What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 13, 11:33 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 13/07/2012 11:16 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 13, 10:30 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.

So your guys' argument is

STICK WITH COAL
because HYDROGEN IS JUST AS POLLUTING AS PETROL
because the engines are not clean
unless you have O2 tanks
and the Electrolysis to turn 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
would need even more Coal to run at night
to employ fuel tank fillers night shift
and Solar will increase pollution anyway because of night time varying
load inefficiencies.

RIIIIIGHT!

*slowly steps backwards - don't make eye contact*

Herc

The argument is that we need solutions that actually work, rather than
just making greenie users feel good.

Sylvia.

That is your argument above.

You make as-close-to-obviously-false-as-possible, ludicrous-as-
possible statements every post to stir a reaction.

You get 100W per square meter from sunlight, 5hrs a day.
You get compact chemical storage from rainwater + sunlight -> H2+O2
You have clean engines nearly as simple as petrol engines.
You have chemical energy storage on par with petrol or battery without
replacement.

Make H2 during the day when all the houses are on their own Solar.

Only a maroon would use more coal to fill in the gap in usage during
solar hours.

FFS stop being idiots. don't justify your argument is 'actually this'
any more to me.


Herc

 

[Clocky]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a667mdFg2qU2@mid.individual.net...

On 7/11/2012 7:40 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the
next ten years, domestic solar power will have an
unsubsidised cost that is below the daytime domestic grid
tarrif. I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised".
I
mean
that the equipment can be bought and installed without a
contribution from either the government or the suppliers(s)
of electricity. I'm also assuming that customers will be
able to net off their daytime electricity consumption by
selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the same
price as they'd buy it at that time of day. There are
arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to let
the consumer have electricity for less than the grid price
while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would
anticipate a move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the less
capital intensive, and less energy efficient, generation
plant. That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh
than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have
to wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved by
having the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of the
less efficient generators? The cost of this less efficiently
generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power during
the day will go up, thus further pushing the installation of
solar panels. Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar
panels with a simple net-off of consumption. For some
bizarre reason, governments still want to help create the
problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by subsidising
installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer. I'm left
wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it
providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and
utter waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
are a problem? Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver,
your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests you
will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2
emissions. If several million car owners did the same thing,
the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than driving
a $500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the life of the
Volt and the solar array.


**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than
the life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously
reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I
get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep on the road.

**Prove it.




Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's
language. Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that
remains a fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which
is, in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.



, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where
maximum torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

**Bollocks. Electric motors are quite unlike IC motors, in that
maximum torque is generated at zero RPM and continues all the way to
maximum, with virtually no fall-off.


Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.


Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-unveiled-with-4500nm-of-torque-video

4,500Nm or torque seems like quite a bit to me. Not enough for you?

The figure seems over-stated to me. 450Nm sound closer to reality.
Still, that's plenty of torque for pulling the skin off a rice
pudding.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

but you lap them up regardless.
Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my
breath.

**I note that Gordon has done just that.




The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything
like the range or performance out of the thing with a load like
that.

**I suggest you do some learning about electric motors. In any
case, I was simply addressing your claim:


I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?


"Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard."

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow
anything... I'm waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?

We were talking about cars, you know, vehicles designed to carry
passengers.

**Like the Tesla Roadster? You have still not explained how a vehicle with
no torgue (like the Tesla) is able to accelerate a 1.2 Tonne car to 100kph
in 3.7 seconds.

A purpose built roadster is hardly a passenger vehicle.
I never suggested they had no torque, I said they produce maximum torque at
0 revs and as the revs increase the torque decreases. You still haven't
shown an electric car that can tow anything as well as a ICE vehicle.

A couple of minutes towing a load on the back of an electric truck might
impress you, but unless it can do that at speed for a couple of hours
it's
just propaganda.

**It shows that an electric automobile can possess excellent towing
ability.

Purpose built sure, but a comparable ICE can do it better and longer.

