Rob Dekker
verific.com> wrote:> "The Trucker"
verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.08.22.08.09.34.756850@verizon.net...>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:23:44 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Trucker"
verizon.net> wrote in message>>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:04:46 -0700, nada wrote:
>>> .........
>>>>> Thank you Bob, a breath of sanity in an inane discussion and
>>>>> upsurd claims. Seems some people grab onto anything and think
>>>>> it's the "next best thing".
>>>>
>>>> So you claim 20%% efficiency? IF that is true then biofuel
>>>> generation at 5%% efficiency is a much better solution than
>>>> photovoltaics and electric cars. Liquid fuel is a very good
>>>> battery.
>>>
>>> Yes and no.
>>> Liquid fuel has great energy density, but is sucks in cycle
>>> efficiency.
>>>
>>> 5%% efficiency is about as good as it gets to go from sunlight to
>>> biofuel (using algae). But the ICE that burns the fuel then has 20%%
>>> efficiency before the vehicle's wheels are turning. That brings
>>> overall efficiency of sunlight->turning wheels to about 1%% for the
>>> biofuel path.
>>>
>>> Solar thermal has 20%% efficiency from sunlight->grid-electricity.
>>> Grid electricity to turning wheels via a PHEV (or EV) is done with
>>> around 80%% overall (counting the efficiencies in power
>>> transmission/distribution (~90%%), battery cycle efficiency (95%%),
>>> and electric motor in the vehicle (95%%).
>>> That brings overall efficiency of sunlight->turning wheels to 16%%.
>>
>> There are some problems with this. The sun shines in the daytime and
>> we charge up our cars at night. That infers that the electrical
>> energy must be committed to some form of battery at the power
>> company before I ever get it at the house so as to charge up my car.
> Well, as long as night time electric rate is lower than daytime,
> there would be no use to 'storing' electricity for the night.
Thats not right. The main use of night time power is for lights because its night time.
> The other way around would be smarter (you can actually make money with a
> grid storage system that charges at low night rates and discharges
> during peak daytim rate).
That has nothing to do with your stuff about electric cars.
> Also, solar thermal electricity (daytime) will be mostly used for the
> daytime peak. Peak electric use of air-conditioners typically
> coincides with top-power of solar thermal plants.
The demand peak lags the solar peak considerably time wise.
> Finally, with increase use of wind and solar, some grid-storage will
> likely be needed any way, regardless of when cars are going to be
> charged exactly.
But isn't necessarily that easy to provide given that the bulk of that
using pumped water has already been exploited in most areas.
> There is actually an interesting idea called V2G (Vehicle to Grid)
> which allows (unused, plugged-in) vehicles to serve as part of a
> 'distributed grid storage system'. Vehicle owners get paid to fill in
> peak demand with power from their vehicle, and the utility gets a
> low-cost peak-demand leveling and load balancing method. Software
> takes care of the details. Pretty cool !
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2G
But impractical for most because the parking at their work doesn't allow it.
>> And I don't know if I
>> believe the 95%% efficiency of the battery. That seems pretty high.
>
> I think it's accurate for modern batteries (Li-ion and Zebra's and such),
> but it may be 90%% too.
You can't have it both ways.
>>
>> So taking into consideration the storage of the juice at the power
>> plant at 80%% efficiency I get an 11.5%% total. That is still 11
>> times better than the current biofuels.
>>
>
> Most numbers are rough estimates, so you even if grid-storage is
> better than this, or not needed for night time (see above) then a +/-
> 20%% error in the estimate (of 16X) seems fair. So let's say that
> algae oil is between 10 and 20X less efficient than solar thermal.
> That puts enormous cost constraints on the algae plant, unless price
> of liquid fuel (oil) goes up another factor of 10 or so. That, or the
> cost of algae plants needs to be 10-20X lower than cost of solar
> thermal plants.
It's not that simple because you dont need expensive batteries with the algae route.
> Incidentally (I hate to bring this up, since I know you hate the guts
> of his findings, but) Dimitrov found exactly this : He estimated that
> algae oil would be commercially viable (with current algae bioreactor
> designs) if oil reaches $900/barrel or so.
Doesn't mean he is right tho.
> I still hope that somebody would build a few algae pilot plants that
> are indeed dirt-cheap. Plastic foil tubes or closed ponds or so.
