Numbers Just Aren't There To Continue With Internal Combusti

[Les Cargill]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill



Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.

Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.

Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

--
Les Cargill

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jan 5, 9:43 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

Garbage. MAN can do a 95% efficient co-gen one.

http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000082.html
MAN Diesel designs and builds turn-key power stations. On-shore or as
power barges, using modular designs. In this way, each power plant can
be extended step-by-step to keep pace with increasing power demand. In
combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical power
and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as high as
95%. Our experts in application engineering and project management are
the key to achieving very short construction times: from zero to 280 MW
power output in 17 months.

Graham

The GE turbine does not count waste heat as useful work, the MAN
installation does. The question is how efficient is it only as a
generator. CHP efficiency claims are very hard to evaluate. Often,
running them for heat makes them less efficient as electricity
producers. While CHP units and industrial gas turbines are very
similar mechanically, they are apples and oranges for efficiency
comparisons. Further confounding comparisons is that the 60%
efficient GE unit is a combined cycle installation with the extra
power coming by running a steam turbine from heat recovery steam
generator, in the exhaust stack.

Of course, if we are going for grid driven vehicles, a gaseous core
reactor feeding a magnetohydrodynamic generator, bottomed by a closed
cycle gas turbine with a heat recovery steam generator can achieve an
end-to-end efficiency 70% without needing to improve component
efficiences.

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jan 5, 2:40 pm, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Jan 5, 8:43 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

That's a co-gen one too. Not very portable either, kinda big too.



Garbage. MAN can do a 95% efficient co-gen one.

http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000082.html
MAN Diesel designs and builds turn-key power stations. On-shore or as
power barges, using modular designs. In this way, each power plant can
be extended step-by-step to keep pace with increasing power demand. In
combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical power
and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as high as
95%. Our experts in application engineering and project management are
the key to achieving very short construction times: from zero to 280 MW
power output in 17 months.

Graham

"In combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical
power and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as
[sic] high as 95%."

If thermal energy is enough to make you happy, you can take a kerosene
lantern and it will give you 100% thermal energy too... sheeeesh...
the tough part is converting the thermal energy to electric or
mechanical energy...

Michael

Sadly, 100% thermal efficiency is unachievable. In the rare instances
where it is possible, it is undesirable. The last two things to go as
one progresses to 100% efficient thermal heating is the chimney and
induction of outside air. As these are often mandated by the
manufacturer (use only in well ventilated areas) , or legislation, 95%
efficiency is plenty good.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.

Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John


Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

 

[Eeyore]

mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:

mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

That's a co-gen one too. Not very portable either, kinda big too.

Whoops I meant to say Combined Cycle, not cogen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

basically it's a steam engine downstream of the gas turbine

sure, if you want heat, collect all you want from the tailpipe

MAN and Warsila-Sulzer do better than that. The heat collected from the
exhaust generates steam which runs turbines that can produce MORE
electricity. Then the remaining 'waste heat' can be put to good use.

If anyone was serious about energy efficiency this would be used in district
heating schemes. They do it in parts of Scandinavia. It's proven technology.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" wrote:

mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

That's a co-gen one too. Not very portable either, kinda big too.

Garbage. MAN can do a 95% efficient co-gen one.

http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000082.html
MAN Diesel designs and builds turn-key power stations. On-shore or as
power barges, using modular designs. In this way, each power plant can
be extended step-by-step to keep pace with increasing power demand. In
combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical power
and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as high as
95%. Our experts in application engineering and project management are
the key to achieving very short construction times: from zero to 280 MW
power output in 17 months.

"In combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical
power and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as
[sic] high as 95%."

If thermal energy is enough to make you happy, you can take a kerosene
lantern and it will give you 100% thermal energy too... sheeeesh...
the tough part is converting the thermal energy to electric or
mechanical energy...

Sadly, 100% thermal efficiency is unachievable.

Indeed.

In the rare instances
where it is possible, it is undesirable. The last two things to go as
one progresses to 100% efficient thermal heating is the chimney and
induction of outside air. As these are often mandated by the
manufacturer (use only in well ventilated areas) , or legislation, 95%
efficiency is plenty good.

It's absolutely excellent and you can buy one today. To take full advantage, a
whole new thinking about power distribution will be required though, moving
from centralised generation (with added grid losses) to local where the co-gen
thermal output can be put to good use.

Graham

 

On Jan 6, 3:55 am, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:

Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.