 

[G=EMC^2]

On Jul 12, 11:22 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:33 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:









On 13/07/2012 11:16 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 13, 10:30 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.

So your guys' argument is

STICK WITH COAL
because HYDROGEN IS JUST AS POLLUTING AS PETROL
because the engines are not clean
unless you have O2 tanks
and the Electrolysis to turn 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
would need even more Coal to run at night
to employ fuel tank fillers night shift
and Solar will increase pollution anyway because of night time varying
load inefficiencies.

RIIIIIGHT!

*slowly steps backwards - don't make eye contact*

Herc

The argument is that we need solutions that actually work, rather than
just making greenie users feel good.

Sylvia.

That is your argument above.

You make as-close-to-obviously-false-as-possible, ludicrous-as-
possible statements every post to stir a reaction.

You get 100W per square meter from sunlight, 5hrs a day.
You get compact chemical storage from rainwater + sunlight -> H2+O2
You have clean engines nearly as simple as petrol engines.
You have chemical energy storage on par with petrol or battery without
replacement.

Make H2 during the day when all the houses are on their own Solar.

Only a maroon would use more coal to fill in the gap in usage during
solar hours.

FFS stop being idiots.  don't justify your argument is 'actually this'
any more to me.

Herc

Lots of stuff should glow in the dark. All cars should be white
orange,and yellow,as night clothing. All building use batteries when
Sun goes down. Walking made to charge phone,.hearing aid, cap night
light and shoes. TreBert

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/13/2012 6:33 PM, Clocky wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a667mdFg2qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 7/11/2012 7:40 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the
next ten years, domestic solar power will have an
unsubsidised cost that is below the daytime domestic grid
tarrif. I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised".
I
mean
that the equipment can be bought and installed without a
contribution from either the government or the suppliers(s)
of electricity. I'm also assuming that customers will be
able to net off their daytime electricity consumption by
selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the same
price as they'd buy it at that time of day. There are
arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to let
the consumer have electricity for less than the grid price
while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would
anticipate a move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the less
capital intensive, and less energy efficient, generation
plant. That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh
than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have
to wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved by
having the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of the
less efficient generators? The cost of this less efficiently
generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power during
the day will go up, thus further pushing the installation of
solar panels. Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar
panels with a simple net-off of consumption. For some
bizarre reason, governments still want to help create the
problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by subsidising
installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer. I'm left
wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it
providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and
utter waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
are a problem? Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver,
your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests you
will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2
emissions. If several million car owners did the same thing,
the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than driving
a $500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the life of the
Volt and the solar array.


**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than
the life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously
reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I
get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep on the road.

**Prove it.




Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's
language. Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that
remains a fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which
is, in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.



, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where
maximum torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

**Bollocks. Electric motors are quite unlike IC motors, in that
maximum torque is generated at zero RPM and continues all the way to
maximum, with virtually no fall-off.


Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.


Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-unveiled-with-4500nm-of-torque-video

4,500Nm or torque seems like quite a bit to me. Not enough for you?

The figure seems over-stated to me. 450Nm sound closer to reality.
Still, that's plenty of torque for pulling the skin off a rice
pudding.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

but you lap them up regardless.
Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my
breath.

**I note that Gordon has done just that.




The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything
like the range or performance out of the thing with a load like
that.

**I suggest you do some learning about electric motors. In any
case, I was simply addressing your claim:


I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?


"Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard."

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow
anything... I'm waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?

We were talking about cars, you know, vehicles designed to carry
passengers.

**Like the Tesla Roadster? You have still not explained how a vehicle with
no torgue (like the Tesla) is able to accelerate a 1.2 Tonne car to 100kph
in 3.7 seconds.

A purpose built roadster is hardly a passenger vehicle.+

**That is EXACTLY what it is. Two PASSENGERS. OK, then, how about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/models

Five seats, 0 - 100kph in less than 6 seconds.

I never suggested they had no torque, I said they produce maximum torque at
0 revs and as the revs increase the torque decreases.

