 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Alternative energy sources
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:31 AM I'm sure we have been here before but looking at the thread on nuclear power reminded me to get everyone looking again. I am looking for REAL alternaives here, not yer namby-pamby nuclear, wave or wind poweres:-) I'll start 1. Nuclear fusion followed by fission, followed by fusion, followed by... It never runs out if you do it like that and there is no waste:-) 2. A giant rail running the earth in a geo-stationary position that is attched to huge bicycle type dynamos... 3. A bit nearer home - Cars. Use clockwork. Have wind-up stations in place of petrol stations. Employ people to do the winding or use cheap slave labour from the criminal fraternity;-) 4. Dilithium crystlas. Any more? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM (1) Fission works with elements downwards towards iron. Fusion works with elements going upwards. That's to say, to re- fuse a product of a fission reaction takes all the energy you got out back again. (2) Do you know how far away the geostationary orbit is? It's about 22000 miles (the Earth's radius is about 4000 miles). (3) This must be a wind-up. Use bikes and get fit. Walk. Don't travel so much unnecessarily. Live near where you work and the shops. Insulate the house. Don't have so many kids. Burn the lawyers. (4) Unobtanium dilithide is better. (5) Hope cold fusion works. (6) Methane from poo. This may be a form of perpetual motion. (7) geothermal power (what happened to that?) (8) There must be a lot of power wasted when a region of meteorological high or low pressure passes over. If only we could convert that to motion, like a gigantic Newcomen engine... (9) Find a way of extracting power from stupidity, it's an infinite resource. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM Yay - Good man yerself, Paul. Keep 'em coming... What about all the energy wasted by the hot air on Mudcat;-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM Very good timing for starting this thread, DtG. I've been thinking about starting one to see what people think about this site I found... http://www.focusfusion.org/what/whatis.html The basic premise: focus fusion uses hydrogen-boron fuel, which its researchers say does not leave any kind of radio-active residue (unlike the other kind of fuels being researched today) and the source of heat is what they call a "plasma focus device". They say it's too early in their research to determine whether or not this method produces more fuel than it uses, but they say that the models they've been using suggest that it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM Oops. Is this a taking the piss thread? Maybe I should start one of my own then... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Don Firth Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM I'm sorta curious about that, too, Carol. But whatever. Anyway, here goes: Two I can think of, off-hand. I once read an article about the possibilities of placing large turbines underwater in the various currents around the earth, such as the Gulf Stream, to provide electricity. This would be the same principle as wind power. As far as I know, nothing has ever been done along that line. Main objection (similar to objection to wind farms re: migrating birds) is that it might interfere with whales and fish migration, but with a little ingenuity, this could certainly be dealt with. Another is a system that would work especially well on the moon, to provide electrical power for a moon base, but it would also work effectively in desert areas on earth. It's based on the fact that ground will absorb the sun's heat during the day, and radiate it at night. A system of pipes containing a fluid is buried in a large patch of ground (it could by acres or square miles, depending). Then, a large sheet of insulating material set on rails, covering half the area containing the pipes. During the day, the patch of ground beneath the sheet is shielded from the sun, so it grows cooler. At night, the sheet is rolled (the purpose of the rails) over the adjacent half containing the pipes. The following day, the sheet is returned to its original position, and so on, alternating day and night. The result of this is that the patch that is covered during the day grows colder while the patch with is covered at night (preventing it from radiating its heat away) grows hotter. This causes the fluid in the pipes to circulate like crazy, and it can by used to drive turbines. After the system is installed, the cost of maintenance would be minimal. [Maybe I should keep this idea, come up with while figuring out some details for a science fiction story I never got around to writing, a deep, dark secret. I am reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's brief article entitled "How I Lost a Million Dollars in my Spare Time," in which he describes how some years before, he wrote an article about how three satellites set in geosynchronous orbit could provide communications links to the entire world. He didn't patent the idea because he didn't think it would happen for another century or so. Shortly thereafter, the first Telestar was launched. But wotthehell, I'm a generous guy. I'll give it to the world for nothing.] But seriously, folks, I advocate that we place a large funnel over the Capitol Building in Washington, D. C. (the White House as well, and perhaps over state capitol buildings and city halls) to capture the vast quantities of hot air and pipe it throughout the country to provide heat for residential housing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bert Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:22 PM Your funnel idea has one drawback Don, how would you get rid of the smell of all that shit. If the use of windpower became widespread, would it slow down the rotation of the earth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:24 PM It never ceases to amaze me how far-flung some people think you need to go. We have this humongous pumping system in place and operational, involving a gravitic mass of significant value in a geostationary orbit such that it displaces trillions of cubic feet of saltwater by a distance of from 1 to 10 feet over 700 times per year. If you can get some valid numbers for the actual number of cubic feet displaced you can do the math yourself. How come we are so slow at using this built-in pumping system? We've been using Niagara Falls for almost 100 years now for power; it's worked out quite well overall. Two others sources worth considering are clean fuel distilled from coal and (of course) hydrogen. Both require major infrastructures (the coal solution less os) but both are feasible. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Don Firth Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:42 PM You've got a point, Bert. I hadn't thought of that! Scratch the funnel! I've heard somr fairly wild ideas from time to time for using tidal power, Amos, but I'm curious. What did you have in mind? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:44 PM Bert: I seriously doubt that the use of wind-power would have any impact on the rotational velocity of the earth. You're talking about very different orders of magnitude of mass, for one thing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: greg stephens Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:24 PM Well, it certainly would slow the earth down, but as Amos says: not very much. I personally favour just using less power, which is another way of looking at the problem. Turn your heating down a notch, put an extra jumper on. Insulate your house. Dont drive around so much. Dont eat foetal peas flown in from outer Gombolia. All that obvious stuff. But wind-up cars is obviously a usefuk thing to look into, possibly with the assistance of Sir JOhn from Hull's hamsters and asylum New Seekers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Kaleea Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:44 PM Way back in the early 80's, in the heart of Oklahoma oil country, my brother (actively anti nuke) wrote an article about 10 exhisting power sources NOT fossil fuels. Our uncles who were still hanging on in the independent oil biz were impressed. p.s. It did not include anything about hamsters |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:45 PM Kaleea: Well, what did he say? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bert Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:59 PM It was a joke really but I'll continue the argument just for fun. Well, it certainly would slow the earth down, but as Amos says: not very much. That's what they said when they first started dumping sewage in the oceans. It won't pollute them very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Ebbie Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:09 PM I remember a time, Bert, when there were popular phrases like the 'limitless oceans'. Wherever did those days go? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,petr Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:31 PM Im always interested in alternative energy.. agreed with above, the best way to save energy is conservation.. however there are more gadgets every year.. re cars: I think there was a French car that works on compressed air.. It came out last year, dont know what happened to it. there are hybrid plug-in electric cars right now, which essentially are converted hybrids with added lithium/ion battery banks (drawbacks are it increases weight by 170lbs, and invalidates your warranty on the other hand it can be plugged in and is sufficient for about 30km before kicking into gas engine mode) this would be an average daily commute so you could get quite a lot of mileage out of a tank of gas.. (of course it does require re-charging and uses electricity which still needs to be accounted for but typically that would be at offpeak hours) Solar energy using mirrors focused on a sterling engine. (Sterling Energy in California recently won a contract to supply electricity - check out www.stirlingenergy.com) apparently it is still the most efficient solar system - of course there are drawbacks too, wind hail damage etc. but supposedly a 100square miles of their solar collectors would be enough to supply the total US electrical supply -- quoted in Business Week article) Recently Popular Mechanics had a few articles about alternative renewable energy-- and some good ideas were generating electricity from (chemical reaction with wasteprocessing plants) thus getting rid of poop and making energy - albeit it was a small amount - but enough to power a waste processing plant one day. or small wind generators - even where wind is not high (average 11km per hour - but using a 5ft diam. windmill, which if the wind isnt high enough speed to recharge the batteries will store the charge as in a capacitor until there is enough to charge.. of course geothermal heat pumps.. using tidal power (floating grid of buoys using the up and down movement to induce electricity) or tidal power in narrows, under water etc.. there is even a design for huge screens which would scrub c02 by having react with calcium and thus neutralizing it.. (i dont know why this cant be done on asmaller scale and simply attach it to car exhausts.. but Im not an engineer.) cheers Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: bobad Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM Elbow grease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:52 AM Britain could produce about a dozen nuclear powerstationsworths of electricity by building the Severn barrage, and more still with tidal barrages across other estuaries. However, that would wipe out a vast area of intertidal zone that is the habitat of many of Europe's wading birds. I suppose a 30km Straits of Dover barrage would produce still more, but annoy all northern Europe's shipping. But a Mull of Kintyre barrage, now there's a thought- a 20km road/ rail bridge to Ireland included. Or even a dual Kintyre/ Galloway barrage. However, Scotland having provided all the oil for the 80s and 90s, they might baulk at providing England with power for all time, and there might be a secession creating a Scotland/ Northern Irish/ Republic state, energy rich but leaving England in the lurch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:15 AM Well, Carol, it is slightly tongue in cheek but who knows what will come of it:-) The silliest ideas sometimes turn out to be best. Let us call it a think tank and see if we can get government funding... Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 23 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM Peter, the problem with the calcium scrubbers to get rid of CO2 is simple, you need to get the calcium from somewhere. The only significant form calcium is found in is as calcium cabonate, ie limestone. The reaction is below. Limestone (CaCO3) + Heat --> Carbon dioxide (CO2) + Lime (CaO) To make the lime, you have to first release the CO2 you can absorb with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:15 PM LOL, DtG. Just out of curiosity, has anybody read the contents of the link I posted? I'd be interested to know what other people think about the idea of focused fusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM Yes, I had a look at it. It appears to be real science, no magic or wishful thinking involved. The problems of creating and controlling the plasma seem to be formidable, but perhaps it's not much harder than a fission reactor. It hasn't actually worked yet, but looks to be a relatively easily examined option compared to either fission or the large- scale fusion that has been tried, and has failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:41 PM Thanks, Paul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Don Firth Date: 23 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM During the Eighties I worked as a technical writer for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. The firm I worked for conducted inspections of houses that had been weatherized under a BPA energy conservation program. My job was to take a tall stack of inspector's reports on individual residences and boil it down to a six page report. If all was in order, BPA would cut a check to pay for the weatherization. This whole thing came about when the Department of Energy commissioned the BPA and similar organization around the country to find new and inexpensive sources of electrical energy. After much scientific input, agonizing surveys, analysis, meetings, cussing and discussing, and more analysis, the BPA was dragged, kicking and screaming, to an inescapable conclusion: the least expensive source of new energy was to eliminate waste. That dreaded word: conservation. Once they started funding their residential weatherization program and some savings figures came in, the Washington State government started an "Oil Help" program, similarly funding weatherization of residences that heated with oil. I worked on that program, too. At least around here, the idea caught on. Seattle City Light is now supplying its customers with low wattage bulbs. We use them and they're fine. Just as bright and they last a lot longer than regular incandescent bulbs. Conservation won't solve all the problems, but it will certainly help, and it's just an intelligent thing to do. Trade your SUV in on a hybrid car. Take the bus. Better still, get a bicycle. Go turn something off. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:01 PM I read it and it sounds hopeful. I wish these guys had a grip on funding. At present their hard results look fine but are limited, and their hopeful projections are the very kind that make jaded investment people nervous. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM Apparantly whan using a static cycle connected to a generator you can generate .5kW per hour. Now then, assuming that 1/2 the population of the UK are fit enough to do it we could make using a static cycle for an hour a day compulsory. 30 million people = 15 million killowats! How much would that help? Not just that - Think of the fitness benefits and the saving to the health service. We could also make it so that people who do more than an hour get cheaper electricity - therby helping the unemployed;-) Those that can't do it need a doctors note. those that won't do it are charged more for their power! Eeeeeh, why won't anyone give me a job in government... :D (tG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: rumanci Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM Heck ! Dave (tG) You ought to pedal your wares You make a great spokesman ! rum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:20 AM Yeah, but there's a risk he'd get tyred out... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:25 AM I think that joke is wheely bad... :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM Well spoke, sir. Obviously we are building a strong chain here; let us hope it does not brake, and that Joe does not condemn us to having our handlesbarred. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: rumanci Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM Gear we go again ! but we'd better tread softly or somebody will punch our lights out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM "Apparantly whan using a static cycle connected to a generator you can generate .5kW per hour." Well, kW doesn't have time in it (a watt is a joule per second), but you can't do that rate unless you're Superman. Lance Armstrong can do about 600W (0.6kW), but only for short periods. Real people can do 60-100W continuously. Yes, people should bike to get fit, but better do it commuting than on an exercise bike. I only wish my route to work wasn't 3 miles of hills (1 in 7 down, 1 in 8 up and 1 in 8 down coming, and the reverse going) with extreme HGV traffic all the way for company. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,DB Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM We're only about 8 light minutes from a wacking great star that's been pumping out zillions of kilowatts for billions of years. I'm sure that, if we really wanted to, we could harness a bit more of that for our own use (?) Actually, I think we're going to be the first species to bring about our own extinction and we're locked onto that course, come what may. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 25 Nov 05 - 05:20 AM Solar power, we could, DB. Sadly or fortunately just about two tenths of a trillionth of the Sun's power actually reaches the Earth, but it's still about 1.4kW/square metre at the equator on a fine day. Say 0.8kW/sqm at UK's latitude. But of course, most of it is absorbed by the clouds, dust in the atmosphere etc. etc. Say we typically get a tenth of that, 80W/sqm. If we can get 100% conversion that's only 500 metres square for 20MW. But conversion is much lower, figures anyone? We do really need some good, efficient |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM The ring around the Earth need not be in geosynchronous orbit. It would not need to rotate at all, but it would then be unstable and one side would fall down. A gentle spin would be all that was needed to keep it up, but how would you draw energy from it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:47 AM Conversion of PV power is well under 10%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM Ah but it does Keith - and that answers your question. If was in a geostationary orbit spinning slower that the earths rotation (or in the opposite direction) all we need is very tall pylons with wheels on the end going up into space to make contact with the ring. The wheels are of course huge dynamos and are connected back to earth down the very tall pylons with bits of wire... Easy when you know how:-) Now then. Anyone up to building a prototype out of meccano? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:16 AM MIcrowave transmission would serve. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:41 AM The giant pylons with wheels would indeed be a simple and elegant engineering solution. I am more concerned with how you replace the energy you draw so that the ring does not slow down. If the ring was more like a mill wheel, passing comets and asteroids would collide with the paddles and impart momentum. You would just need to shield the side of the wheel that would face the oncoming flow of planetoids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:47 AM what I recall from university apprx 30-40% of solar energy is reflected, the remaining goes into latent heat (heating the temperature of the soil etc) and evaporation of water (the largest portion). When I asked the professor how much actually goes to support life on earth - the answer was 'negligible' less than 1%. or to put it another way.. according to Hubbert's peak.com the amount of solar energy in 24hrs = total amount of oil reserves (past-future) I should say the while pv solar conversion is not that efficient, the solar dish mentioned above (made by stirling energy) focuses the heat on a stirling engine - and is approx 40% efficient (Id have to double check) but that's what I recall reading. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Nov 05 - 12:37 PM Spin of the wheel isn't too much of an issue - I was thinking more of the spin of the Earth providing the energy;-) Bugger about the asteroids though - Could we use a giant tube of asteroid cream? :D (tG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:39 AM Carol C Re your post on "focused fusion." I don't find sufficient detail to tell precisely how they intend to accomplish whatever they expect to do, but I'm a little troubled by their comment to the effect of "temperatures near one million degrees centigrade have been achieved in the laboratory," and are "near the temperatures required for focused fusion." That sounds quite reasonable, but their schematic diagram shows this "one million degrees centigrade" in close proximity to one electrode made of copper and another made of brass. This suggests either extremely bizarre metalurgy, or an incomplete concept. Pardon my doubts, but I am a bit dubious. And it does not look "scientific" at all to me, ... but then they didn't really provide any supporting theory. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 26 Nov 05 - 02:25 AM Connect Amos to a gas turbine generator. He produces enough hot air to light up LA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Nov 05 - 09:11 AM Well, there's pages and pages of highly technical stuff, so I'll try and simplify it a bit.... No, no, don't run away - you asked... and could you all please at least go 'la-la' in tune? You can't just grab a lot of solar sells and shove onto batteries to store the charge - and that's DC anyway, and if you want to economically transfer the power any distance, it needs to be AC. Firstly, there is something called Peak Sun Hours, charts of which can be obtained for each month for locations. You can get more energy in certain places at certain latitudes, at various times of the year, and it will rarely be the max rate a simple calculation might suggest. And don't forget that cloud, smoke etc will reduce this. An average sort of solar panel is rated at say 80 watts. BUT... that's at a particular temperature of the panel surface and must be derated as the temp increases. Also that 80 watts is a clever bit of marketing, cause you can get a max output voltage and a Max output current, but not both at the same time.... Example: 80 Watts = 4.6A at 17.3V across the load (which must be the right impedance/resistance, but we won't go there...) But if you want to run on the normal sort of standards the rest of the world uses, one would expect to use a '12V' battery to store the power. So you would need some sort of DC-DC converter to run the charger, thereby incurring losses. of course if you want to have a higher storage voltage, then you need to run several solar cells in series, and that has its own set of problems to ensure that things are kept under control. Now the charger itself needs to be regulated, as the battery needs to be charged at certain current ranges within certain voltage ranges to ensure that the maximum storage life of the battery is obtained for economy reasons. (more losses in the charger/regulator) You also have to consider the internal resistance of the battery which changes with the voltage state (Peukert's Law). Further more, rechargeable batteries are an arcane art too - a '12V' car battery voltage varies from a max of about 14.4V down to whatever is deemed to be an effective voltage for the circuit it is in, and the construction type of battery it is. A 350AH battery can't be run to recover 100% of charge, as you would seriously shorten the life of the battery. Some battery types are designed to give a greater depth of discharge (deep discharge cells), but you can effectively over a reasonable design life store and recover say about 70% of the AH rating. I don't know about you, but my head's spinning, and I for one am glad that there are professionals trained to do this sort of stuff. Look, I don't pretend to really understand all this stuff.... Get someone with a P.H.D. if you REALLY want to know more... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Nov 05 - 04:46 PM Robin - The recently announced layoff of 30,000 General Motors employees is a secret plot. They have discovered a new highly efficient non-poluting vehicle technology, but the expense of putting it into production requires a rapid recovery of the manufacturing investment. Since even a vastly superior vehicle can be sold only to people who's existing car is uneconomical - or has enough problems otherwise to convince them to junk it, they must let the used car market "dry up" so that a large percentage of drivers will need their new vehicles. Once the used market is dominated by real junkers, they intend to announce their new vehicles, sell as many as possible, and then sell their automotive divisions to the Chinese - who will find the market already saturated with clean vehicles that will last virtually forever, and China will go broke. I know it's true, because I heard it from a drunken PhD in a very high class bar. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:12 PM Thank you, Old Guy, for yet another example of your brilliant insight and depth of thought, not to mention your keen sense of relevance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM Ah JiK! In Vino, Veritas! And thus the God-Fearing American Capitalist Democracy will Triumph over the Evil Communists Again! Ronib |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Donuel Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:53 AM John The focused fusion site refers to having achieved 1 billion degrees - not 1 million. Carol, This year the quest for a sustainable fusion reactor took a leap forward in the discovery that larger test vessels to magnetically suspend plasma for fusion were more effective than smaller vessels. This sort of contradicts the claims of the focused fusion people who say smaller is better. In the 80's I had several friends who worked for the University of Rochester laser fusion lab. They would use enormous amounts of electricity in a split second to blast, compress and fuse a few atoms. To my knowledge this technique has still not achieved any sustainable results. I have never invented a field of science or discovered a new phenomenon but I have been able to take off the shelf parts and reassemble them for new purposes. Perhaps you recall Burkes book 'Connections' that shows how most inventions are a reassembly process and almost never a linear process. That is why I believe that cheap production of hydrogen gas is possible using the common ultrasonic devices that chemistry labs currently use to speed up / catalyze chemical reactions. Coupling these devices with my specific acoustic lens chamber will "cold boil" / cavitate pure water and seperate H from O more efficiently and thereby provide cheap H for use in the fuel cells of cars, buses, trucks and possibly trains and ships. I found there were more nay sayers to my concept of cheaper H production here than there was to focused fusion. I would have thought that a sleek website that concludes with asking for your money would have generated more skepticism than it did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Alice Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM Amos mentioned clean fuel from coal. We have a new Democratic governor in Montana, as of the last election, who has made clean alternative energy a focus of his administration. New technology now can be used in creating electricity from coal that does not pollute the air or water. Here is a bit about what Montana is doing to create a change in energy use toward clean alternatives, including wind power, biomass, synthetic fuels, solar/geothermal : Coal to Liquids conversion A page on the synthetic fuels project in Montana "At 120 billion tons, Montana's coal is, in liquid terms, one quarter the size of the entire Middle East oil reserve..." "Are there other applications of this technology? In addition to making liquid fuels, coal gasification can be used to generate electricity with virtually no emissions and, looking toward the future, can be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells." Alternative energy projects and links Click here Alice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM Thanks JiK. Donuel, I don't think skepticism is necessarily the best first response from me just because the site asks for money. But I do appreciate getting responses from people about what they thought of the premise itself and how it is being approached by the people doing the research. Good luck with your invention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM The problem with coal is that no matter how clean they are able to make it burn, extracting it from the ground always creates pollution and serious damage to the environment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:41 AM "That is why I believe that cheap production of hydrogen gas is possible using the common ultrasonic devices that chemistry labs currently use to speed up / catalyze chemical reactions." said Donuel. But that doesn't produce any energy, it merely changes it from one form (electricical, mechanical) to another (chemical). You still have to produce the input from somewhere, and the only possible non- fossil sources are from outside (solar- this includes wind, tidal and wave energy since they are powered ultimately by the sun), or internal, that is nuclear (geothermal, fusion or fission). Of those, solar options and geothermal energy are rejected as uneconomic (nobody having priced the Earth), fission is filthy (google for Dounreay, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Sellafield, etc.), and fusion hasn't worked yet (except uncontrollably, as a weapon). JiK... temperatures are high, but the pressure is low, so it's almost like a vacuum flask- the idea is that there isn't sufficient conduction from the plasma to the metalwork to make cooling a problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: JohnInKansas Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:56 PM Paul Burke - Conduction isn't necessary. Radiation alone will melt the materials shown as being used on the diagram about as fast as a ground zero nuclear EMP pulse. The main point about the focused fusion site is that it states (or makes inuendos about) a lot of things, but gives no scientific evidence for validity, or even rationale, for what is claimed. It's not a "scientific" article, and perhaps wasn't meant to be. If it's to be given any real credit, a few equations are needed, or at least citations for where they, and supporting reports on actual experiments, can be found. I'm not sufficiently impressed with the site to go looking for them. There are far too many such sites to spend time on all of them, and this one gives no real reason to expect it to be any better than many others. "Focused fusion" is a term that was tossed about at least as far back as the early 1980s and was seriously investigated then. This site doesn't even tell me if they're talking about the same thing or about some new magic wand they think they've found. The early - and sensational - reports on "Cold Fusion" a few years back were more credible. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: robomatic Date: 28 Nov 05 - 01:08 PM A lot of hope is being expended on hype. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,ivor Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:23 PM How about alternatives to the amount of energy we spend/are going to spend. Like rethinking our way of life in an effort to begin reducing our energy consumption. Or do we consume ourselves to extiction. After all, the system we live in assumes infinite growth/ ever- more profit, while the Earth is obviously finite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Donuel Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:08 PM Today on NPR there was a segment dealing with energy alternatives. The main thrust was the announcement of a new dawn in the area of soar power. Enormous parabolic mirrors focus the sun's rays on a tank of H that then undergoes a process of heat transfer for the production of electricity. Production is starting in California of this huge solar energy plant. The other method of note was a re emergence of the Sterling engine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:07 PM Crude oil and gasoline prices are near an all-time high. But don't despair. One scientist has found an alternative source of energy: pig manure. [SNIP] For now, each half-gallon (two-liter) batch of manure converts to only about 9 ounces (0.26 liter) of oil. [SNIP] So should oil companies be worried about Zhang? "Maybe," he said. "I have no support from the oil companies, that's for sure." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: robomatic Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:10 PM So instead of "Put a TIGER in your tank...........? should be, put a pig's Sh*t in your tank.........." Sorry, but it doesn't scan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,petr Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:25 PM Donuel, re the solar energy NPR report - is what I mentioned above, www.Stirlingenergy.com - is still the most efficient way of converting solar power - (also the www.Newscientist.com site mentioned a patent on a solar energy drone plane that uses the same Stirling (not sterling) engine as above. \\ despite the US opting out of the Kyoto accord, and doing as much to resist the 'Son of Kyoto' conference that is starting in Canada this week - many advances in wind and solar happened recently thanks to Kyoto.. cheers Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Nov 05 - 04:45 AM Rooster Booster If we can't harness the hot air produced on here, then this may make use of some of the sh*t produced instead. I note that the manure used is chicken manure, so we may only be able to use GUEST posts! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:59 AM Sorry Alice, the coal to liquids conversion doesn't work just like that. Yes, you can gasify coal, and reform the product into a synthetic petroleum, with very low sulphur and nitrogen content. They kept on talking about 'virtually no emissons'. That is simply not true. If you are burning petroleum, regardless of it's source, it will produce the same CO2. You also use a considerable amount of coal in the procees itself- IIIRC from my lectures, somewhere between 65-75% efficient, and are left with alot of slag and other by-producys, rich in all those toxic or undesireable elements removed from the end product- heavy metals, sulphur and nitrogen. The main advantage of the process is that it uses domestic feedstocks. The two places where it has been done on a large sclae are Nazi Europe, and Apartheid South Africa. This is as neither of those places could import or produce enough conventional oil to meet demand. It may be secure, but it's not clean. The US has huge coal reserves. Australia and much of Europe also have very large reserves. It's just too dirty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Donuel Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:03 AM Paul Burke - sorry charlie but no one creates energy. Everything is a conversion process. We were talking about fuel for the H gas fuel cell, which is a marvelous way to power cars. Outside of the manufacture of the new highly efficient fuel cells, the only "pollution/exhaust" that the fuel cell cars and busses produce is pure water. I made a design for homes that converts wind power to electricity that is then stored in batteries and then used to run a small motor that powers a dual tank saline heat pump buried 15 ft underground at a constant 52 F, to heat a large home. Solar back up is helpful but not required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM The pig manure post lost this sorry it is buried in the source code, but didn't display, so if a clone wants to fix it and delete this, fine, thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,noddy Date: 01 Dec 05 - 04:10 AM G.W.BUSH lots of hot air. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 01 Dec 05 - 04:17 AM Donuel, you're cavilling. The point is that there's a huge difference between recycling stored fossil energy (which releases CO2 into the atmosphere) and using sources of energy that are derived from outside the Earth (wind/ tidal = solar), or using energy from nuclear reactions, both of which don't add to the CO2. the problem with current fission solutions is that they add to something else instead. So hydrogen, whether converted in fuel cells or burnt directly in an IC engine, is merely a means of transmitting the energy from the site of production (by whatever means) to the point where the energy is used. Unless we find a reservoir of molecular hydrogen somewhere on Earth, it can't generate anything. Having said that, its flexibility- you can make hydrogen from anything from a waterwheel or a bicycle to a nuclear power station- makes it very attractive as a storage medium for low- grade alternative production sources. If we can keep it from blowing up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 01 Dec 05 - 06:54 AM Preventing hydrogen from blowing up is simply an engineering challenge. It's been done with petrol, and now LPG. Hydrogen is slightly harder to work with, but not impossibly so. AS you say, almost any energy source can be used to produce Hydrogen. I would lean towards large power stations , which produce electicity, and an on-site electrolysis plant for hydrogen. When demand for electricty is lower, ie late at night, step up hydrogen production. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:02 AM But WHAT do you use to fuel the power stations? Especially at night? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,noddy Date: 02 Dec 05 - 04:00 AM Hydrogen powered cars have been around since before 1980, and they did not blow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:32 AM You get much less energy from a gallon of liquid hydrogen than a gallon of petrol, and you need a bulky tank to maintain the cryogenically low temperature. It can be done but it is a poor substitute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,petr Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:17 PM that last comment might be misleading, hydrogen does pack 3x more energy per pound than gasoline, but takes up 4x the space. hydrogen vs gas (so youd need 5 tanker trucks of hydrogen, to carry the same amt of gasoline, and of course it takes energy to compress) if you wanted to make a pipeline it would be as wide as a house.. there are ways of storing hydrogen in metal hydrides, which would avoid the high pressure, but still costs energy.. It seems that one problem of the costs of fuel cells is you need platinum which is ridiculously expensive. its quite possible rechargable batteries may be the way to go, as lithium is far less expensive than platinum... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:25 PM There are mineral powders which can be used (although i forget their name) to store hydrogen in an inert combination and release it on demand at low overhead. In addition current research into nanotubes (molecular scale constructions of C-60 molecules) indicates they can be developed into an effective hydrogen transport system with low risk. Hydrogen's greatest benefit is the benevolence of its by-products in combustion -- drinkable water. Our current addiction to portable energy sources requires something comparable to the petrol-driven personal vehicle, and hydrogen potentially provides that. On the other hand if we could raise the efficiency of batteries we could transition to solar-, tidal- or wind-powered electrical systems which would do as well, if we could engineer a method of "refillling" them that was as efficient as gas stations are currently. The biggest single thing that is missing in all this is a sponsorship with enough clout to bring the various parts of technology together and fund the evolution of deployable, workable solutions, the establishment of infrastructure, and the emergence of workable engines in market-ready vehicles. The biggest players in the current scenario are the oil companies who are galloping to transfer their near-monopoly of the oil-based energy economy to the renewable energy economy so they can make the transition without disrupting their jolly revenue stream. Having every wage earner in the developed world in your customer base is not a situation to walk away from. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM A FIRST: HYDROGEN ATOMS MANIPULATED BELOW SURFACE OF PALLADIUM CRYSTAL, December 02 For the first time, scientists have manipulated hydrogen atoms into stable sites beneath the surface of a palladium crystal, creating a structure predicted to be important in metal catalysts, in hydrogen storage and in fuel cells. The research will be published in the Dec. 13 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news8690.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:46 AM This getting far too technical. I still want to know what's wrong with clockwork cars... :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:56 AM I'm not sure what's wrong with clockwork cars, but I would guess it's being unable to store enough energy to power it very far. Otherwise, one would already have been built by some Victorian. It's not as if you knowledge of how to make clockwork mechanisms has advanced that much since then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Donuel Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:43 AM H storage is a problem as people here suggest but not insurrmountable. Storing it in hydride crystals was a pioneering offering but new ways are in the wings. Production of H fuel while driving is advantageous. Then one would pull into a sevice station to have their H compressed with electic pumps - hopefully powered by sustained fusion reactors. One energy alternative area I feel we should stay away from are mini black hole manipulation. Even the dimmest bulb could figure out why. If we do want to experiment in this area, lets wait until we can do it 4.2 light years away from Earth, just in case their is a super nova "incident". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:27 AM They were running electric buses with storage in big flywheels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:04 AM Powdered iron can be used as a fuel for car engines. No problem with the volume but the mass is greater than for petrol. The exhaust is solid iron oxide which can be reused after being reduced with hydrogen, releasing water as the final waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: bobad Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:59 AM Not exactly an alternative energy source but an innovative application of existing technology to replace an inefficient method of heating water: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Posted at 2:57 PM EST Globe and Mail Update Pulsar Advanced Technologies has announced will next week launch its lead product, the Vulcanus MK4, a water heater USING microwave technology to heat water on demand. This technology with super-heating capabilities will drastically cut energy costs and totally eliminate the need to store hot water. The Vulcanus MK4 is making its world premier at Construct Canada in Toronto between Nov. 30 and Dec. 2. The tankless system uses microwave technology to heat water on demand, saving energy and providing an endless supply of hot water for residential and commercial usage. The technology is designed to eliminate the deadly Legionella Pneumophila, since water will not stagnate, as it does with conventional hot water heaters. Powered by electricity and unaffected by the volatile gas markets, the Vulcanus MK4 can heat water from 35 degrees Fahrenheit to 140 degrees Fahrenheit in seconds and can source multiple applications at once: showers, dishwasher, sink usages and more. The Vulcanus MK4 is the size of a stereo speaker with a sleek modern look, making it ideal for condos and apartments, while powerful enough to serve the needs of any size family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 04 Dec 05 - 01:24 PM Powdered iron can be used as a fuel for car engines. No problem with the volume but the mass is greater than for petrol. The exhaust is solid iron oxide which can be reused after being reduced with hydrogen, releasing water as the final waste. You now have two problems to deal with. Solids handling is far more complicated than gas/liquid handling. Everyone avoids them if at all possible Storing the oxidised fuel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: patmc Date: 04 Dec 05 - 03:34 PM extraction of electricity from the quantum flux go on - google it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:11 AM The most destructive crop on earth is no solution to the energy crisis (opinion in the GUARDIAN) A harsh (self) critique of a former believer in biodiesel. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM flywheels are nothing new, the 1892 Vancouver to New Westminster inter-urban railway was electrically powered and also used a flywheel to store kinetic energy. good link Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 06 Dec 05 - 12:23 PM Many people fail to understand the difference between generating energy, and transporting it. The main ways we can currently see to transport energy, ie for use in cars etc, away from the electricty grid are: Stored Hydrocarbons- Petrol, gas, LPG etc, Stored Hydrogen- fuel cells Batteries. The main ways we can generate power currently are: Burning Hydrocarbons, Nuclear Fission, Geothermal power, Tidal power, Solar-derived power forms: Solar power, Wind power, Hydro-Electric power, Biomass burning. Any other suggested power source has to be looked at carefully. Is it something new that actually generates power, such as nuclear fusion, or is it just a new way of transporting energy derived from one of the processes above. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: autolycus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:25 PM So reducing consumption is not an option, then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:53 PM In the early to mid 1980s (date from vague recollection) Scientific American carried an extensive report on energy storage using flywheels. The "specific energy" (excuse tech jargon) storage capacity is impressive, but works well only at very high rotation speeds. Contrary to what might be expected, it works much better with very lightweight flywheels, which were run in vacuum containers in most prototype devices. In most trial applications, another kind of power source is used to spin the flywheel up, and a motor/generator taps energy from the flywheel only to meet peak power demands. Regenerative braking, to recover the kinetic energy of the vehicle when it's slowed can avoid throwing away some energy. The concept works quite well in "normal" situations, but handling the rapid release of stored energy in an abnormal situation such as a crash or even an unusual maneuver presents some subtle but substantial difficulties. When large amounts of energy are "contained" in a rotating mass, there is an inherent large gyroscopic moment. Problems that result from unexpected inputs to a device with large angular momentum include effects similar to what happened when GE put their first twin-engined diesel electric locomotive on the tracks. The first time it tried to go around a curve at useful speed, the gyroscopic moment lifted the wheels off the track and the engine jumped the rails. With proposed flywheel storage devices, an "accident" that damages the containing vessel can result in an "explosion" - by nearly instant release of all the stored energy - that's every bit as destructive as dynamite. A few laboratory and industrial applications do use flywheels for energy storage, but it hasn't been found viable for vehicle use. An example of a lab use is at the Bitter Magnet Lab, where a multi-ton (20,000 pound?) ten foot diameter flywheel is brought up to speed over a fairly long time - limited by how much electric power they can suck out of the grid without dimming all the lights in Cambridge MA. When the switch is thrown, the inertia of the flywheel is dumped into a generator that brings the flywheel from a few hundred rpm to zero in about 10 or 20 milliseconds, to produce "massive magnetic pulses" in the laboratory apparatus. But the Bitter flywheel wouldn't fit in your trunk. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: mg Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM I think we have to get away of thinking of one do it all source...a car and a house have different energy needs. A car has to move. A house can just sit there. Then there are industrial needs. Also, I bet if we quit buidling so many houses out of wood we could get by with much less heat...have an impervious house, say made out of stone, that doesn't care what the weather is..I suspect a lot of heat goes to trying to prevent houses from rotting etc...and then think about heating the little tiny space around each occupant...say Granny is in her rocking chair...have a little heat bubble for that..an invalid..a premature infant...all need more heat..actually most of us could do with much less and would be better off for it. Lorna was just telling me how children are believed to have brown fat and because we overheat them and they aren't out enough their own natural little furnaces shut down..interesting concept..I haven't heard much about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 07 Dec 05 - 08:07 AM MG, where are you based? Climate is important Wood is actually a fairly good insulator. There are reasons not to build in it, but temprature is not it. Stone houses have a huge thermal mass. If they're not too draughty, they will take a long time to heat up or cool down. Newer ones, with proper thinner masonry are less so but the old ones with 4-6 foot thick rough stone walls might as well be caves. You do need some heating in a cold winter, because the cold does get through the walls eventually. It just takes longer Any thick, solid walls behave the same way, so concrete, thick brick, stone or adobe are all used in hot climates to keep out the heat of a hot day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: saulgoldie Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:23 AM Where we are going: Well, the guy who first called our attention to global warming recently said that if we don't do something drastic, the environment will be irreparably harmed, and we will be back to the weather patterns of 1/2 a million years ago. That is to say, warmer and far less predictable according to present models. The path to a better world involves fewer people each using less energy, and making more effective use of alternative energy sources that do not cause more pollution or add further to warming. Sad to say (as a US citizen) that my counrty is the biggest offender in this regard, using something like 40% of the world's energy, and declining to sign on with the Kyoto accord, and all that. And we have so effectively marketted our consumerist (energy-wasteful) life-style to the developing countries that they are rapidly becoming a more significant part of the problem. And "leading" us out of this condition is, well, the less said the better. Nevermind that oil will run out in the very near future. The climate could likely do us in quicker and worser than that eventuality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: mg Date: 07 Dec 05 - 03:44 PM I am in coastal washington state usa where it is one of the few places it might have made sense to build with wood..it was practically considered a weed..some species like alder..and we have earthquakes and it is good for that..and in a coastal climate you don't have the highs and lows. but i now question building with it even here...for social reasons if nothing else...you no longer have a stern matriarch or patriarch capable of controlling the lives of the housemembers..you have unrelated groups of people, you have retirement houses, you have large numbers of people with alzheimers, you have young people living in clusters, and last and worst of all,you have huge numbers of drug users. all of those are factors in fire consideration..plus you have renters..plus you have all sorts of people without enough money so repairs don't get done, appliances are jury-rigged....you have people who smoke in bed and they might be in an apartment next to you. my whole apartment house in the early 70s was in fear of fire although it was brick because a very old woman who had escaped the russian revolution would leave pots on...so even if you personally are totally aware and responsible, your neighbors on meth might not be...i think the fire risk is just too high now..plus there might be some substances that could be cleaned up after meth, flood, mold etc..ceramic maybe? and think if they had had elevated stone or cement houses in new orleans...and all of those twister and hurricane states....why in the world are they still building out of wood there...one of my big questions to ask everyone...no one likes the look of cement block except me, but reinforced it is pretty good for a lot of situations...anyway, if you have a chance, don't live in a wooden apartment house....mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: robomatic Date: 07 Dec 05 - 04:05 PM Uh, there's a fire risk in any construction, and wood is a terrific material when used properly. Hydrogen is a fuel, and in the US it is mostly derived from natural gas. It is true that burning the hydrogen results in pure water as the result, but stripping the natural gas down to hydrogen (called 'reforming') results in waste emissions, including carbon dioxide. In addition to the storage problem of hydrogen itself, a vehicle that is powered by hydrogen will not recover kinetic energy by braking unless it has an additional way to store electric energy such as a battery or 'super'capacitor. And in addition to all that, if you want to heat your vehicle, you'll find that heat cuts way down on your range, because it uses a lot of fuel. The 'advantage' of existing internal combustion engines is that they put out a lot of heat as waste product. Right now the hybrid vehicles which utilize internal combustion engines run at high efficiency and recover energy of motion during braking represent a high point in efficient energy utilization. The explosion hazard of hydrogen is over-rated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:00 PM what is the fire risk of a cement house once the cement has been poured? Of course you have trim etc. and perhaps interior walls..but the structure should be ok, should it not? Do I have to go and set fire to a cement block to find this out? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,patmc Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:33 PM In a lot of climates houses need next to no heat. I've seen bananas growing in the Rockies with passive heating- ok the insulation and trick glass required cost a fortune but then it was a prototype. Equally our personnel vehicles weigh a silly amount- two ton of steel to move lil old me (actually not as lil as I used to be) Trucking is a real problem- nuclear derived electric trains anyone? Solar PV- Israelis PV is way over 10 % closer to 30 at last check- Solar Carnot/stirling cycle - if you have a good 'cold' end these are well over 50 %. Wind- maybe but the materials science is not there - the new gearbox less gennies are good but the blades still have short lifetimes. Wave power sucks- the gear gets smashed up and even when it works it leaves deoxygenated water behind it. Tidal- works but is soooooo expensive. Nice if you already own a fjord though. biofuel- sounds feasible but for some reason I get an uneasy feeling about it. As I see it there is going to be a melange of technologies. Nukes will rule until al queda cracks one open. Oh well back to the day job- looking for oil Patmc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:46 PM The fire risk in a cement house is just about everything in the house. Anything I list below will burn in a house fire. carpets curtains clothes furniture electricals functional wood- rafters, floor joists, doors etc. that's just the start. The external walls may still be standing, but everyone in it can be just as dead of smoke inhalation, assuming the floors and roof haven't fallen in on you as well. However, for an apartment block, assuming you build with fireproof floors, it is sensible to build in brick/concrete etc. The place where the fire starts still has to get out just as fast , but the neighbours are far safer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 05 - 12:53 AM Came across a writer mentioning that bio-diesel is projected to use 'palm-oil', for the growing of which it will be necessary to destroy most of the rainforest in SE Asia at current rates of fuel usuage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,mg Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:56 PM Well, it doesn't have to use allof the rainforest. Palm oil used to be used in cooking, and some people consider it quite healthy. Certainly they should at least be able to use the old plantations or family plots or whatever. There are a lot of places that need to be reforested, including where the rainforest has been cut already. Why not for palm oil...I presume it is some sort of fruit or nut and is a renewable resourcs. Just because you use some doesn't mean it has to provide all of the world's needs. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:03 AM If all the fish and chip oil in the USA were used for generating biodiesel it would provide about 1/380th of the current fuel usage. So UKers, we have work to do.... Oh and my previous post was quoting form a source that assumed that oil had ceased, and that we would need an equivalent amount of palm-oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,petr Date: 09 Dec 05 - 03:35 PM foolestroupe and mg you might want to read wolfgangs link above the problem is that palm-oil plantations lead to deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia - and the European govts cant restrict import of palm-oil from those countries due to habitat destruction that would be a trade violation.. here is a bit of it.. In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impact of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia". In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia. Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting national park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orangutan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:59 PM Gee petr, where do you think I got the info? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Leadfingers Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:24 AM So far the best idea is the Hot Air generated here !!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Leadfingers Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:25 AM AND another 100th ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 17 May 08 - 09:21 PM Winds of change The U.S. can greatly boost clean wind power for 2 cents a day. Now all we need is a president who won't blow the chance. By Joseph Romm http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/17/wind_power/ May 17, 2008 | A stunning new report just issued by the Bush administration finds that for under 2 cents a day per household, Americans could get 300 gigawatts of wind by 2030. That would: ¥ Reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation by 25 percent in 2030. ¥ Reduce natural gas use by 11 percent. ¥ Reduce cumulative water consumption associated with electricity generation by 4 trillion gallons by 2030. ¥ Support roughly 500,000 jobs in the U.S. The report doesn't mention that this would require adopting policies the Bush administration opposes. But that's what elections are for. Wind power is coming of age. In 2007, some 20,000 megawatts of wind were installed globally, enough to power 6 million homes. Sadly, most wind power manufacturers are no longer American, thanks to decades of funding cuts by conservatives. Still, new wind is poised to be a bigger contributor to U.S. (and global) electricity generation than new nuclear power in the coming decades. As I have written earlier, concentrated solar power could be an even bigger power source, and it can even share power lines with wind. That means we can realistically envision an electric grid built around renewables: electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions, no fuel cost (and no future price volatility) and no radioactive waste. But while it is poised to happen, and other governments are working hard to claim market share, America will need a bold president to ensure leadership in these major job-creating industries of the 21st century. Like solar thermal, wind energy has a long history. More than 2,000 years ago, simple windmills were used in China to pump water and in Persia and the Middle East to grind grain. Merchants and returning veterans of the Crusades introduced windmills to Europe in the 11th century, where first the Dutch and then the English improved the design. By the 18th century, more than 10,000 windmills operated in the Netherlands, where they were used to grind grain, pump water and saw wood. Ultimately the mills were replaced by steam engines because they could not compete with the low cost, convenience and reliability of fossil fuels. In America, windmills were widely used in the West by the end of the 1800s, providing water for irrigation and electricity for