Poorer quality? Really? Please provide an example.

Sure. Chevy Chevette. There are documents that showed that Detroit
put its worst engineers to work on it to discourage sales of economy
cars.

The Japanese car companies got into the US with economy cars. Once
Japan became established in the market economy cars were no longer
offered. So they didn't offer a lower quality option: they didn't
offer the option at all. An even more effective strategy.

All auto companies make the popular models bigger every year. A 2008
Civic is perhaps double the size of a 1976 Civic.

Then there is the bigger picture. Automobiles and trucks are heavily
subsidized via the federal highway system. Railways are much more
fuel efficient but find it difficult to compete due to these
subsidies. Detroit/Texas famously bought trams and put them out of
business to boost sales.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.

Poorer quality? Really? �Please provide an example.

Sure. �Chevy Chevette. �There are documents that showed that Detroit
put its worst engineers to work on it to discourage sales of economy
cars.

I remember telling my brother in law that they had a diesel Chevette.

Shaking his head he said, "they can ruin anything."


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

That's a co-gen one too. �Not very portable either, kinda big too.

At 100 tons maybe on a ship but not for yer pickup or SUV.

Whoops I meant to say Combined Cycle, not cogen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

basically it's a steam engine downstream of the gas turbine

sure, if you want heat, collect all you want from the tailpipe

MAN and Warsila-Sulzer do better than that. The heat collected from the
exhaust generates steam which runs turbines that can produce MORE
electricity. Then the remaining 'waste heat' can be put to good use.

If anyone was serious about energy efficiency this would be used in district
heating schemes. They do it in parts of Scandinavia. It's proven technology.

We got more than a heat engine efficiency problem. We got a _no_
energy problem.

That's why we need to go electric.


Bret Cahill

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John


The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...
And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)
And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.
And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Rob

 

[Les Cargill]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it
today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine
runs about 60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60%
is a figure that can be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines
approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite
cheap. No doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems
to be at least a potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested
already in ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then
lots of technologies must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher
fuel price. It's the only way to inform people of what they
right decision will be.

Rob

--
Les Cargill

 

[zzbunker]

On Jan 5, 3:23 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:





On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:43:58 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net
wrote:

On Jan 5, 11:44 am, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:03:06 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

So. You want to get away from the free enterprise system.  Free
enterprise is when the _people_ decide what products or services are
needed, wanted, desired and ultimately produced.  If the _people_ did
not what SUV's, pickups and sedans, they would not buy them and the
automakers would not build them.  If the _people_ demonstrate (by
using their dollars) they want hybrids most, then the automakers would
build them.

Except that there was never a *choice* to buy hybrids, or fuel
efficient SUV's, or anything but what was most profitable for the car
companies.  

Sure there is and has been.  Do you really think electric cars are a
new concept?

No, I think that GM had one that people wanted to buy but they
scrapped the project and the cars as well. This is clearly a case of
market distortion by monopoly.

Well, GM has always thrived on that. Since the only thing the
idiots even know about oil is barrels.
Which is mostly why the people with actual non-zero engineering
brains
long ago switched to modern batteries, high strength plastics,
compostites, teflon,
freon, digital, cd, dvd, hdtv, lasers, maser, Pv Cells,
thermocouples, Piezo-Electric,
superconductivity, robotics, autonomous vehicles, post neandtheral
magnetics,
microwave, electronic libraries, e-books, electronic publishing, on-
line publishing,
gps, digital-terrain mapping, and zero resistance research.
Rather than work with moronic GM anything, anymore.

Let's not forget that (I think) Ford, Honda, Toyota and
GM all have hybrids.

Not until the last couple of years is this true. When SUV's were
popular, there was no alternative offered.

Quit squawking and go buy one!

And since it was the government that restricted imports of
fuel efficient vehicles like small trucks that exist in other
countries---some made by the very same US companies, IIRC---- you can
hardly claim that the market was at work.

Although this is probably true enough, I think all governments do
practice some form of protectionism for their industries. Are you sure
all of those imports will meet all of the US governments mandated
standards?

Of course not---as you say, the standards are there for protectionism,
which means *people did not have the choice of buying more efficient
vehicles* all these years that SUV's were popular.







Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.

Poorer quality? Really?  Please provide an example.

Then they can  claim that people are
'demanding' their high-profit SUV.

If you don't want an SUV then don't buy one.  You have other choices.