**And you're STILL wrong. Electric motors deliver 100% of their torque
at zero RPM and continue delivering 100% of their torque to maximum RPM.
This is in contrast to all IC engines, where torque is delivered over a
specific rev band.


You still haven't

shown an electric car that can tow anything as well as a ICE vehicle.

**That proof was posted by Gordon.

A couple of minutes towing a load on the back of an electric truck might
impress you, but unless it can do that at speed for a couple of hours
it's
just propaganda.

**It shows that an electric automobile can possess excellent towing
ability.


Purpose built sure, but a comparable ICE can do it better and longer.

**Your claim that an electric vehicle cannot 'pull the skin off a
pudding' has been completely and utterly demolished.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 13, 11:52 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lots of stuff should glow in the dark. All cars should be white
orange,and yellow,as night clothing. All building use batteries when
Sun goes down. Walking made to charge phone,.hearing aid, cap night
light and shoes.  TreBert

Here's Hollywood's concept cars from 2030

http://www.imcdb.org/i003338.jpg

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_6404-GM-Lean-Machine.html


You can ride around on a bike today at 50km/hour for 2 hours!

All the Westerners living in Asia love their electric bikes!

But they're 30KG with the battery! 20kg + 10kg

What idiots put an electric motor in a 2tonne Holden?

You could have electric cars TODAY if you reduced the requirements a
little!

Put 4 wheels on a bike and an extra 10kg perspex cover!

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-07-12, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 7/12/2012 9:19 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2012-07-11, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

No reason (apart from cost) that cars of this class cannot be fitted
with a modern efficient auto gearbox. Modern engines warm up fast, the
ECU changes the mixture and timing to promote this, my Forrester (a not
particularly frugal car) is up to working temperature not much more than
500 metres after backing out of the drive.

**I don't know the Forrester, but I've never seen an engine reach
operating temperature that quickly (in cool weather). I feel compelled
to doubt your claim. I would expect several km would be about right. The
Blue Motion engine would likely warm up faste, due to it's small block
mass.

it's pretty amazing what can be done, an engine can be convinced to
produce significantly more heat (and less mechanical energy) merely by
delaying the spark by 15 degrees and opening the throttle a bit.

I discovered this by accident about 9 years ago.


**No doubt. I doubt that the many kg of block mass (and coolant) can be
heated up so rapidly though.

there's a lot of power available. But yeah, looking at google maps it took
about 2km to warm my engine up starting from about 15 degrees C,

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 14, 11:41 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
   virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
   shock absorber front wheel suspension
   dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
   dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
   rack and pinion steering
   rear vehicle passenger access
   CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

It's got 4 wheel disc brakes... but you need 4 hands to use all 4 at
once!

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Herc

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/14/2012 12:49 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2012-07-12, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 7/12/2012 9:19 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2012-07-11, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

No reason (apart from cost) that cars of this class cannot be fitted
with a modern efficient auto gearbox. Modern engines warm up fast, the
ECU changes the mixture and timing to promote this, my Forrester (a not
particularly frugal car) is up to working temperature not much more than
500 metres after backing out of the drive.

**I don't know the Forrester, but I've never seen an engine reach
operating temperature that quickly (in cool weather). I feel compelled
to doubt your claim. I would expect several km would be about right. The
Blue Motion engine would likely warm up faste, due to it's small block
mass.

it's pretty amazing what can be done, an engine can be convinced to
produce significantly more heat (and less mechanical energy) merely by
delaying the spark by 15 degrees and opening the throttle a bit.

I discovered this by accident about 9 years ago.


**No doubt. I doubt that the many kg of block mass (and coolant) can be
heated up so rapidly though.

there's a lot of power available. But yeah, looking at google maps it took
about 2km to warm my engine up starting from about 15 degrees C,

**Sounds about right. Probly an alloy block. An iron block will take a
good deal longer.

FWIW: Back when I was in tech, a mate bought a brand new 4 Litre
Cortina. As I recall, the 4 Litre Cortina was capable of around 100kW.
Tucked away in the handbook was a warning:

"Do not apply full throttle and full braking simultaneously for more
than 10 seconds."

