency range (or less).

When examining overall efficiency, you really need to look at the total
costs involved in designing, manufacturing, maintaining, and eventually
disposing of a device. I believe Don Lancaster maintains that solar cells
have not produced any net savings over other sources of energy, if you take
into account the overall costs of manufacturing and useful life. But in
many cases they are worth the extra cost as a matter of convenience. A
calculator could probably run for several years on 10 cents worth of
electricity from the grid, but a $1 solar cell is much more convenient and
fully appropriate. A solar powered all-electric house in an area with
little sunlight would not be economical.

Converting electricity from one voltage to another can be accomplished at
very high efficiency, but again there are considerations of size and cost.
Small DC-DC converters are about 85% to 90% efficient, while larger ones
are often 95% or better. Yet there are also some very small low power
converters that are about 98%.

I think the discussion of excessive energy use in agriculture,
transportation, or anywhere else is appropriate for the groups listed. It
may be a stretch for philosophy, but then again it will take a revised
attitude about living to achieve a sustainable economy and a healthy
society. And it will take real cooperation among many diverse fields of
study to meet the needs of the future.

Paul

John Fields · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:28:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]The real problem is psychological. Everyone is in a state of denial.

And this is not limited to newsgroups. You see this in industry,
government, think tanks, universities . . . even independent
inventors.

I even had to fight myself to make this post!
[/quote]
---
Too bad you didn>t win. ;)

JF

John Fields · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:32:24 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

..
..
..

[quote]Meanwhile, you have an advantage over most people :
you know that electricity is cheaper than liquid fuel,
so find the businesses that will do well in that scenario.
Or even start a business yourself that makes electrical
farm equipment or anything else that you
think makes sense.

As Stanford Ovshinsky said : "if you want to change the world, don>t just talk about it. Do it !".
[/quote]
---
Bingo!

Nicely put, BTW. :-)

JF

beav · Guest

<point snipped, leaving wistful political stance>
[quote]
I believe Obama has the
leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution
to our energy problem going.
[/quote]

if you really look at his policies, he has none.

he>s all sizzle and very little steak.

the democrats, as a party have no plan either. their ONLY claim to
fame is "we aren>t them."

when they do open their yaps with 'ideas' they amount to diseconomic
vote pandering based on class envy.

this is a shame, because if we had countervailing plans between the
parties, the country could really make a choice and take a direction.

quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon.

>

Jack · Guest

"beav" <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message
news:10oj84te987rkv7d89eg4ek1e2rjm24cti@4ax.com...
[quote]point snipped, leaving wistful political stance

I believe Obama has the
leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution
to our energy problem going.

if you really look at his policies, he has none.

he>s all sizzle and very little steak.

the democrats, as a party have no plan either. their ONLY claim to
fame is "we aren>t them."

when they do open their yaps with 'ideas' they amount to diseconomic
vote pandering based on class envy.

this is a shame, because if we had countervailing plans between the
parties, the country could really make a choice and take a direction.

quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon.

I respected Obama>s stance against suspending the gas tax even as McCain[/quote]
favored it. As it turns out, the highway trust fund is bound to come up
short and we>ll probably have to raise the gas tax to maintain
infrastructure. New public construction is the way to strengthen this
economy.

Sid9 · Guest

"beav" <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message
news:10oj84te987rkv7d89eg4ek1e2rjm24cti@4ax.com...
[quote]point snipped, leaving wistful political stance

I believe Obama has the
leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution
to our energy problem going.

if you really look at his policies, he has none.

he>s all sizzle and very little steak.

the democrats, as a party have no plan either. their ONLY claim to
fame is "we aren>t them."

when they do open their yaps with 'ideas' they amount to diseconomic
vote pandering based on class envy.

this is a shame, because if we had countervailing plans between the
parties, the country could really make a choice and take a direction.

quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon.

[/quote]
1. There is a plan
2. Considering the fiasco of the Republican controlled government anything
is better than incompetence.
3. Whining that "they are the same" wont fly. Americans know better.

Immortalist · Guest

On Jul 24, 3:01 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel.

Since there is no substitute coming on line anytime soon there is no
reason to believe the cost of hydrocarbon fuel will stop spiraling,
especially with China>s double digit growth rate, with oil wells
"rolling over" and with the Fed trying to keep the frog from jumping.