isolated farmers. While wind has not been able to compete with large central-station electric power plants for most of this century, it began to see a resurgence in the 1970s because of the energy crises and government support. Those wind turbines, however, were crude derivatives from airplane propellers and were noisy and inefficient. Over the past quarter-century, significant aerodynamic improvements in blade design have largely solved both problems and brought down the cost of electricity from wind power by 10 percent a year (until recently). Wind energy can now be captured efficiently over a broad range of wind speeds and direction. Turbines, now placed where the wind is constant, have been scaled up from 35 kilowatt models of the early 1980s to 2 megawatts (2,000 kilowatts). Better weather forecasting and computer modeling allow much more confident predictions of wind availability 24 hours ahead of time. With major government investments in wind in the 1970s, the U.S. was poised to be a dominant player in what was clearly going to be one of the biggest job-creating industries of the next 100 years. As late as the mid 1980s, we had over 85 percent of the world's global installed capacity, and U.S. companies possessed the most critical knowledge about how to develop wind farms cost-effectively. President Reagan cut the renewable energy budget more than 80 percent after he took office, and eliminated the wind investment tax credit in 1986. His administration saw wind power, clean energy and energy conservation as "Jimmy Carter" strategies, and, like most conservatives, Reagan opposed government-led programs to promote alternative energy. This was pretty much the death of most of the U.S. wind industry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 May 08 - 12:26 AM Billionaire oil man bets on the wind Boone Pickens to buy land, order turbines next month for $10 billion farm Reuters updated 10:20 a.m. CT, Wed., April. 23, 2008 WASHINGTON - Legendary Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has gone green with a plan to spend $10 billion1 to build the world's biggest wind farm. But he's not doing it out of generosity — he expects to turn a buck. The Southern octogenarian's plans are as big as the Texas prairie, where he lives on a ranch with his horses, and entail fundamentally reworking how Americans use energy. Next month, Pickens' company, Mesa Power, will begin buying land and ordering 2,700 wind turbines that will eventually generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity — the equivalent of building two commercial scale nuclear power plants — enough power for about 1 million homes. "These are substantial," said Pickens, speaking to students at Georgetown University last week. "They're big." /quote See more at the link. 1 T. Boone's personal wealth isn't given in recent sources I've seen, but Forbes puts him at #117 on the "wealthiest" listing. He has some management control of 2 to perhaps 4 billion ($) of other people's money. Subsequent articles indicate that TBoone has "placed an order" for 677 GE wind turbines (677/2,700 = .25), but I'd bet on there being a favorable "opt out" clause. He has emphatically stated that this whole project is contingent on renewal of the Alternative Energy Tax Credit - which expires sometime about now. It might be suspected that the "big plan" is more of an extortion threat to move renewal of the tax credit (which will benefit other of his ventures) than a serious intent to commit to a massive wind power project, although hopefully at least some lesser wind power venture, or some parts of this one, may spin off the announced plan. The useful part of the news on TBoone2 is that it gives more believable estimates of investment costs, construction costs, and regulatory hurdles than the "Romm Report" Amos linked just above, if you're willing to dig through both. While the full report (pdf 248 pp) cited by Romm has some credible information in it, it is basically a "sales pitch," giving only favorable - and mostly very optimistic - comment of "possibilities." (The pdf does have some quite good description of some details of wind machinery that may be revealing to those who haven't studied in depth, and is worth skimming at least.) 2 Unfortunately, the "guts" info on TBoone's venture is scattered through about a half dozen (+) recent "news releases," and is not well presented in the one article linked. Finding them presents some difficulties, because most Google results are to environmental groups who post UNDATED and UNCREDITED reports on Boone activities in the range from 8 to 25 years old (still posted as if new news). John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: akenaton Date: 18 May 08 - 04:57 AM UK is quietly shelving wind farm plans, after wasting millions of taxpayers money for political expediancy. They are not economically viable, depend on variable wind conditions and massive govt subsidies to construct and maintain. UK Capitalists are now meassing behind Nuclear Power with all its poisonous consequences. The only answer is to cut energy use, but of course that would cause the system to fail, so thats a non- starter. Humanity has just been handed a death sentence....by the business interests who really rule our world...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 May 08 - 05:06 AM Well, the Rudd Govt has removed the solar panel tax rebate for those on incomes of over $100,000 - most of those who COULD afford the price. One supplier claims loss of over $1 million sales. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: MarkS Date: 19 May 08 - 12:23 AM Wind generators are today at a point where they are efficient and reliable. As the state of the art improves, we can forsee in years to come they will get even better. Suspect they are now at the point where you do not need a tax incentive to install one, because they are economically viable on their own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 19 May 08 - 01:24 AM They are not economically viable, depend on variable wind conditions and massive govt subsidies to construct and maintain. UK Capitalists are now meassing behind Nuclear Power with all its poisonous consequences. Nuclear power is not economically viable, either, and it depends on massive government subsidies as well, but they never bother to mention that. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 19 May 08 - 07:43 AM Surely it would be a lot more sensible for people to install their own wind turbines where possible? This would avoid the problems with the effect on the environment and landscape value, I believe that 70% of the current is lost in national grid systems anyway so how efficient is that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Mr Happy Date: 19 May 08 - 08:31 AM Lots've people who live on narrow boats use wind turbines + solar panels to keep their batteries charged & are also able to run plenty've domestic devices from these free, clean, green sources |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 19 May 08 - 10:08 AM AKe: Not economically viable? I'd like to see hard numbers in support of that. The variability of winds is taken into account when they select sites. There are six different ways to accomodate the variability using storage capacity. Capacitative devices, flywheels, thermal storage, batteries, ggracity lift mechanisms, and mechanical storage, such as by clockwork, come tom ind right off the top of my head. Once the capital investment is made the cost of production is maintenance only. Free product. How do you figure this is not economically viable? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: beardedbruce Date: 19 May 08 - 10:18 AM Amos, In general I agree with you ( on this) It is always possible to store energy by using excess to pump water to an elevated location ( water towr or resevoir in the mountains) and use turbines to recover ( most ) of the energy when it is needed. HOWEVER, you state "Once the capital investment is made the cost of production is maintenance only." You ALSO have to factor in 1. the environmental impact of the manufacturing process ( very high for solar power) 2. The environmental impact of operations (CO2, acid rain, hazards to birds, etc) 3. The cost and environmental impact of disposal at end of life. ALL of these add to the true cost- and should be considered for any energy source ( INCLUDING oil, gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, solar, and wind.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 19 May 08 - 11:03 AM I think that's fair Bruce. From a seat-of-the-pants estimate I don't see that the manufacturing and operations impacts you mention would be out of proportion among wind, coal-burning, and nuclear generation. Windmills do not generate CO2, and although some have been cited as hazards to birds that can be circumvented and has been by design improvements. End-of-life disposal is certainly no greater a cost for a windmill than it is for a traditional fuel-burning generation plant. I haven't seen a spreadsheet of these factors broken down, so I am SWAGGING it. I don't think these factors are sufficient to support ake's claim of "economically unviable" for wind generation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: beardedbruce Date: 19 May 08 - 11:09 AM Viability is directly dependent on wind direction and consistancy. Each area would have to be looked at: Any specific area may or may not be viable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 19 May 08 - 12:40 PM That's why we have a grid to distribute Niagara's energy, isn't it? Obviously some places are less suitable for wind scavenging than others. There's enough solar and thermal energy in Death Valley alone to power the United States year 'round, I have read somewhere, but for good reason no-one has ever byuilt a HV distribution backbone into the area. So it would be costly to get the energy out to the grid. I would be willing to bet, for example, that even without PV, there is enough thermal difference between the surface and, say, 30 feet below it, to make a Sterling engine highly efficient and viable as a generating source. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 19 May 08 - 06:48 PM I'm interested to know what's viable to try out on an individual basis in the UK on a convex north facing slope with about 1/2 acre to play with. Any ideas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 19 May 08 - 07:09 PM THere are places where you can buy an individual windmill. A Sterling-engine generator is a possibility. They depend on a difference in temperature, so it depends how much you could heat up a fluid using solar-thermal. I've powered all my hot water and forced-air heating by thermal-solar and found it reduced my energy bill by about thirty percent. (That was just sun-heated water pumped into the hot water tank and used to heat the duct-air). But it depends on how much sun. So I would say your first order of business is to learn what an average year of sun and of wind means in your locale. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 May 08 - 11:44 PM "There's enough solar and thermal energy in Death Valley alone to power the United States year 'round, I have read somewhere, but for good reason no-one has ever built a HV distribution backbone into the area. So it would be costly to get the energy out to the grid." Ah - the grid was built to go to Niagara - more or less... so if we HAD gone the thermal path, the grid would have gone there... you heard the old tale how winding goat tracks become winding highways? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Charley Noble Date: 20 May 08 - 07:48 AM If we could only harness the energy generated by our two cats, we could power everything in our household and make a tidy profit with the surplus sent back to the power company grid. Of course, I'm neglecting to factor in such variables as downtime for hairballs, litterbox runs, grooming, and naps. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 20 May 08 - 09:06 AM I'm not in favour of "someone says" estimates... let's try and work it out. According to Wikipedia, it's at about 36 degrees north and has an area of about 7800 square kilometres- 7.8G sq m. If we assume that the daylight averages out as a rough half- sinusoid, the average is about 1/pi times the peak. The solar constant is about 1.4kW per square metre, so the average power per square metre is 1.4cos(36)/pi = 0.36kW/sq metre. That gives about 2800GW average for the whole valley, or about 25 million GWHr annual production. Back to Wikipedia, that has an estimate of 17 million GWHr consumption in the USA in 2005. Yes, it looks right.. if you cover the whole valley, and conversion efficiency is over 68%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 20 May 08 - 10:40 AM I love SWAGS with numbers in them. Thanks, Paul!