Those words suggested that the auto gearbox could disspiate 100kW for 10
seconds. Not half bad!

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:52 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lots of stuff should glow in the dark. All cars should be white
orange,and yellow,as night clothing. All building use batteries when
Sun goes down. Walking made to charge phone,.hearing aid, cap night
light and shoes. TreBert

Here's Hollywood's concept cars from 2030

http://www.imcdb.org/i003338.jpg

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_6404-GM-Lean-Machine.html


You can ride around on a bike today at 50km/hour for 2 hours!

All the Westerners living in Asia love their electric bikes!

But they're 30KG with the battery! 20kg + 10kg

What idiots put an electric motor in a 2tonne Holden?

You could have electric cars TODAY if you reduced the requirements a
little!

Put 4 wheels on a bike and an extra 10kg perspex cover!

Herc

That's not a passenger car nor is it a safe way to travel.

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 14, 11:41 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

It's got 4 wheel disc brakes... but you need 4 hands to use all 4 at
once!

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Herc

No structural integrity and the weight of the battery, motor and dri... errr
rider should make for an amusing contraption to watch come to pieces at
100km/h.

 

[kreed]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:23:41 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/9/2012 7:49 PM, keithr wrote:
On 9/07/2012 2:21 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:02 PM, terryc wrote:
On 09/07/12 06:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power supplied
by the PV array.

Umm, what is the point of having the Volt?

**You would need to ask the people who the Volt that question. For many
owners, no petrol will be required, except under unusual circumstances.

Is this for people who are at home during the day?


**I merely supplied a scenario where the Volt could be charged, with no
extra burdens placed on the grid and at no cost to the owners. Many
vehicles are garaged during the day and used to (say) drop the (lazy)
kids at school, do the shopping, etc.

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.



**I thought a little more on this comment. Buying a Volt is no more
suspect that buying a BMW X5 so mum can drop the kids to school.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

That we can sort of agree on. Both types are just total wankers with more money... Err, I mean "credit" than sense, and trying to "make a statement", impress similar wankers, think they wil
l somehow appear "special" or "superior" in some strange way whereas in reality they are a joke.

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:16:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 13, 2:58 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:



On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:18:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
Ohhh sorrrrry chops..   here pull my finger!

Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.
What claim?  exactly.

ADD getting you down? It's right there at the top: "The H2
engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"
Although the first sentence is correct (but would also be
correct for any existing IC engine, since one of the exhaust
components resulting from burning hydrocarbons is water,
making it irrelevant), the second is not, since NOx isn't
"clean" by anyone's definition.

Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.

Missed that part about Wiki not being a comprehensive
source, did you? ADD again? Or did you actually mean
"relatively clean" and just got carried away by the wonder
of it all?

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
top of this post:

"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)

Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
form.

Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
engines are *not* clean?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:30:43 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by terryc
<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au>:

On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

It actually gets it off with the oxygen, but you have the
right idea, that air-breathing H2-fueled engines are still
pretty dirty.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.

Yep. Not to mention that before the H2 can be used as fuel
it must be split from the oxygen in water (the usual
source), making the entire process a net energy loss.

Pesky entropy... ;-)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:16:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 13, 10:30 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.


So your guys' argument is

STICK WITH COAL
because HYDROGEN IS JUST AS POLLUTING AS PETROL
because the engines are not clean
unless you have O2 tanks
and the Electrolysis to turn 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
would need even more Coal to run at night
to employ fuel tank fillers night shift
and Solar will increase pollution anyway because of night time varying
load inefficiencies.

No, but then given your track record regarding comprehension
I would expect nothing else.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 8, 4:38 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:01 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.

Sylvia gave a figure of 90% last year or around there.

The car battery is going to cost you more than petrol

now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18
hours each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar. cloud proof.

