 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Basics / July 2008Cost of Grid-Battery vs Diesel, Gasoline, Natural Gas and Other HC
A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. Since there is no substitute coming on line anytime soon there is no reason to believe the cost of hydrocarbon fuel will stop spiraling, especially with China's double digit growth rate, with oil wells "rolling over" and with the Fed trying to keep the frog from jumping. In two years the cost of an equivalent of diesel fuel will be $8.50 a gallon and in 6 years it will be $25/gallon, if not more. Today the cost of mechanical energy from diesel power is 10 cents/kW- hr., in two years it will be 17 cents/kW - hr. and in 6 years, 50 cents/kW-hr. TVA now sells now electricity for 7 cents/kW-hr off peak. You can buy a lot of cell phone or laptop batteries with the amount of money you are now paying for diesel, gasoline or other hydrocarbon fuel. Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. Bret Cahill > A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bret Cahill Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the electric in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block. > > A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I remember last decade, hearing about the stumbling block of providing enough band width due to the copper wire reticulation system, for the internet, untill some 16 year old kid came up with a new algorithm. Neccesity has always been the mother of invention, and as a species, we have never failed to deliver.We thrive on challenges. it is in our nature. Just imagine having a nucleor reactor outside of our atmosphere, that deilvers an 'infinity' of free energy, and all as we have to do is learn to harness it. The planet and its flora and fauna have been doing a good job of this for more than a few decades. We are always playing 'catch up'. BOfL >> A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the electric > in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block. There are many ways to do it. All America needs is the leadership to provide the motivation. Republican have demonstrated that they haven't got what's needed >> Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the electric >> in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All America needs is the leadership to provide the motivation. > Republican have demonstrated that they haven't got what's needed. Politicians are salesmen. For example Clinton had eight years. I'm not interested in salesmen. I'm interested in Scientists. >>> Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the electric >>> in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm interested in Scientists. Einstein had a letter from scientists that would have gone nowhere without a politician. FDR had the leadership necessary the start the Manhattan project. I believe Obama has the leadership qualities that will get a scientific solution to our energy problem going. <point snipped, leaving wistful political stance> >I believe Obama has the >leadership qualities that >will get a scientific solution >to our energy problem going. if you really look at his policies, he has none. he's all sizzle and very little steak. the democrats, as a party have no plan either. their ONLY claim to fame is "we aren't them." when they do open their yaps with 'ideas' they amount to diseconomic vote pandering based on class envy. this is a shame, because if we had countervailing plans between the parties, the country could really make a choice and take a direction. quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon. > <point snipped, leaving wistful political stance> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon. I respected Obama's stance against suspending the gas tax even as McCain favored it. As it turns out, the highway trust fund is bound to come up short and we'll probably have to raise the gas tax to maintain infrastructure. New public construction is the way to strengthen this economy. > <point snipped, leaving wistful political stance> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon. 1. There is a plan 2. Considering the fiasco of the Republican controlled government anything is better than incompetence. 3. Whining that "they are the same" wont fly. Americans know better. >>>> Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the >>>> electric in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I believe Obama has the leadership qualities that > will get a scientific solution to our energy problem going. Bet he doesnt. And I bet he wont get elected anyway. >>> Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the >>> electric in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm interested in Scientists. No one ever votes them into positions where they get to control anything. > >> A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > All America needs is the leadership to provide the motivation. > Republican have demonstrated that they haven't got what's needed Cheney-Shrub certainly led the way to bankrupting America and sending as much money to terrorist nations as possible. Bret Cahill > A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. (off topic spam snipped) Plonk  SignatureTim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html >A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. Bret, the story is much more in favor of electricity than what you present. Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh. Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life use in a large vehicle. That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16 kWh of work from one gallon of diesel. At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is $0.30-$0.40 per kWh. For gasoline, the story is even worse : 34.8MJ/liter (132MJ/gallon), and lower efficiency (20%-25%) in real life vehicles, gives 7.3 kWh - 9 kWh of work. At $3.80/gallon gasoline, this is $0.42-$0.52 per kWh. <future predictions snipped> > TVA now sells now electricity for 7 cents/kW-hr off peak. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. Future predictions don't even enter the equation either. > Bret Cahill > >A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Future predictions don't even enter the equation either. The calculations are not even as sophisticated as back of envelope. The real problem is psychological. Everyone is in a state of denial. And this is not limited to newsgroups. You see this in industry, government, think tanks, universities . . . even independent inventors. I even had to fight myself to make this post! Bret Cahill >> >A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > government, think tanks, universities . . . even independent > inventors. What did you expect ? Oil is a $4 trillion dollar/year industy. It's part of EVERYBODYs life ! This is the biggest supertanker in the history of humanity ! Psychologically, I think most (informed) people actually DO know what's going on, and where we are heading, but it takes some pretty big steps to change the course of this supertanker. And remember, most people are reluctant to make big changes (big changes means big risks, which often decreases success). It's often better to 'wait and see'.... So that's what people are doing. Wait and see. I think that many people hope that somehow the whole Peak Oil thing might not be so difficult to get through. Or that the peak is still more than 10 years away. That oil prices ARE caused by a temporary shortage in supply, or a speculators frenzy, not a structural inability to produce more and certainly not a decline in supply. Many hope that some more offshore driling will fix the problem for a while until we find a better solution. Or some CTL, more biofuels, more efficient transport methods or something like that. So I think there is still hope with many that we can still jog on for quite a while longer in the direction that we have been going for the past century. Maybe some hope that some scientific breakthrough or some find of oil will come just in time and prevent that we have to