>
>>
> .....
>>> There is plenty of possibility to make batteries better. Even the
>>> current ones will do fine for most PHEV applications (100 mile
>>> electric range).
>>> What is lacking is a vehicle 'platform' where these batteries can be
>>> used. Almost all current production cars have ICEs, and are designed
>>> around ICEs.
>>> What we need is series hybrids. Lots of them.... THEN the age of the
>>> electric-grid-charged vehicle battery will finally take off, and
>>> start to make a difference in the world (in reduced oil
>>> consumption).
>>
>> So I am saying it will be 15 years before we will see any big impact
>> from electric vehicles. And what they hell do we do between now and
>> then?
>
> I don't know Trucker. I really don't see any short-term relief other
> than conservation.
In practice we'll just carry on regardless while ever we can afford to do that.
> The only 'good' thing is that oil won't run out tomorrow.
> Peak Oil was reached slowly (we creeped up 1-2%% annually, to current
> 85million barrels/day), will probably be stable for a couple of years
> and then slowly decline.
Its more likely to be stable for a lot longer than that as the harder to find oil is found.
Maybe 1-2%% annually first, then faster later.
> If we can 'conserve' our way through the first 10-15 years, then maybe
> ultra-efficient series-hybrids, PHEVs and EVs can start to truely
> make a difference in our consumption of oil. Maybe just enough to
> compensate for the annual decline of oil supplies.
Its much more likely we just start using much more CNG and LPG in gasoline engines.
>> And
>> the other thing is that I can't see my diesel 18 wheeler with an
>> electric motor and a battery or a farmers combine or an airplane.
>
> I agree. These are probably going to be optimizing the ICE more and
> more and move to series-hybrid, and move to batteries later.
I dont believe that heavy trucks will ever be electric. We'll actually use biodiesel instead.
> But city-busses and school busses (diesels) will move to batteries very
> quickly, very soon (within the next few years). Mark my words.
Bet they dont, essentially because of the range problem.
They're more likely to change to hydrogen from nukes instead.
> Airplanes will definitely not change to batteries any time soon,
Never in fact.
> so there is plenty market for biofuels for a long time to come.
And since there is for that, no one much will bother with electric 18 wheelers and buses.
Much simpler to use biodiesel in those and mobile farm machinery.
Ships are likely to go nuclear in the longer run.
>> Why do people drive downtown and sit at a desk? We have lots of
>> vacant houses in the suburbs and lots of broadband capacity and most
>> of these people sit at a keyboard and monitor all day. It may be
>> that the white collar people on the top floor come to their senses
>> and start allowing the worker bees to stay at the house. That would
>> be a good way to address GW and peak oil and oil dependency and
>> prices. But the vested interests will not give up that economic
>> rent.
>
> My daytime job is to make complex electronic systems easier to
> design, and build.
> I hope this will help further enhance telecommuting and tele presence.
That stuff is fine now, the problem isnt with the technology, its with the use of current technology.
> Still, some meetings are simply better done face-to-face then
> face-to-computer.
Very few. In spades with the usual beaurcratic meetings.
> Also, am I the only one that feels that many people don't want to
> work at home ?
Its certainly true that quite a few don't. But they may well change
their mind on that when it saves them thousands of bucks a year.
> I'm not sure if I'm out on a limb here, but maybe they simply feel
> more at peace in their office rather than at home with constant
> interruptions from pets and other house companions....
Thats certainly true, but again the price of the alternative matters.
> Either way, people will continue to travel to work and back. And here
> in the US they really prefer to do that by car.
Because their cities aren't mostly designed with viable public transport.
>>
>>>>> *I agree with Rod...nuclear is the future.
>>>>
>>>> The question is what to do in the next 20 years. It may be that
>>>> liquid fuels and the ICE are good for another 50 years. That does
>>>> not say nuclear isn't the right thing for every other energy need.
>>>> I just can't imagine a commercial airliner with a battery. A
>>>> rubber band maybe.
>>>
>>> We probably will just use less liquid fuel. Ride more bicycle and
>>> such.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
>> of society but the people themselves; and
>> if we think them not enlightened enough to
>> exercise their control with a wholesome
>> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
>> them, but to inform their discretion by
>> education." - Thomas Jefferson
>>
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
