Even Low Efficiency Energy Storage Devices Become Competitiv

[daestrom]

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 11:51 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."
Funny, I posted about how that 3X-4X efficiency was just plain
false,

That's because you are ignorant of common conversion efficiencies.

because even farm diesels can feasibly be built to 50% efficiency

Go back to reading yer Harliquin romance novels.

Bret Cahill

The highlight of my thermodynamics education was being able to derive
the theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine on the final exam (I was
studying electrical engineering with an option in physics, so I know a
little bit about energy conversion).

So give your thermodynamic proof that an electric motor is 3X-4X the
efficiency of a Napier Nomad diesel, which was proven to run with an
efficiency of 45%. I have the education to understand your answer.

Pity Bret doesn't have nearly the education in thermo that he pretends.
Even his silly statements about '3X-4X more efficient' show that he doesn't
understand the concepts very well.

Next he'll tell you that 'doubling the temperature' will improve the
efficiency of a heat engine. While raising the temperature certainly can
improve the efficiency, his use of terms like 'doubling the temperature' and
4X more efficient show a pretty poor understanding of such things.

daestrom
P.S. When you get tired of him, just kill-file him like most of us have.

 

[Dean Hoffman]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Horses are smarter than oxen, you can train them and they are more
versatile.

Some cows are pretty smart. A cow escaped from a local slaughter
house by jumping up on the back of another cow then going over the
concrete wall. They shot her at a nearby golf course.

I asked why they didn't just let her go like in the Free Willie
movie.

The cattlemen laughed. "It's a $1,000."

So what happened to the carcass?

I recently cycled by a feed lot and the cows thought I was bringing
them some hay. They jumped with joy. Horses only stare at you
unless you actually bring something to eat.


Bret Cahill

The word you're looking for is cattle if what you saw was a feedlot.
There were probably zero cows there. None. Cows are in dairies or
breeding stock on ranches and farms. Heifers and/or steers are at
feedlots. The distinction is probably lost on non ag types but farmers
and ranchers would notice.
A little more about the pivots powering tractors idea. Farmers in
Illinois and
Iowa generally raise good crops without irrigation. They get plenty of
rain. I've been told there is some irrigation in one valley in Illinois
due to the sandy soil.
Dryland yields here in Nebraska are lower than irrigated usually but a
couple rains at the right time can make a big difference.
A typical 1/4 section pivot covers about 122 acres without the end
gun. A typical 1/4 section of ground is about 155 acres. That would
take out about 132 acres per section. Then there are all the little
patches around rivers and such that would be abandoned as farm ground.
Farmers would
be abandoning over 20% of their ground. I can't see that as ever being
practical.
It's a lot different in the Midwest than the Southwest where you're
apparently from.


Dean







----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:56:00 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

We're all gonna die.

---
Procol Harum, Look to Your Soul:

I know if I'd been wiser this would never have occurred
but I wallowed in my blindness so it's plain that I deserve
for the sin of self-indulgence when the truth was writ quite clear
I must spend my life amongst the dead who spend their lives in fear
of a death that they're not sure of, of a life they can't control
It's all so simple really if you just look to your soul
Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool
It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool
For the lesson lies in learning and by teaching I'll be taught
for there's nothing hidden anywhere, it's all there to be sought
And so if you know anything look closely at the time
at others who remain untrue and don't commit that crime

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:26:57 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Horses are smarter than oxen, you can train them and they are more
versatile.

Some cows are pretty smart. A cow escaped from a local slaughter
house by jumping up on the back of another cow then going over the
concrete wall. They shot her at a nearby golf course.

---
Cows don't have a handicap, so that's udderly ridiculous.


JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:51:26 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Funny, I posted about how that 3X-4X efficiency was just plain false,

That's because you are ignorant of common conversion efficiencies.

---
Cite?
---

because even farm diesels can feasibly be built to 50% efficiency

Go back to reading yer Harliquin romance novels.

---
'Harlequin', cretin.

JF

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Aug 12, 3:30 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is3X- 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Well, nobody ever qurstioned that. It's just been claimed that the
people who understand efficiency invented Holograms, lasers, Digital
Systems.
PV Cells, fiber optics, microcomputers, optical computers, CD, DVD
+rw, HDTV,
Drones, Robots, bio-diesel, and BLOGS, rather than idiots like
thermodynamicists.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:23:35 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Americans did pretty well before the first tractor.

---
And even better, after.

What's your point?

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

An EV can go 80 miles. A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1

2.3 X more energy density than necessary.


Bret Cahill

Have you ever driven a tractor?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:19:11 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:l1i0a4hiqhbib5il3kumlrkr0ndh1grteo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:58:58 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:c0ou94h6skor1kicrp0brqo6eoq0ruc5on@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:14:39 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news8bu94pft0vnpoh62j67rgvnujsovvpqob@4ax.com...
....

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob


The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?


Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

rob

If it makes sense, how come nobody is doing it?

John

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:20:31 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:19:11 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:l1i0a4hiqhbib5il3kumlrkr0ndh1grteo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:58:58 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:c0ou94h6skor1kicrp0brqo6eoq0ruc5on@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:14:39 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news8bu94pft0vnpoh62j67rgvnujsovvpqob@4ax.com...
....

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob


The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?


Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

rob



If it makes sense, how come nobody is doing it?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery

JF

 

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Show us something substantial, like some numbers or something.

It'll be a waste of time for anyone to try to explain thermo to you
until you pass some thermo courses.

A few can do it without a formal education but you ain't one of them.


Bret Cahill

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Aug 12, 1:05 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is waste their
time refueling when doing the field work.

No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

Bret Cahill

Why do we need algae diesel as a plan A, when there are centuries
worth of synthetic crude to processed from coal?

We know oil from coal will work, and that will allow us to stay
wealthy enough to fund the research to get fuelcells and/or advanced
batteries up and running.

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Aug 12, 1:30 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Bret Cahill

Funny, I posted about how that 3X-4X efficiency was just plain false,
because even farm diesels can feasibly be built to 50% efficiency and
there has to be a conversion loss from whatever it was that generated
the electricity. Unlike Otto cycle ICE's, the part-load efficiency of
a diesel is also rather high. As they are always run at wide open
throttle, even idling is not overly consumptive of fuel( truckers
stopped idling their engines to stop polluting, not to save money
[although they now do that, too]).

The biggest advantage of electrics is not efficiency, but combining
all of the polluting where economies of scale lessen the costs of
pollution control/ CO2 sequestration.

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Aug 12, 10:17 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

It'll be a waste of time for anyone to try to explain thermo to you
until you pass some thermo courses.

A few can do it without a formal education but you ain't one of them.

Bret Cahill

It'll be a waste of time for anyone to try to explain farming to you
until you pass some agricultural courses

A few can do it just by talking to farmers, but you have obviously
never done that.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:03 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities when vehicles
finally move away from the inefficient, polluting, and heavy ICEs, and
towards an era of clean electric drive.

Except that everything else, so far, is less efficient, more
polluting, and heavier. Not to mention way more expensive.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:05:33 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

Peak Oil and the continuation of high oil prices until we use less of it creates all kind on new business opportunities.

People keep finding more oil. And the price is down lately, $113
today.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:17:58 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Show us something substantial, like some numbers or something.

It'll be a waste of time for anyone to try to explain thermo to you
until you pass some thermo courses.

I got a B- in thermodynamics, as I recall. And I've designed a bunch
of boiler control systems and cogen controllers and electrical power
meters.

You keep snipping my question about whether you've ever driven a
tractor.

A few can do it without a formal education but you ain't one of them.

BSEE, Tulane. How about you?

John