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 20 May 08 - 06:03 PM I would like to know why it's an either or solution. Why are wind turbine towers not covered with small solar panels? Why is it, even though they are often very tall towers, they do not use materials for construction, or in addition to construction, that do not take advantage of electrical current induced due to thermal differences across the material? Etc. Although I believ that conservation is probably going to have the highest impact on resources (at this point) I know that it is not the whole answer. Continued population growth will cause icreased demand either requiring more of the pollution causing plants or the development of the technologies we're discussing. I do know of one great waste that does need to be addressed. Many power generating plants just let the steam produced go up the stack and dissipate into the atmosphere. It could easily be used to preheat the incoming water supply, thus requiring less expenditure to boil the incoming flow. If it were then gathered and condensed at a higher location it could be run through a generator much like any other hydroelectric plant. The water, if filtered, would be a great source of clean drinking water, something we also seem to be having problems with. Does anyone know if there has been any research (as of late) to harness lightning strikes or induced current in the polar regions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 20 May 08 - 08:41 PM Chief: So far, cost-efficiency requires an energy density factor much higher than ambinet thermal gradients. Another generation of nano-scale engineering will probably overcome this and we should be able to micro-scavenge using sensor built into wall and roof tiles from ambient thermal, air, sound, static charge and mechanical vibration, using microscopic cells and accumulators like large capacitors that look something like steel-wool -- miles and miles of capacitative surfaces in a very small area. But we have to bring the cost of design and production (and repair or replacement) down to be able to take advantage of such sporadic and low-density energy events. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 20 May 08 - 08:55 PM A 100 foot wire in a horizontal configuation will pick up something like 1 microwatt. With most towers standing that high I'm sure there would be additional voltage. Not much mind, but a small amount. It's not that it's a huge amount but every little bit! But what about the towers being covered with solar cells? It's not like they would take up more space than the tower's skin already does. I'm not sure how much it might add but with 100 towers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 20 May 08 - 08:57 PM Sure--it's something they should have. The cost f collecting the small increments might not be viable, is what I would guess. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 May 08 - 01:08 AM "A 100 foot wire in a horizontal configuation will pick up something like 1 microwatt." This has been known to hobbyists for ages - and a great many small projects written about. Amos - Ultracapacitors - There was an article in the Aussie electronics Mag Silicon Chip in April 2008 issue. In teh US, there are teh Coleman Flash Cell Screwdriver and Superior Tool Co Ultracut Cordless Tube Cutter. Example a 2.5 kF yep that's not a typo... Also up to 50 F - at 5V - they work because the 'plates' are so close, but the voltage rating is only a few volts - so you connect large numbers in series to handle the needed voltage. Honda have one bank that is paired with their hydrogen fuel cell. The article talks about using them in cars - and pairing with lead acid cells. Discussions about just how fast you can charge banks of them in a few minutes without melting the house power feed too! They are much better peak power sources than batteries of any type - deeper discharge rates and less heat dissapitation. 100,000 to 1 million cycles. Guarantee 10 years life - better than batteries. Less space and lighter for same power capacity than batteries. One quarter of the theoretical max capacitance of the chemistry involved. Lots of vapourware, but EEstor is a real company. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 21 May 08 - 03:24 AM SWAGs? Sailors' wives and girlfriends? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 21 May 08 - 06:42 AM This looks quite a good wind turbine with 5 blades for better efficiency: HOME PRODUCTS ENERGY CHALLENGE LINKS FAQ'S CONTACT FuturEnergy 1KW Upwind Turbine Our New 'rugged' Upwind Turbine range is based on 2 years of real-life testing and development in Warwickshire and the Uplands of Scotland. Using our unique Permanent Magnet Generators, combined with our Hi-Spec Wind Turbine Blade Sets, these furling turbines create very useful power in low wind conditions, and over 1000W in winds of 12.5m/s. Available in 12V, 24V, 36V & 48V DC versions, they are suitable for battery charging, water/air heating and Grid-Tie installations. We don't recommend, nor will we authorise the installation of any of our turbines in 'building-mounted' installations, other than for steel-framed and other industrial buildings. These turbines are tower-top ready, and will fit on to any of our Tower Kits listed here. These can be purchased separately, and can be made to your specific requirements where feasible. All FuturEnergy Wind Turbines must be installed using our approved towers. Distributors and Re-Sellers based in the UK must also use only those towers approved for use with our turbines. Please order your tower kit when ordering your turbine, since there is usually a 3-5 week lead time on all towers. For a complete guide to towers, system designs and grid-tied inverters, see this Turbine Guide Your turbine will be supplied in 2 shipping containers, weighing a total of 30Kg, and you will be required to attach the tailfin and blades to the main turbine housing. All instructions will be supplied to guide you through the simple assembly, and you should be ready to mount and use your turbine in only a few hours. For battery charging applications we suggest that you use a suitable charge controller to prevent your batteries from becoming overcharged. • Mechanically furling tail fin for high wind protection • Unique high-spec Permanent Magnet Generator • 5 top-grade glass filled nylon turbine blades • Sealed bearings in mast-mounting shaft • 60 Amp rated slip-ring prevents cable-twisting • Aerodynamic profile design • Patented anti-vibration locking washers • Rugged and simple, with a minimum of parts and simplicity of design • Zinc-plated and Stainless Steel with powder-coated and anodised aluminium for optimal corrosion and weather resistance • Manufactured in the UK Technical Specifications Downloads Nominal Power Output - 1000W (600W / 12v Version) Start-Up Wind Speed - 2.5m/s Cut-In Wind Speed - 3.2m/s Rated Wind Speed - 12.5m/s Survival Wind Speed - 50m/s Rotor Diameter - 1.8m Number of Blades - 5 Generator Type - 3-Phase Perm Magnet (this is rectified to DC inside the turbine, giving a 2-wire DC output) Weight - 22Kg Suitable Tower Diameter - 50mm Noise: LAeq 35dB @ 5m/s @ 5m behind rotor Noise: LAeq 54dB @ 7m/s @ 5m behind rotor ROHS compliant FE1012U 12V Turbine Spec + Power Curve FE1024U 24V Turbine Spec + Power Curve FE1036U 36V Turbine Spec + Power Curve FE1048U 48V Turbine Spec + Power Curve Tower Kits and Turbine Guide Buy Now - £695 inc VAT (£591.49 Ex VAT) P&P on this item within UK - £28.50 inc VAT Trade Prices upon application Installer Training Courses now available. Permanent Magnet Generators At the heart of our 1KW Turbines is this Permanent Magnet Generator. Using the very latest in rare earth magnets we are able to produce very high power outputs at low RPM levels, while achieving this from a PMG weighing only 7Kg. With a wide variety of uses, from wind and water turbines, to fuel-powered generators, we are offering these PMG's to anyone who wishes to adapt them into their own products. Supplied with 3-Phase power output cables (approx 15cm in length), 18mm axle securing nut and washer, and 5 x 8mm nuts, washers and split rings on the faceplate mounting bolts. You will need to rectify the output of the 3-phases to produce DC for battery charging and other applications. Our PMG's are not guaranteed for use with your own rectifier solutions, and so we can supply a 3-Phase Bridge Rectifier Kit for this item for around £16.20 inc VAT, please ask when ordering. For a technical spec, click here Buy Now - £150 inc VAT (£127.66 Ex VAT) P&P on this item within UK- £18.50 inc VAT Grid-Tie Inverter The SunnyBoy 1100LV inverter provides an ideal way to connect your FuturEnergy turbine to the 'mains' supply in your house/business. This inverter has a 'turbine' mode which we will program for you when you order your inverter, to match the performance of the turbine model you plan to use. The power from your turbine is converted into high quality 240VAC and is synchronised with the utility supply in your house. Any power you use will come mainly from your own turbine (when in operation) in preference to the mains, which basically means that you will use less power from the national grid than would otherwise be the case. During most of the day, even in windy conditions, you will be using more power in your home than your turbine is producing, and hence you will rarely be 'exporting' any power on to the grid. It is unlikely that you will benefit from trying to sell power back to the grid, since you will require an 'import/export' meter to be installed, and you will consume almost all the power you produce yourself through the products that you have permanently switched on in your home. This inverter needs to be connected directly to your consumer unit, to a separate fuse, rated at 16A, with a 16A double pole isolation switch (lockable) connected in accordance with UK wiring regulations. A qualified electrician, or FuturEnergy Installer will be able to carry out this for you. This inverter is suitable for use with either the FE1024 or FE1048 turbine, and you will require a Dedicated FuturEnergy Charge Controller with 2 dump loads (shown below) to protect the inverter mainly during power cut situations. We no longer recommend using the Xantrex charge controllers with this Inverter since it does not offer all the protection required during some operating modes. Please ask for details of the Charge Controller required when ordering the Inverter Buy Now - SunnyBoy 1100LV - £1150 inc VAT (£978.72 Ex VAT) P&P on this item within UK - £28.50 inc VAT Xantrex C40 & C60 Charge Controllers For use in Battery-Based systems, these rugged charge controllers offer protection against overcharging when used with our wind turbines. The Xantrex C60 is capable of handling charging currents of 60A, and is suitable for use with battery banks of 12V and 24V only. The C40 can handle charging currents of up to 40A, and is suitable for use in 12V, 24V and 48V battery charging applications. In order to use either of these controllers with your FE Turbine and Battery Bank, you will require a suitable dump load for connection to the C40 or C60. These dump loads are shown below, and can be bought separately if required. The following number of dump loads are required with each of the following battery voltages. For 12V systems use a C40 or C60 and 2 Dump Loads (in parallel) For 24V systems use a C40 or C60 and 1 Dump Load For 48V systems use a C40 and 2 Dump Loads (in series) Buy Now - Xantrex C60 - £195 inc VAT (£165.96 Ex VAT) Buy Now - Xantrex C40 - £155 inc VAT (£131.92 Ex VAT) P&P on this item within UK - please ask when ordering Dump Loads For use with either of the Xantrex charge controllers above, these dump loads are effectively very high power air heating elements. The C40 and C60 charge controllers are used in 'Load Diversion' mode, and as such, they dissipate any unwanted power into these dump loads when your battery bank becomes fully charged. It is vital to use a charge controller to prevent damage to your batteries, especially if you leave your system unattended for long periods of time, and without loading your batteries with an inverter, or other suitable device. These dump loads should be mounted as close as possible to your C40 or C60 charge controller. They should be mounted in free circulating air, and not in