change something drastically. Global Warming could not reduce human's appetite for fossil fuels. So now there is an even stronger reason to kick the fossil fuel habit : Peak Oil. Psychologically speaking, I think Peak Oil is the biggest test of human nature that we have had since the indutrial revolution. If we still don't get it, then I fear that modern civilisation may end with the 21st century. I think most people (businesses and individuals alike) "wait and see" for a very clear signal from their authorities as to how we will tackle these problems. So that we can start working together towards that solution. Here, the next president will have the chance to make the most memorable speach in the history of the US, answering how will we generate our energy in the decades and even the century to come. Meanwhile, you have an advantage over most people : you know that electricity is cheaper than liquid fuel, so find the businesses that will do well in that scenario. Or even start a business yourself that makes electrical farm equipment or anything else that you think makes sense. As Stanford Ovshinsky said : "if you want to change the world, don't just talk about it. Do it !". Rob . . . >Meanwhile, you have an advantage over most people : >you know that electricity is cheaper than liquid fuel, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >As Stanford Ovshinsky said : "if you want to change the world, don't just talk about it. Do it !". --- Bingo! Nicely put, BTW. :-) JF > Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote >>>> A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. >>> Bret, the story is much more in favor of electricity than what you present. >>> Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or >>> 146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh. Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in >>> between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life >>> use in a large vehicle. >>> That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh >>> and 16 kWh of work from one gallon of diesel. >>> At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), >>> this is $0.30-$0.40 per kWh. >>> For gasoline, the story is even worse : 34.8MJ/liter >>> (132MJ/gallon), and lower efficiency (20%-25%) in real life >>> vehicles, gives 7.3 >>> kWh - 9 kWh of work. >>> At $3.80/gallon gasoline, this is $0.42-$0.52 per kWh. >>> <future predictions snipped> >>>> TVA now sells now electricity for 7 cents/kW-hr off peak. >>>> You can buy a lot of cell phone or laptop batteries with the >>>> amount of money you are now paying for diesel, gasoline or other >>>> hydrocarbon fuel. >>>> Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. >>> Future predictions don't even enter the equation either. >> The calculations are not even as sophisticated as back of envelope. >> The real problem is psychological. Everyone is in a state of denial. Nope, there's plenty of mindless hysterics, just like there always have been. >> And this is not limited to newsgroups. You see this in industry, government, think tanks, universities . . . even >> independent inventors. Plenty of mindless hysterics like AlGore. > What did you expect ? Oil is a $4 trillion dollar/year industy. It's part of EVERYBODYs life ! This is the biggest > supertanker in the history of humanity ! It aint a supertanker. And nothing like it. > Psychologically, I think most (informed) people actually DO know > what's going on, and where we are heading, but it takes some pretty big steps to change the course of this > supertanker. Nope, just piss off your fluffed up trucks etc so you dont care if the price of gasoline triples from its current levels. > And remember, most people are reluctant to make big changes We arent talking about big changes. > (big changes means big risks, which often decreases success). Wrong again. A big change to telecommuting isnt a big risk. > It's often better to 'wait and see'.... So that's what people are doing. Or just consider that europe carrys on fine even with a gasoline price of double what it is in the US. > Wait and see. I think that many people hope that somehow the whole Peak Oil thing might not be so difficult to get > through. And they might well be right too. > Or that the peak is still more than 10 years away. Corse it is. > That oil prices ARE caused by a temporary shortage in supply, or a speculators frenzy, not a structural inability to > produce more and certainly not a decline in supply. The current price isnt due to a decline in supply. > Many hope that some more offshore driling will fix the problem for a while until we find a better solution. Or some > CTL, more biofuels, more efficient transport methods or something like that. Or the whole lot is likely to see us survive fine. > So I think there is still hope with many that we can still jog on for quite a while longer in the direction that we > have been going for the past century. Corse we can. We still dont fully exploit nukes or do anything like that. > Maybe some hope that some scientific breakthrough or some find of oil will come just in time and prevent that we have > to change something drastically. We wont have to change anything drastically, the oil wont just run out. The most that will happen is that the price increase signficantly. > Global Warming could not reduce human's appetite for fossil fuels. So > now there is an even stronger reason to kick the fossil fuel habit : Peak Oil. We wont be kicking the fossil fuel habit, you watch. Essentially because there is plenty of coal and that will last for a long time yet. > Psychologically speaking, I think Peak Oil is the biggest test of human nature that we have had since the indutrial > revolution. Nope, because we can handle it fine. > If we still don't get it, then I fear that modern civilisation may end with the 21st century. Not a chance. Even the Black Death didnt do that. > I think most people (businesses and individuals alike) "wait and see" for a very clear signal from their authorities > as to how we will tackle these problems. Or they arent feeling enough effects to need to do anything much and it makes more sense to see if the current price of oil stays for long. > So that we can start working together towards that solution. Thats not how the first world works. > Here, the next president will have the chance to make the most > memorable speach in the history of the US, answering how will we > generate our energy in the decades and even the century to come. It aint about speaches and the prez doesnt determine anything like that either. > Meanwhile, you have an advantage over most people : you know that electricity is cheaper than liquid fuel, so find the > businesses that will do well in that scenario. We already know that. > Or even start a business yourself that makes electrical farm equipment Thats not going to fly for anything except pumps. > or anything else that you think makes sense. Or wait and see if the current oil price is just another spike like the 70s was. > As Stanford Ovshinsky said : "if you want to change the world, don't just talk about it. Do it !". We dont need to change the world. And you preaching in usenet wont change a damned thing either. >The real problem is psychological. Everyone is in a state of denial. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I even had to fight myself to make this post! --- Too bad you didn't win. ;) JF > Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh. > Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life > use in a large vehicle. Rob: thanks for pointing this out. Note that 30-40% conversion efficiency is already a high value for a small diesel generator. You would normally not get more than 30%. Moreover, this efficiency is for constant operation at the optimum working point. If a generator runs intermittently, it will be much lower (say 15-20%). > > Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh. > > Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life > > use in a large vehicle. > Rob: thanks for pointing this out. Note that 30-40% conversion > efficiency is already a high value for a small diesel generator. You > would normally not get more than 30%. Moreover, this efficiency is for > constant operation at the optimum working point. If a generator runs > intermittently, it will be much lower (say 15-20%). Then work from diesel fuel is 4X more expensive than that from the grid. Battery costs 2X - 3X that of the grid so grid-battery is now competitive with diesel in many applications such as plug ins and EVs. The incentive to cut costs still more going straight grid is even greater. Trains need to be electrified ASAP although the savings would by more like 3X than 4X. Bret Cahill and is about the same as liquid fuel. >>> Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or >>> 146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> for constant operation at the optimum working point. If a generator >> runs intermittently, it will be much lower (say 15-20%). > Then work from diesel fuel is 4X more expensive than that from the grid. Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell. > Battery costs 2X - 3X that of the grid so grid-battery is now > competitive with diesel in many applications such as plug ins and EVs. Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell. > The incentive to cut costs still more going straight grid is even greater. > Trains need to be electrified ASAP although the savings would by more like 3X than 4X. Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell. > Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. Al says, Try our new and improved Low Temperature BEC, now with Rubidium! >> Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. > > Al says, > > Try our new and improved Low Temperature BEC, now with Rubidium! Would you guys kindly remove "sci.electronics.basics" from the group list. It has nothing to do with electronics. If you want to jump on Bret Cahill please do so on sci. energy, or alt. politics. , or alt philosophy, or what ever. OK I'm calm now. Best Regards, Tom >>> Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Best Regards, > Tom Hi Tom, I understand that it's never nice to find a posting in your newsgroup that is about something other than what you think the newsgroup should be about. But you must admit that batteries are pretty close to the subject of science of basic electronics. I have no idea why Bret put alt.philosophy here, but sci.electronics.basics seems rather applicable to me.... Besides, you can always ignore a posting. Either way, isn't this (a human written post) at least better than a robot posting spam on on the NGs ? That's my 2 cts. Rob >>>> Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation. >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Rob OK Rob, I block Google Groups because of the enormous spam. I only see these post when someone replies. From what I see its not electronics but a rant regarding energy of crop farming. I guess I can tolerate it. My fingers got a little excited. Really, its just light hearted poking based on what usually goes on here. Tom .. >>> Would you guys kindly remove "sci.electronics.basics" from the group list. It has nothing to do with electronics. >>> If you want to jump on Bret Cahill please do so on sci. energy, or alt. politics. , or alt philosophy, or what ever. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Tom Thanks Tom. I'm not sure how you read the NGs, but maybe you can configure your newsreader so that you can delete entire posting trails, from the top down, so that all responses disappear. Also, maybe you guys (at sci.electronics.basics) can help us out a bit here : We often talk about energy efficiencies on sci.energy, and efficiency of power electronics is kind of getting important (we often see 90-100% efficiency for power electronics). Do you know much about that ? Efficiency of power inverters, voltage regulators, transformers, brushless DC or AC motors etc ? Any power electronics components that have much less than 100% efficiency ? Rob > .. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Rob Electrical machines can be made very efficient at converting mechanical and electrical energy back and forth, as with motors and generators. Nothing can be 100% efficient, except maybe a heat source, so if you want a motor and a heater, you are in luck! Converting electricity to light (and vice versa) is currently not very efficient, and 20-30% is usually considered pretty good. CFLs have provided about a five-fold increase in efficiency for producing light, and LEDs are even better, with much longer life. Photovoltaics are also in the 20-30% efficiency range (or less). When examining overall efficiency, you really need to look at the total costs involved in designing, manufacturing, maintaining, and eventually disposing of a device. I believe Don Lancaster maintains that solar cells have not produced any net savings over other sources of energy, if you take into account the overall costs of manufacturing and useful life. But in many cases they are worth the extra cost as a matter of convenience. A calculator could probably run for several years on 10 cents worth of electricity from the grid, but a $1 solar cell is much more convenient and fully appropriate. A solar powered all-electric house in an area with little sunlight would not be economical. Converting electricity from one voltage to another can be accomplished at very high efficiency, but again there are considerations of size and cost. Small DC-DC converters are about 85% to 90% efficient, while larger ones are often 95% or better. Yet there are also some very small low power converters that are about 98%. I think the discussion of excessive energy use in agriculture, transportation, or anywhere else is appropriate for the groups listed. It may be a stretch for philosophy, but then again it will take a revised attitude about living to achieve a sustainable economy and a healthy society. And it will take real cooperation among many diverse fields of study to meet the needs of the future. Paul Power electronics is easy. Just assume they can do any conversion at 100% efficiency at zero capital cost and you'll rarely be off by enough to matter in the long run. It hasn't entered my calculations in decades. But for God's sake, don't let them find out! Bret Cahill "You will rarely be wrong if you attribute extreme actions to vanity, moderate actions to habit and mean actions to fear." -- Nietzsche > OK Rob, > I block Google Groups because of the enormous spam. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My fingers got a little excited. > Really, its just light hearted poking based on what usually goes on here. Such is usenet, especially with google now. BTW, I just got eclipse up and running, debugging the ez430!!!. (looks like to will be e-zee to get my jtag going.) I'm a hobbyist, so until I'd have a real product I can't see paying $1000 to get past the IAR 2k limit. If they were smart, they would sell a student license like MS does for VS. I use the VS student license to see if I could get a professional product together before buying a real license. MS wins on this one. Now that I've moved to eclipse I really like the idea that I can get under the hood and make it do my wish list! I can also side by side the likes of gumtree to process the work of those embeddeds! Until you take the leap, you, (I), don't know how cool it can get. Best, Dan. > A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel. > > Since there is no substitute coming on line anytime soon there is no > reason to believe the cost of hydrocarbon fuel will stop spiraling, > especially with China's double digit growth rate, with oil wells > "rolling over" and with the Fed trying to keep the frog from jumping. Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" > In two years the cost of an equivalent of diesel fuel will be $8.50 a > gallon and in 6 years it will be $25/gallon, if not more. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bret Cahill > Why not just charge battereis with solar > put in racks of 20 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > deposit on a rack > 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" 200 mile range, I assume drivers will "fill up" somewhere at the half empty point on average. So how many battery packs have to exist per car? Will all cars be able to use the same battery pack? A busy service station would need massive solar panels. Wind turbines might do better in some locations, but you'd need lots of extra batteries for the wind lulls. Seems a plausible concept with problems On Jul 25, 7:23 pm, jess225...@gmail.com wrote: > > Why not just charge battereis with solar > > put in racks of 20 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 200 mile range, I assume drivers will "fill up" somewhere at the half > empty point on average. If all existing gas stations converted over to electric, there would be plenty of place to run it down to empty. Except at certain places along the freeway there should be an exchange within blocks. > So how many battery packs have to exist per car? Will all cars be able > to use the same battery pack? There could be three or four models that would fit all cars. A standard would have to be agreed upon. > A busy service station would need massive solar panels. Truck the racks in from the power plant or charge them there by electric lines coming in from solar plants. Made this up about ten years ago. > Wind turbines might do better in some locations, but you'd need lots > of extra batteries for the wind lulls. Heard about this one recently. One company is building one mirror every 8 minutes and they believe they can supply all of Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day, this with only 4 square miles of mirrors, thermoses, steam engines and generators. Create a circle of magnifying mirrors focus on water in pipe boil put in large thermos containers run steam engine even at night steam engine runs generator no panels and no batteries > Seems a plausible concept with problems I think this is what will happen. On Jul 25, 10:23 pm, jess225...@gmail.com wrote: > > Why not just charge battereis with solar > > put in racks of 20 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of extra batteries for the wind lulls. > Seems a plausible concept with problems the problem is in getting the whatever type of "economical" electric in and out of the grid. > Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 > warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds > switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles > deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even a single decent interstate ? It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging. It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead. > > Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 > > warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead. Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale, truck them in just like they do gas with tankers. Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 >>> warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds >>> switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles >>> deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" >> Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would >> be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the >> rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even >> a single decent interstate ? >> It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging. >> It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead. > Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale, > truck them in just like they do gas with tankers. That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse. > Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably > turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out, > pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than > putting any liquid in. The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly. > >> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote > >>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse. One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks. > > Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably > > turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out, > > pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than > > putting any liquid in. > > The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again. Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn't be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use? Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day. Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project. Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24 hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE > >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user > > Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly. Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread. > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 >>>>> warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds >>>>> switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles >>>>> deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" >>>> Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would >>>> be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the >>>> rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even >>>> a single decent interstate ? >>>> It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging. >>>> It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead. >>> Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale, >>> truck them in just like they do gas with tankers. >> That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse. > One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks. Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged. >>> Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably >>> turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out, >>> pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster >>> than putting any liquid in. >> The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again. > Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn't > be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use? No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate. > Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day. They cant be with solar charging. > Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but > charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations. > Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project. And wouldnt be viable either. > Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day > to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24 > hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it. You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer than the discharging. >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user >> Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly. > Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread. Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours. > >> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote > >>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse > and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged. I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement. Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution" nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way. I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods. I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated assumptions about how we get from here to there? That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as I have addressed the topic. > >>> Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably > >>> turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which > they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate. Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day? It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic, which of course would be begging the question itself. Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate to existing energy production an distribution methods? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html > > Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day. > > They cant be with solar charging. What if water was superheated and then stored in thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators.Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce? You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet. > > Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but > > charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. > > If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt > any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more > sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations. Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges. For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy. > > Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project. > > And wouldnt be viable either. Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html > > Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day > > to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24 > > hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it. > > You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer than the discharging. If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is. Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength. How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an engine therefore it is impractical and may be impossible. > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE > >>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours. The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility of storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night. Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries. Sorry about the logic ribbing but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc. > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 >>>>>>> warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds >>>>>>> switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles >>>>>>> deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" >>>>>> Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would >>>>>> be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the >>>>>> rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even >>>>>> a single decent interstate ? >>>>>> It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging. >>>>>> It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead. >>>>> Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale, >>>>> truck them in just like they do gas with tankers. >>>> That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse. >>> One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks. >> Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is the amount of >> time it takes to recharge them and return them to where you put them into cars. >> That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse >> and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged. > I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement. There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them. And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them. > Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution" > nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way. I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped. > I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods. You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar. > I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated > assumptions about how we get from here to there? Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped. > That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as I have addressed the topic. Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt the problem, how the batterys are swapped. >>>>> Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would >>>>> probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard >>>>> arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, >>>>> in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in. >>>> The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again. >>> Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn't >>> be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use? >> No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which >> they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate. > Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even > four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day? Using solar, yep. > It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic, Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ? > which of course would be begging the question itself. Nope. Thats not what that phrase means. > Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate > to existing energy production an distribution methods? Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html Just more mindless silly sh.t. >>> Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day. >> They cant be with solar charging. > What if water was superheated and then stored in > thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling > at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators. There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way. > Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of > batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to > charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce? Nope. > You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet. Having fun thrashing that straw man ? >>> Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but >>> charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. >> If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt >> any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more >> sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations. > Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their > oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges. Nope, nothing like. Its completely trivial to distribute the charging to the battery swapping stations when you are recharging them from the grid. Its nothing like that with oil refinerys which dont work at the level of gas stations. It makes sense to distribute gasoline from refinerys instead of trying to have a refinery at each gas station, but makes no sense at all to be moving the batterys to a central recharge station when its so easy to have a recharger at each battery swapping station when the recharging is done from the grid. > For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile > was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy. Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD. >>> Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project. >> And wouldnt be viable either. > Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling > down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio. Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme. YOU get to show how it can be done viably. THATS how it works. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Just more mindless silly sh.t that misses the point utterly. >>> Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day >>> to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24 >>> hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it. >> You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer >> than the discharging. > If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue. > Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength. Or maybe you could go and shove your head up a dead bear's arse. > How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination > that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an engine > therefore it is impractical and may be impossible. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue. >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE >>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user >>>> Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly. >>> Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread. >> Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours. > The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility > of storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night. Like I said, misses the point utterly. > Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries. Like I said, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead. > Sorry about the logic ribbing Its actually desperate w.nking. > but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc. Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out. > >> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote > >>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they > are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them. This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller, to meet the demands of space in cities and allow swap stations to be in as many places as gas stations are now, if the racks were just trucked in and out. > And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them. That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power. The company that is getting ready to attempt to power Albuquerque New Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims that it would take a couple hundred spuare miles in the desert west to power the entire country. > > Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution" > > nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way. > > I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach > would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped. I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out. I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some types of service stations. But in others they would be trucked in and out. Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to work with. > > I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods. > > You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes > too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar. Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or 40 batteries with the right amperage and current? At many auto stores they can completely charge one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot. When you say "[plain] won't work" it sounds like you have some pretty solid evidence to back that up with. Its like your saying certainly without a doubt it won't work now or ever. I am curious about that, considering you strong and emotional looking language. > > I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated > > assumptions about how we get from here to there? > > Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would > be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped. Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable" I can accept that language for logic sake. Upon reading my statement of "all hung up" I am sorry, I should have said "dogmatic about how the issue of how to get from here to there. > > That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as I have addressed the topic. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Using solar, yep. When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day" do you mean now or ever? Also to make such a strong claim it seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it. Can you do that? > > It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic, > > Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much > area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many > batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ? Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells. This company in New Mexico has determined that they would only need 4 square miles of mirrors, steam engines and generators, to power Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day. But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as many batteries as people could use, would the limitation be upon how much space is present or how much is usable. And the idea that things can be trucked around the country in very large scales is not odd. The idea wouldn't seem strange to Walmart considering the tonage they move around the country daily. > > which of course would be begging the question itself. > > Nope. Thats not what that phrase means. Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion. Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion. When you correctly claim that "it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate" you are simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises and this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion; the implied conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive scale. > > Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate > > to existing energy production an distribution methods? > > Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar. When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your contention about my proposal? > >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html > > Just more mindless silly sh.t. The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." If we consider your argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly, but you would have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense. Afraid your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily are constructed logically. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html > >>> Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day. > >> They cant be with solar charging. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way. How much solar is available and how mush is usable. Please explain, is it the amount of space required or would all these batteries use up the energy of all available light on earth? > > Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of > > batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to > > charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce? > > Nope. Oh. Well I concede that I don't know as much about this subject as you people, but I noticed some shakee logic and responded. > > You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet. > > Having fun thrashing that straw man ? If The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position, and this sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself [i.e.] One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person; then please point to where I did that so I can stop doing that. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html > >>> Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but > >>> charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > its so easy to have a recharger at each battery swapping station > when the recharging is done from the grid. Well I concede that at some stations, that are very large for whatever reason, could charge from the grid, but others would be trucked in, as when the stations need to be smaller for whatever reason. I think my reasoning behind that was that we want battery packs available in as many places as gas is now. > > For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile > > was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy. > > Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD. OK, if you don't sound like one of them, there were people who believed that it would never be possible to replace harses and buggies with gas powered autos. The book I am thinking about has a vast amount of quotes from people who were skeptical of the major inventions we use daily now, when they were new. > >>> Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project. > >> And wouldnt be viable either. > > Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling > > down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio. > > Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme. I am not claiming that you doing a straw man on my argument but I can honestly tell you that I never dwelled upon the idea that all batteries must be trucked in when I made this theory up. > YOU get to show how it can be done viably. > > THATS how it works. I agree, but first we need a defnition of viable to satisfy the conditions of the case. > >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html > > Just more mindless silly sh.t that misses the point utterly. Same stuff you must use to present any clear idea. Its clled grammar/ rhetoric/logic > >>> Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day > >>> to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue. Whenever you present an argument in any way, is has a form. In predicate logic, which you are using whether you know it or not, you are using common grammar with subjects and predicates. Sometimes argument forms can be shown to be sufficient but not necessary, but they appear to be both. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm > > Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength. > > Or maybe you could go and shove your head up a dead bear's arse. Are you saying that you are arguing with good logic and your arguments don't need to be any stronger, or are you saying that you are giving up and resorting to ridicule? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html > > How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination > > that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an engine > > therefore it is impractical and may be impossible. > > Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue. I you sure you might not have missed the important point about the strange logical move you made? You could easily remake you statement in an airtight fashion which I would not be able to avoid instead of dragging this superflous proof thing in front of us as a distraction. > >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE > >>>>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Like I said, misses the point utterly. Can you clearly state the point so we can be clear. Was it a point I or you made? > > Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries. > > Like I said, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead. Can you explain why it makes more sense to use nukes, in what sense I mean? > > Sorry about the logic ribbing > > Its actually desperate w.nking. Welcome to the philosophy world. > > but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc. > > Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out. But I have been arguing in alt.philosophy for many years. How could I be wrong? > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20 >>>>>>>>> warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds >>>>>>>>> switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles >>>>>>>>> deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station" >>>>>>>> Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would >>>>>>>> be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the >>>>>>>> rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even >>>>>>>> a single decent interstate ? >>>>>>>> It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging. >>>>>>>> It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead. >>>>>>> Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale, >>>>>>> truck them in just like they do gas with tankers. >>>>>> That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse. >>>>> One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks. >>>> Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is >>>> the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to >>>> where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised >>>> charging would just make that problem much worse and you would >>>> need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged. >>> I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement. >> There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they >> are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them. > This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller, They wouldnt even be that. > to meet the demands of space in cities There are no demands like that with car filling stations. > and allow swap stations to be in as many places as gas > stations are now, if the racks were just trucked in and out. You dont need to truck them in and out, just recharge them at the swap stations. >> And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them. > That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power. Corse there isnt. Its a trivial calculation. > The company that is getting ready to attempt to power Albuquerque New > Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims that it would take a couple > hundred spuare miles in the desert west to power the entire country. Pity thats a lie and it wouldnt work with rechargable batterys for cars anyway. >>> Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution" >>> nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way. >> I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach >> would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped. > I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out. I didnt say you did. > I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some types of service stations. They could be charged in all of those if you're charging them from the grid. > But in others they would be trucked in and out. Nope. > Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to work with. The definition is that it works. Your scheme wouldnt. >>> I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods. >> You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes >> too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar. > Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or > 40 batteries with the right amperage and current? Wrong with batterys that are the entire power source of the car. > At many auto stores they can completely charge one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot. Wrong again. They certainly cant do that with the batterys in electric vehicles. > When you say "[plain] won't work" it sounds like you > have some pretty solid evidence to back that up with. Yep, have a look at the charge times of electric vehicles some time. > Its like your saying certainly without a doubt it won't work now or ever. Thats what I am saying with an interstate full of cars swapping the batterys every 200 miles. > I am curious about that, considering you strong and emotional looking language. Its not strong or emotional looking, its just the fact. >>> I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated >>> assumptions about how we get from here to there? >> Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would >> be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped. > Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable" Nope. I'm saying that charging from the mains isnt viable, and that centralised charging stations are even less viable, essentially because that just adds to the time it takes to recharge the battery with the transport time to the central charging station and back. And that solar charging is even less viable again, because the sun doesnt shine long enough strong enough so that adds to the charging time even more. > I can accept that language for logic sake. Nothing to accept. > Upon reading my statement of "all hung up" I am sorry, I should have > said "dogmatic about how the issue of how to get from here to there. Still just plain wrong. Nothing dogmatic about the facts. >>> That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as >>> I have addressed the topic. >> Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt the problem, how the >> batterys are swapped. >>>>>>> Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would >>>>>>> probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard >>>>>>> arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, >>>>>>> in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in. >>>>>> The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it >>>>>> so its usable again. >>>>> Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there >>>>> wouldn't be enough light to charge more batteries than each >>>>> station could