What the government can do is insist that there are standards by
weight class, so that people will indeed have choices.

Such as?

If an SUV and a sedan weigh the same, they should be required to have
the same gas mileage. Also, more things should be standard across
weight classes---I should not be forced to buy a bigger car than I
need in order to get safety features like airbags and ABS.

This kind of regulation does not distort the market,  since it applies
to all vehicles---people can choose a sedan that gets 25MPG or an SUV
that gets 25MPG---where's the problem? If they want a bigger vehicle,
then they will go up in weight class, if they care more about mileage
they can get a smaller one with good safety features.

-tg





-tg

What you are proposing is that the government decide what products the
automakers make and what products are available to the _people_. I
don't think your vision for the future is desired or wanted by any
free enterprise advocate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

On Jan 6, 3:01 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

Much electrical power in the US is green hydroelectric. (Indonesia is
pure red, though.)

 

[tg]

On Jan 5, 11:47 pm, patmpow...@gmail.com wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:55 am, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:



Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.

Poorer quality? Really?  Please provide an example.

Sure.  Chevy Chevette.  There are documents that showed that Detroit
put its worst engineers to work on it to discourage sales of economy
cars.

The Japanese car companies got into the US with economy cars.  Once
Japan became established in the market economy cars were no longer
offered.  So they didn't offer a lower quality option: they didn't
offer the option at all.  An even more effective strategy.

All auto companies make the popular models bigger every year.  A 2008
Civic is perhaps double the size of a 1976 Civic.

But the real indictment of US 'engineering' is that my 1997 Civic gets
the same 40+ MPG as my 1987, even though it is slightly bigger and has
a 1.6L v 1.3L engine, and you can feel the improved acceleration.

Of course, Detroit companies are run by MBA's not former engineers, so
this is hardly a surprise.

-tg

Then there is the bigger picture.  Automobiles and trucks are heavily
subsidized via the federal highway system.  Railways are much more
fuel efficient but find it difficult to compete due to these
subsidies.  Detroit/Texas famously bought trams and put them out of
business to boost sales.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jan 6, 6:15 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jan 5, 11:47 pm, patmpow...@gmail.com wrote:





On Jan 6, 3:55 am, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:

Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.

Poorer quality? Really?  Please provide an example.

Sure.  Chevy Chevette.  There are documents that showed that Detroit
put its worst engineers to work on it to discourage sales of economy
cars.

The Japanese car companies got into the US with economy cars.  Once
Japan became established in the market economy cars were no longer
offered.  So they didn't offer a lower quality option: they didn't
offer the option at all.  An even more effective strategy.

All auto companies make the popular models bigger every year.  A 2008
Civic is perhaps double the size of a 1976 Civic.

But the real indictment of US 'engineering' is that my 1997 Civic gets
the same 40+ MPG as my 1987, even though it is slightly bigger and has
a 1.6L v 1.3L engine, and you can feel the improved acceleration.

Of course, Detroit companies are run by MBA's not former engineers, so
this is hardly a surprise.

Well, it hardly confused real engineers, Since the only thing idiot
MBA's even know about
computers is sadly enough mathematicians.

Which is why real engineers had to invent RISC, parallel
processsing,
Holograms, Post Ford Batteries, Fiber Optics, Holograms, Post
Neandtheral Magnetics,
Post Chrysler Shading, Autonomous Vehicles, GPS, Drones, Cruise
Missiles,
AUVs, C++, E-Books, E-Libraries, E-Publishing, On-Line Publishing,
On-Line Banking,
CD, DVD, HDTV, USB, XML, Mini Hard Disks, Digital Terrain
Mapping,
Laser-Guided Lasers, Pv Cells Arrays, and Microwave++ just to
prove to the idiots that Detroit is
only spelled Detroit, because it's close to Chicago, not because it
has anything to do with cars.

-tg



Then there is the bigger picture.  Automobiles and trucks are heavily
subsidized via the federal highway system.  Railways are much more
fuel efficient but find it difficult to compete due to these
subsidies.  Detroit/Texas famously bought trams and put them out of
business to boost sales.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Jan 5, 11:16�pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message

news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...





John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...
And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)
And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.
And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...
And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)
And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.
And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

The price of natural gas is low now but that wouldn't last.

You get maybe 5% less CO2/joule burning methane over liquid petroleum
fuels but even that small advance would be wiped out if even 3% was
released into the atmosphere.


Bret Cahill