[/quote]
Why not just charge battereis with solar
put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks
electric cars of all kinds switch out the racks
200 miles
racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack
40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

[quote]In two years the cost of an equivalent of diesel fuel will be $8.50 a
gallon and in 6 years it will be $25/gallon, if not more.

Today the cost of mechanical energy from diesel power is 10 cents/kW-
hr., in two years it will be 17 cents/kW - hr. and in 6 years, 50
cents/kW-hr.

TVA now sells now electricity for 7 cents/kW-hr off peak.

You can buy a lot of cell phone or laptop batteries with the amount of
money you are now paying for diesel, gasoline or other hydrocarbon
fuel.

Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation.

Bret Cahill[/quote]

Guest

[quote]Why not just charge battereis with solar
put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks
electric cars of all kinds switch out the racks
200 miles
racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack
40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
[/quote]
200 mile range, I assume drivers will "fill up" somewhere at the half
empty point on average.
So how many battery packs have to exist per car? Will all cars be able
to use the same battery pack?
A busy service station would need massive solar panels.
Wind turbines might do better in some locations, but you>d need lots
of extra batteries for the wind lulls.
Seems a plausible concept with problems

Immortalist · Guest

On Jul 25, 7:23 pm, jess225...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]Why not just charge battereis with solar
put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks
electric cars of all kinds switch out the racks
200 miles
racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack
40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

200 mile range, I assume drivers will "fill up" somewhere at the half
empty point on average.
[/quote]
If all existing gas stations converted over to electric, there would
be plenty of place to run it down to empty. Except at certain places
along the freeway there should be an exchange within blocks.

[quote]So how many battery packs have to exist per car? Will all cars be able
to use the same battery pack?
[/quote]
There could be three or four models that would fit all cars. A
standard would have to be agreed upon.

[quote]A busy service station would need massive solar panels.
[/quote]
Truck the racks in from the power plant or charge them there by
electric lines coming in from solar plants. Made this up about ten
years ago.

[quote]Wind turbines might do better in some locations, but you>d need lots
of extra batteries for the wind lulls.
[/quote]
Heard about this one recently. One company is building one mirror
every 8 minutes and they believe they can supply all of Albuquerque
New Mexico 24 hours a day, this with only 4 square miles of mirrors,
thermoses, steam engines and generators.

Create a circle of magnifying mirrors
focus on water in pipe
boil
put in large thermos containers
run steam engine even at night
steam engine runs generator
no panels and no batteries

[quote]Seems a plausible concept with problems
[/quote]
I think this is what will happen.

Immortalist · Guest

On Jul 25, 10:41 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
[/quote]
Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale, truck them in
just like they do gas with tankers.

Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably
turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out,
pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than
putting any liquid in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

Immortalist · Guest

On Jul 25, 11:00 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?
It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.
It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.

That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

[/quote]
One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.

[quote]Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably
turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out,
pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than
putting any liquid in.

The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.
[/quote]
Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there
wouldn>t be enough light to charge more batteries than each station
could use? Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a
day. Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. Replacing
gas this ay wouldn>t be some small project.

Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day to
supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24 hours a
day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.

[quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.
[/quote]
Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.

Rod Speed · Guest

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.

That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.
[/quote]
Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is the amount of
time it takes to recharge them and return them to where you put them into cars.
That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse
and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.

[quote]Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably
turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out,
pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster
than putting any liquid in.

The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.

Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn>t
be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use?
[/quote]
No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which
they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate.

[quote]Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day.
[/quote]
They cant be with solar charging.

[quote]Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies.
[/quote]
If you>re going to charge them from the grid, there isnt
any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more
sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations.

[quote]Replacing gas this ay wouldn>t be some small project.
[/quote]
And wouldnt be viable either.

[quote]Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day
to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24
hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.
[/quote]
You>d have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer than the discharging.

[quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.

Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.
[/quote]
Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours.

Rod Speed · Guest

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.
[/quote]
That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

[quote]Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably
turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out,
pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than
putting any liquid in.
[/quote]
The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.

[quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user
[/quote]
Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - Basics Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5