an enclosed space. The power connection blocks are made of solid brass, and all cabling used should be securely connected using the bolts provided. Please ensure that you choose the correct number of dump loads for the battery bank voltage you are charging. See above for details. Buy Now - Dump Load - £80 inc VAT (£68.09 Ex VAT) P&P on this item within UK - please ask when ordering Wind Turbine Blade Sets These wind turbine blade sets are constructed to the highest of standards, and are used at the heart of our 1KW downwind range. They can easily be adapted to suit other turbines, and will produce up to 1.2kW of power in 12.5m/s winds. The blade set comes in kit form, including 5 x high-spec blades, manufactured in black PAG material (virtually indestructible, and don't require painting), with 2 x 5-blade hubs (black anodised finish) and location pitch pins (25 degree root angle). Once assembled, the complete rotor, measuring 1800mm in diameter, can be adapted to suit many power generators, and will perform best in the 300 to 900 RPM range. The hub is supplied with enough nuts & bolts to assemble the complete rotor, and has 5 mounting holes, each of 6mm in diameter, positioned in a pentagon shape at a PCD of 90mm. The main boss hole in the hub has a diameter of 74.6mm, and care should be taken to accurately, securely and centrally mount the completed rotor on to your intended application. In order to achieve the best results from these blades, the final rotor assembly should be balanced by the user prior to being used in any application. Neither FuturEnergy Ltd nor the blade manufacturers accept any responsibility for any issues arising from unbalanced rotors in any application. Each blade set will be supplied with instructions on how to perform a 'static balance' of the assembled rotor, and it is the user's responsibility to ensure that every effort has been made to address any balancing issues prior to using these blades. Buy Now - £170 inc VAT (£144.68 Ex VAT) P&P on this item within UK- £18.50 in VAT High-Power Cable For use with our turbines and PMG's, this cable is very flexible, High-Power with a 10sq mm conductor area (8 AWG), available in Red or Black. Ideal for connecting the DC power output from our turbines, down your tower to your batteries, charge controller, heating element or inverter. Also good for making your battery bus bar connections. The cable is sold per meter, and has the following specifications... Single core PVC insulated High-Power cable, ideal for use with wind turbines, batteries, power interconnections, charge controllers and heating element connections Each cable contains 80 x 0.4sq mm plain annealed copper conductors with heat resisting PVC insulation rated up to +105 oC UL, AWM, CSA, TEW, BS6231 and SEMCO recognised Maximum working voltage: 600 Volts 10sq mm overall conductor area, suitable for currents up to 75A Volt drop of only 2.2mV/A/m Weight 1.2Kg per 10m Buy Now - RED or BLACK - £3.50 per meter inc VAT Postage price dependent on length ordered Portable USB solar Charger For use with your own USB charger cables, or with our optional Connectivity Packs, this USB solar charger will provide power for your Phone, PDA, GameBoy or MP3 player while on-the-move or on the beach!!. Constructed in High Impact ABS and using the very latest in Solar Cell Technology, this pocket USB solar charger has Built-In NiMH batteries to absorb power in all lighting conditions. Simply connect your USB power cable to the integrated USB socket and connect your Phone, PDA or other electronic device to initiate charging. The integral power store within the Solar Charger will give you power, even in the dark, with enough energy stored to boost the charge in your Phone, even in the absence of sunlight. Ideal for use outdoors, on the beach or anywhere that you won't have access to 'mains' electricity....free yourself from power adapters and car chargers... For further information click here Buy Now - £34.95 inc VAT P&P on this item within UK- £2.95 in VAT ©FuturEnergy Ltd 2005, FuturEnergy Ltd, A Subsidiary of Special EFX Ltd, 7 Ettington Park Business Centre, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire, CV37 8BT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 21 May 08 - 06:51 AM This was an aricle that put me on to the 'Future energy' website: 'The ethical shopper Dominic Murphy Tuesday June 27, 2006 The Guardian One problem with domestic wind turbines is you need a decent breeze for them to work. This new one, however, claims to generate electricity at lower wind speeds than competitors, because it has five blades instead of the usual three. If this isn't tempting enough, the £695 price tag should blow you away. Don't be fooled, however. For this kind of money, you will have to install the thing yourself and you won't be able to connect it to mains electricity. Should you want it connected to the meter, you must buy a "grid-tie inverter", which will set you back another £600 or more. You will also need an accredited installer to do it for you. In other words, there won't be much change from £2,000 - pretty much the cost of getting a rival turbine up and running. From Future Energy, 08700 664100, http://www.futurenergy.co.uk/. ' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 21 May 08 - 07:13 AM Little generators are a poor option, unless there's no other power available, like on a boat. The engineering investment is huge compared to the energy output. One big problem is that the rated wind speed is very high for most locations; this one is 12.5m/s which is 28mph. The relationship between wind speed and power output is cubic, so most of the time it operates at a fairly small fraction of its rating. For example, averaging the 5 day forecast for here, I get 18mph- and hence an average power output of not 1KW but 270W. I believe that these solutions are aimed mainly not at converting wind into energy, but good intentions into profits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 21 May 08 - 10:56 AM A SWAG, in American engineering circles, is a Shitty-Wild-Assed-Guess. It is a semi-mathematical method for approximating solutions to engineering problems when the variables are too complex or to unknown for a more rigorous method to be applied. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Grab Date: 21 May 08 - 02:10 PM I would like to know why it's an either or solution. Why are wind turbine towers not covered with small solar panels? Why is it, even though they are often very tall towers, they do not use materials for construction, or in addition to construction, that do not take advantage of electrical current induced due to thermal differences across the material? Etc. Until PV solar panels improve in efficiency, they aren't viable in the UK. In the UK, current numbers are that a solar panel of today's readily-available technology will not recoup its cost, nor its environmental impact (which is considerable), within its lifespan. In Death Valley, things are rather different, of course. :-) But even then, you're faced with the issue of area covered. Wind turbine towers are tall and thin, of course, which presents a fairly small area for covering with solar panels, and a vertical surface makes a poor sun-catcher anyway. So it really ain't going to work that well. When solar panels get high-efficiency then maybe, but currently-available stuff just won't cut it. And as for the 1 microvolt extra - I assume that was a joke, dude? It'd take 11 million 100m-lengths of wire to run one 11W power-saving fluorescent lightbulb. That's the distance to the Moon and back 14 times. That's a lot of wire, mate! :-) Temperature differences would work if there was a significant difference. But there isn't. Best case, the dry adiabatic lapse rate (rate at which temperature drops with altitude) is 9.8 degC/km. So over a 100m pylon, that's 0.98 degC, which isn't a right lot. A quick search on Wikipedia about thermoelectrics suggests you'd get 40 microwatts from a 5 degC temperature gradient, hence 8 microwatts from a 1 degC temperature gradient. It's an improvement on the long wire though - only 275,000 towers needed to run one 11W fluorescent lightbulb. Re the steam from power generation, cooling towers are used to preserve the water - but the heat is indeed wasted. That's the idea behind CHP (Combined Heat and Power) schemes which are rather popular in the Third World. They haven't really been picked up in the West though, because (a) it's generally too hard to get the hot water to homes efficiently and reliably, and (b) most places don't need much heating for six months of the year. I believe they're moderately popular in places like Alaska though, where there's a year-round need for significant amounts of heating, and individual towns often make their own arrangements for power instead of relying on the national grid. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 21 May 08 - 02:23 PM Some people are experimenting with some kind of solar collecting material that can be sprayed on like paint. I'm curious to see is this can help make surfaces such as the wind turbine towers (and people's roofs) good surfaces for energy collection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 21 May 08 - 02:51 PM I'd like to know how they collect the energy from it. Any links? Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 21 May 08 - 03:06 PM I just heard it mentioned as one small part of a much larger talk. The link to the talk is here... http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=110690&messages=33#2338721 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 31 Jul 09 - 03:54 PM "In the developed world, domestic energy consumption per household runs in excess of 2,000 kg of oil equivalent. Some of this consumption can be offset, with a consequent reduction in energy bills, by the use of renewable energy. Geothermal and solar energy can be used for space heating and heating water, while solar photovoltaic systems and micro-wind turbines can be used to generate electricity. Some environmentally aware householders are switching to providers who supply energy derived from renewable sources such as hydro, tidal, wave, and large-scale wind turbine installations, while others are resorting to microgeneration. In 2004, only 0.5% of energy used in homes was from renewable sources, which includes energy from waste. Clearly, there is significant scope for increasing the use of this largely untapped resource. The high cost of installing renewable energy systems and the long payback times remain a barrier to the widespread adoption of microgeneration technology. However, as more householders install systems, the renewable energy sector will achieve scale, and the cost of equipment will eventually fall to the point where microgenerated energy is competitive with that produced by burning fossil fuel. There are a number of practical issues regarding the installation of wind, solar and geothermal technologies in housing. The distributed energy generation model will impact on the business model of the energy provider and grid operator, while the use of renewable energy within the consumer market will impact the fossil fuel market. The idea that householders could become energy providers is relatively new and has been picked up on by vendors of equipment and systems that extract energy from renewable sources. Microgeneration fits well with the concept of local energy generation and community based energy products – itself being driven by people and companies who see themselves and NextGen energy producers as being locked in battle with the monopolistic incumbent grid operators and power generators. However, care must be taken that householders are not misled as to what is achievable using current technology and do not expect to earn a significant return on their investment by selling surplus energy back to grid operators." From the Energy Crowd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: EBarnacle Date: 31 Jul 09 - 05:06 PM Bate's methane generator was nothing new, even when he introduced it. Similar generators were used in both the United Kingdom and Europe due to shortages of petroleum for civilian use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,BanjoRay Date: 01 Aug 09 - 09:04 AM Maybe the reason no other intelligent species has yet been detected in the universe is because when one's been around for a million years it gets intelligent enough to develop, and get addicted to, it's own extinction technology. Maybe some time a species will go a little further and avoid become extinct, but I don't expect that'll be ours... Oh dear Ray |