**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.

Nope!  Not unless you use thermal energy and masses and masses of
pissy thermal generators.

Hydrogen is how it's all done.

SOLAR >> ELECTRICITY >> HYDROGEN >> GENERATOR >> ELECTRICITY
  V                        V
  V                        V
ELECTRICITY     HYDROGEN >> CARS

You obviously don't know how much power and how slow the process is to get
the hydrogen using electricity.

Impractical, inefficient and not even remotely cost effective - or
environmentally friendly.

There is no free lunch.

William Mook will have your naysay mindset fixed, or tossed
overboard. Actually direct conversion via solar energy isn't all that
inefficient, especially withen the raw power source is unlimited,
renewable and free for the taking. We could even make, store and
distribute HTP via solar energy. Boeing now claims having a 100+%
efficient PV technology, that's spendy as hell but it'll become cheap
if give to the likes of India and China to develop those commercially
viable and otherwise end-use PV panels for us.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

 

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 8, 6:34 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:38 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:01 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.

Sylvia gave a figure of 90% last year or around there.

The car battery is going to cost you more than petrol

now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18
hours each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar. cloud proof.

**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.

Nope! Not unless you use thermal energy and masses and masses of
pissy thermal generators.

Hydrogen is how it's all done.

SOLAR >> ELECTRICITY >> HYDROGEN >> GENERATOR >> ELECTRICITY
V V
V V
ELECTRICITY HYDROGEN >> CARS

You obviously don't know how much power and how slow the process is
to get the hydrogen using electricity.

Impractical, inefficient and not even remotely cost effective - or
environmentally friendly.

There is no free lunch.

Honda HOME Refuelling Station

http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/08/hond...

Electrolysis is very efficient.

You put 2 electrodes in distilled water.

RAINWATER WILL WORK!

add a pinch of salt for catalyst!

you get Hydrogen bubbles on one wire and Oxygen on the other!

The electrical power required to generate the hydrogen is greater than the
amount of hydrogen produced. It's not efficient. And it's slow, so very
slow.

H2 is the perfect 100% no losses, works forever, from water, BATTERY!

IN scuba sized Tanks!

It would take years to produce enough hydrogen to run a hydrogen car for one
day using a 12V battery!

That is not true, but then I'm not such a naysay FUD-master with
energy investments at risk, like yourself.

Fuel cells are capable of delivering 60% efficiency from H2 and O2,
with zero CO2 and even zero NOx if the N2 is never made hot enough or
introduced to begin with.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

 

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:



It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I'm
waiting.

Tow with a H2 Car.

Zip around in Dune Buggy size electrics to do the shopping!

Win Win!

Herc

Unless you're run off the road or hit by an 8000 lb SUV or truck.

If all city streets were policed to have nothing exceeding 2000 lb
verticals, then the golf-carts or that of your " Dune Buggy size
electrics" should be perfectly fine and dandy. Otherwise being energy
efficient and dead at the same time seems a little counter productive.

People could learn to walk and/or bike a few miles, exactly like many
of us did as kids and young adults.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 15, 4:47 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything.... I'm
waiting.

Tow with a H2 Car.

Zip around in Dune Buggy size electrics to do the shopping!

Win Win!

Herc

Unless you're run off the road or hit by an 8000 lb SUV or truck.

If all city streets were policed to have nothing exceeding 2000 lb
verticals, then the golf-carts or that of your " Dune Buggy size
electrics" should be perfectly fine and dandy.  Otherwise being energy
efficient and dead at the same time seems a little counter productive.

Bingo! I've stated this 4 times in the thread already.

The Govt. has to level the field, you can't have a Volvo head on with
the Lean Machine!

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_6404-GM-Lean-Machine.html


80% of car usage is <50KM a day at 50km/hour.

You're designing 2 different applications for 1 car families.

You have to section off Central Metropolis for Electric Only.

The computer drivers won't crash by then, they'll all be bumper car
safe anyway.

All the roads are too narrow in cities anyway, these problems have to
be addressed!

Herc