Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Good News on Solar - Page 15

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Johnny on December 24, 2005, 12:59 am
 


Ok. Did you take into account line losses/lost power, economies of scale?


Oh, yeah. Huge losses in distribution are a very real thing.



Posted by Jeff Thies on December 24, 2005, 4:45 am
 
<snip>

The economies of scale are entirely against you, being so small.

As far as line losses, I think  they run about 15% total. It's possible
to drive those down... and they may already be below that.

Carbon footprint is much smaller if that electricity is produced by
natural gas, hydroelectric or even fission.

   Go waste your money on PV, if you  wish. Or do what my Amish friends
do and not use electricity from a utility (battery only). Of course,
they still use gasoline, diesel and kerosene.

   I still believe conservation and solar heat are the best $ value for
yourself and the environment.

   Cheers,
Jeff


Posted by Johnny on December 24, 2005, 2:41 pm
 

Economies of scale don't kick in until the undustry is nearing its most
efficient levels, which is on the large end, not the small end of
production.


I heard more than that, but even 15% is gigawatts.
Wanna look at the EPRi site or elsewhere to see about total electrical
genration and multiply it by 15%?
Wanna see how much that equates to in emissions?
You act like some fat cat energy exec who enjoys having the people bound to
the old energy grid.
If line losses are so small then why is the voltage at 230kv and 500kv to
transmit the power long distances?
You wanna figure the resistance in 40 miles of wire?


How do you propose driving down the losses beyond the theoretical limit
other than by locating the power source closer to the end user?
I am pretty sick of the energy industry's stranglehold on the nation's
people and its polluting effects in our society.
And, what about the accident rate and the potential for meltdowns?


Fission leaves radioactive mass with a half life of a billion years or more.
Any more ideas? Nat gas should be used for heat more than for electrictity,
imo.
Every time the generating station is too far from the consumer the losses
are too great.
Hydro is clean enough I assume, but why does it require a massive dam
project and so many lost acres of land?
We could bust the dams they built already and regain thousands and thousands
of acres of prime real estate.
Why are you lobbying for the centralized power authorities so much?
I am not for people who only view the people as their saps to leech off of
for their own personal benefit.
The exiosting energy stgructure is antiquated already.
Why feed the inefficient dinosaur that wastes and eats too much and has no
regard for anyone other than itself?


I won't. I would rather see energy bonds issued to benefit the people
instead of energy bonds designed only to benefit the inefficient, old-style,
self-lauding, corporate greed and pollution mongrels.


How do I do that?


Yes. They have not much choice in that at this point.


Oh. I thought you were lobbying for the centralized power authorities.



Posted by G. R. L. Cowan on December 24, 2005, 4:15 pm
 Johnny wrote:

Not particularly, but I guess about a tenth of an ohm.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electricity/publications/doc/comp_cost_380kV_en.pdf
says "AC lines can lose up to 20 percent" per 1,000 km,
while HVDC loses about a quarter as much.

If only 80 percent of power gets through 1,000 km --
although "up to" implies it's usually more,
then 95 percent or more gets through a more typical distance
of 200 km.


--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Posted by Johnny on December 25, 2005, 1:54 am
 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electricity/publications/doc/comp_cost_380kV_en.pdf

Thanks.



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread