Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Total area of land to power the world with solar energy - Page 10

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Eeyore on April 10, 2007, 6:02 am
 


Shitbag Adulterer McCain wrote:


The 'darker places' are where most ppl actually live. Do you propose living in
the desert ?

Graham


Posted by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roland_M=F6sl?= on April 10, 2007, 4:12 am
 

12 kWh/100km average consumption.

Small cars start at 6 kWh/100km
http://car.pege.org/2006-loremo/ford-t-21th-century.htm

12 m photovoltaic, the size of a parking lot
deliver 2.000 kWh a year in average.

Enough for 16.666 km a year

--
Roland Msl
http://car.pege.org  cars and traffic
http://live.pege.org  building and live
http://www.pege.org



Posted by Shitbag Adulterer McCain on April 10, 2007, 4:34 am
 wrote:

That's because you have no sense, EEYORE the LIE-ore.


Posted by bradguth on April 11, 2007, 9:01 pm
 On Apr 7, 2:30 pm, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"

Once we've got the spare/surplus energy to burn (sort of speak);  Back-
Flooding a Reservoir = Green Energy in a lake

California spot energy price: $9 MWhr More options
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/14277d1ffa700718/1022b26b4c8df322?lnk=st&q=guth+brad&rnum=3&hl=en#1022b26b4c8df322
"a 40 million gallon holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30
feet of head represents 10 mwh of energy storage"

Reverse polarity hydroelectrics;  Sounds almost good enough to eat,
and if possible going for holding 100 fold more volume at a greater
head pressure of at least 100 meters should be done at all cost.

Hydroelectric is after all 100% renewable to begin with (often
receiving more of nature's water than we can possibly know what to do
with), and I do believe that we could always use another crater lake
or two.  Actually, a good nuclear bomb might be an efficient
alternative for creating that deep lake basin in the first place (I'm
sure ELF or GreenPeace will not terribly mind, especially once they're
all rounded up and sent to Iraq for guarding Exxon's share of Muslim
oil).

So, instead of making the nifty likes of LH2 or H2O2 that would by
itself represent a win-win for all of us, as easily derived from any
such surplus of wind/solar/stirling derived energy that's capably
worth 40 kw/m2 as taken from such energy tower footprints, whereas
instead we can merely utilize that spare and clean energy for getting
as much reservoir water as possible back up into those energy storage
lakes of fresh water, that's also good for a number of other uses
besides generating such clean peak energy on demand from each of these
hydrostatic cells.
-
Brad Guth


Posted by bradguth on April 12, 2007, 2:02 am
 On Apr 7, 2:30 pm, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"

Solar PV, Stirling, good old Wind and possibly tidal energy is in fact
what's going to save our fossil sucking butts, along with nuclear
accomplishing perhaps 10%.

With or without a population increase, Earth as it stands needs
roughly twice the energy, especially on behalf of accommodating peak
energy demands, and this energy also needs to become much cleaner and
at not half the current end-user cost.  If we give our government and
local states any say, as such we'll be lucky to end up with half of
what we currently have, and it'll be costing twice again as much.

Once we've established the mostly private owned and operated cache of
spare/surplus energy to burn (sort of speak), such as that created and
promoted by the likes of Warren Buffet;  Back-Flooding a Reservoir =
Green Energy in a lake is what becomes more than doable.

Dave.walt, I've been thinking that your following topic contributor
"bill" is 100+% right as rain in having a big elevated sistern to draw
upon.

California spot energy price: $9 MWhr
(often means the combined efforts of ENRON and the local utility will
be jacking off twice that energy cost for their end-users)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/14277d1ffa700718/1022b26b4c8df322?lnk=st&q=guth+brad&rnum=3&hl=en#1022b26b4c8df322
"a 40 million gallon holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30
feet of head represents 10 mwh of energy storage"

Reverse polarity hydroelectrics;  Sounds almost good enough to eat,
and if possible going for holding 100 fold more volume and at a
greater head pressure of at least 100 meters should be done at all
cost.  Obviously many of our existing dams without this capability
could be retrofitted for best accomplishing this energy storage
method, so that each peak draw-down at least starts off with as much
head pressure as possible.

Hydroelectric is after all 100% renewable to begin with (often
receiving more of nature's water than we can possibly know what to do
with), and I do believe that we could always use another crater lake
or two.  Actually, a good nuclear bomb might be an efficient
alternative for creating that deep lake basin in the first place (I'm
sure ELF or GreenPeace will not terribly mind, especially once they're
all rounded up and sent to Iraq for guarding Exxon's share of all that
Muslim oil).

We might even obtain that artificial lake indirectly, and at a good
enough elevation in the process of our having to excavate our
relatively piss poor dregs of yellowcake, that'll soon enough become
worth $000/kg.

So, instead of making the nifty likes of LH2 or the do-everything
better alternative of H2O2, either of which but especially h2o2 would
by itself represent a considerable win-win for all of us (including
all sorts of improved fossil fuel burning aspects), as easily derived
from having any such surplus of wind/solar/stirling derived energy,
that's capably worthy of delivering from a footprint energy density of
40 kw/m2, as can be safely taken as is from such energy tower
footprints.  Instead we can merely utilize that spare and clean energy
for getting as much reservoir water as possible back up and as high as
possible into those energy storage lakes of fresh water, that's also a
good enough cashe of water for any number of other uses besides
generating such clean peak energy on demand from each of these
hydrostatic cells.

Some of the coastal or island located hydrostatic cells could even be
stocked with saltwater.  Obviously we're not talking about all that
much overall cycle efficiency here, just pondering the alternatives to
otherwise ignoring or otherwise wasting each and every other spare
kwhr that comes along.
-

That was very odd;  we've obviously been having another one of those
pesky GOOGLE/Usenet official takings of my honest contributions, yet
those wordy efforts were of nowhere to behold.  Perhaps it's merely
getting diverted or robo-hidden along with all of those Muslim WMD and
Usama bin Laden.  Otherwise, it's looking as though our "dave.walt"
has pulled his own "California spot energy price: $9 MWhr" topic plug
because of how it became unlisted in Mailgate.org.  More odd yet is
that my contributions to "habshi" and of his topic of "Controlling
population key to saving energy and the planet" had also been getting
robo-excluded or otherwise banished by Mailgate.org.

Possibly it was my recent addition to "Planet that hit the earth to
create the moon? = moon" as having gotten past the moderation gauntlet
of sci.bio.evolution is what broke the camel's back.  Because, ever
since nothing of Usenet had been working according to plan.  Sorry
about that.
-
Brad Guth


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