might be simpler to consider relative efficiency of gasoline power
If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilizationThe 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.
You forgot the container.
I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public transportation.
It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.
Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any city bus system.
I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.
What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?
But gasoline still wins.
Depends on what you optimize for.
Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy independence,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. C
John
The only problem is the distribution network.
You forgot the container.
I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.
It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.
Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just
turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great
net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any
city bus system.
I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.
What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?
But gasoline still wins.
Depends on what you optimize for.
If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.
The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.
Bret Cahill
That's certainly doesn't mean that it's a good idea.On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:11:40 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
lcargill@cfl.rr.com says...
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. C
John
The only problem is the distribution network.
You forgot the container.
I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
Hydrogen still has the container problem and adds the supply
Hands down. ...and will for decades more.
More weenie nonsense.
Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.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. C
John
The only problem is the distribution network.
You forgot the container.
I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.
It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.
Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just
turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great
net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any
city bus system.
I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.
What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?
But gasoline still wins.
Depends on what you optimize for.
If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.
The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.
Bret Cahill
Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy independence,
Energy security, trade deficit, national debt, food-fuel price link leading
to destruction of prestine rainforests and nature preserves...
We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.
One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
I'll worry about us before them and me before us.
I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.
Ah yes, _but_ the US _needs_ this convenient excuse to meddle in other
In deed it is "shovel ready". We need more of those clean and
h2o2+synfuel or h2o2+aluminum makes a good pair of plan B methods onThe 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. C
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.
I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000 lb
gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.
Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important as
the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by batteries or
road electrification.
Bret Cahill
If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas then
the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be insanely
profitable.
Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?
That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.
And this does not require a total destruction of the American
way of life or the centralized big brother crap associated with
everything needed for the electric car. I am all for hybrids as a way to
move toward nuclear power. But make no mistake. That is where you are
going.
Not necessarily.
Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.
But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.
Bret Cahill
How about a thorium reactor in most every backyard, or in the centerThe 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. C
John
The only problem is the distribution network.
You forgot the container.
I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.
It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.
Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just
turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great
net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any
city bus system.
I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.
What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?
But gasoline still wins.
Depends on what you optimize for.
If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.
The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.
Bret Cahill
Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy independence,
Energy security, trade deficit, national debt, food-fuel price link leading
to destruction of prestine rainforests and nature preserves...
Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.
There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away from
oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation.
Simply stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading
We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.
and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of life.
One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
100% certain fact of the impending triple digit inflation of fuel
prices.
Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and great
grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as we live, then
we better start making changes right now.
So this ship (our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change
there will be an immense price to pay for future generations.
I'll worry about us before them and me before us.
Let's just see if we get to die from natural causes instead of some
geo war.
Bret Cahill
I am not so cynical. The US might enter into a new relationship with
How could complete nonsense hurt?
Nay, they had the same opportunity 30 years ago but decided to become
Go back to sucking on batteries.
Actually it's below 0.2%.I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C
It's a few percent better than liquid fuels and that's only if you can
keep all releases in the entire distribution system below 3%.
I am not a scientist. I can make some very big mistakes like myOn Jan 7, 8:37Â am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.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
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. C
C=1.
John
The only problem is the distribution network.
You forgot the container.
I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near
the Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling
around.)
You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG
(Liquid Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.
It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is
practical, unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar
nonsense.
Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco
MUNI just turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses. I actually
wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great net
of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the most
energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of
any city bus system.
I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean
(100K miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate
pressure.
What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?
But gasoline still wins.
Depends on what you optimize for.
If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the
grid.
The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.
Bret Cahill
Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy
independence, Energy security, trade deficit, national debt,
food-fuel price link leading to destruction of prestine rainforests
and nature preserves...
Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.
There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away
from oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation. Simply
stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading
We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.
and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of
life.
One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
100% certain fact of the impending triple digit inflation of fuel
prices.
Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and
great grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as
we live, then we better start making changes right now. So this ship
(our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change there
will be an immense price to pay for future generations.
I'll worry about us before them and me before us.
Let's just see if we get to die from natural causes instead of some geo
war.
Bret Cahill
How about a thorium reactor in most every backyard, or in the center of
downtown wherever?
Thorium is failsafe-inclusive at merely 10% the all-inclusive birth-to-
grave cost of conventional nuclear energy that's anything but failsafe.
Problem is, you have to understand and appreciate what "all- inclusive"
represents, and not hardly 0.0001% of Americans do.
Looks like the Les Cargill virusMichael Coburn wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:01:18 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
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. C
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.
Yup. You place a large excise tax on oil
That may not work.... demand is rising in Europe....
and redistribute the proceeds
as a an egalitarian citizen's dividend or a bottom weighted quarterly
"stimulus" like the one we had in 2008. You let the market decide what
technologies and innovations are best within this macro level tax and
stimulus operation.
Never happen....