use? >>>> No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the >>>> rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars >>>> heading down the interstate. >>> Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even >>> four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day? >> Using solar, yep. > When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or > even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a > day" do you mean now or ever? Ever with solar. Essentially because there isnt ever going to be enough solar falling on the site that you use to do the charging, even if you assume an ideal collection of everything that falls on that site, and the technology will never get that good. > Also to make such a strong claim Again, it isnt a strong claim, its just basic physics. > it seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how > much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it. > Can you do that? Its completely routine for anyone to check what solar falls on a particular location. >>> It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence >>> to support the logic, >> Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much >> area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many >> batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ? > Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells. Makes no difference, there isnt enough solar arriving at the entire charging site. > This company in New Mexico has determined that they would > only need 4 square miles of mirrors, steam engines and > generators, to power Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day. Pity that most of the US doesnt have anything like that much solar. > But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as > many batteries as people could use, would the limitation > be upon how much space is present or how much is usable. Neither. The problem is that the batterys are discharged faster than you can charge them. > And the idea that things can be trucked > around the country in very large scales is not odd. Its just not practical with batterys that only last for 200 miles. > The idea wouldn't seem strange to Walmart considering > the tonage they move around the country daily. None of their customers use up anything like that volume so quickly. The liquid fuel industry doesnt either. >>> which of course would be begging the question itself. >> Nope. Thats not what that phrase means. > Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more > premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion. No one is doing that. > Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion. > When you correctly claim that "it takes too long to recharge them, > compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all > those cars heading down the interstate" you are simply assuming that > the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises Nope, I'm rubbing your nose in the fact that that is true. > and this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion; Never said it was the evidence, it is the fact tho. > the implied conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there > will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive scale. I never ever said anything like that either. >>> Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate >>> to existing energy production an distribution methods? >> Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar. > When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to > shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your > contention about my proposal? Just look at the amount of solar that falls on the swap site and assume a perfect collection of all of that solar. There just isnt enough of it with a swap station on an interstate. And even if there was, even doing the charging using the grid wont fly either. >>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html >> Just more mindless silly sh.t. > The Appeal to Ridicule It isnt even that. > is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." Its mindless silly sh.t anyway. > If we consider your argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly, Nope, nothing like. > but you would have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense. > Afraid your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily > are constructed logically. Wrong again. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html Just more mindless silly sh.t that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. >>>>> Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day. >>>> They cant be with solar charging. >>> What if water was superheated and then stored in >>> thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling >>> at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators. >> There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way. > How much solar is available Even you should be able to find that for yourself. > and how mush is usable. Just assume it all is, it still wont work. > Please explain, is it the amount of space required For the solar collection, yes, with doing it at the swap stations. There just isnt enough solar falling on the swap station to charge all those batterys in a swap station on an interstate. > or would all these batteries use up the energy of all available light on earth? Corse they wouldnt. >>> Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of >>> batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to >>> charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce? >> Nope. > Oh. Well I concede that I don't know as much about this > subject as you people, but I noticed some shakee logic No you didnt. > and responded. Made a complete fool of yourself, actually. >>> You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet. >> Having fun thrashing that straw man ? > If The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply > ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, > exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position, It isnt. > and this sort of "reasoning" is fallacious It isnt reasoning and isnt fallacious. Its rubbing your nose in the FACT that you are thrashing a straw man. > because attacking a distorted version of a position > simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself It isnt MEANT to be an attack on the position itself. > [i.e.] One might as well expect an attack on > a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person; Utterly mangled all over again. > then please point to where I did that so I can stop doing that. I never ever ever said that you did that. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Just more mindless silly sh.t that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. >>>>> Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but >>>>> charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies. >>>> If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt >>>> any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more >>>> sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations. >>> Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their >>> oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges. >> Nope, nothing like. Its completely trivial to distribute the >> charging to the battery swapping stations when you are >> recharging them from the grid. Its nothing like that with >> oil refinerys which dont work at the level of gas stations. >> It makes sense to distribute gasoline from refinerys instead >> of trying to have a refinery at each gas station, but makes >> no sense at all to be moving the batterys to a central recharge >> station when its so easy to have a recharger at each battery >> swapping station when the recharging is done from the grid. > Well I concede that at some stations, that are very > large for whatever reason, could charge from the grid, They dont have to be very large. > but others would be trucked in, as when the > stations need to be smaller for whatever reason. Wrong again, and that would be completely unviable. > I think my reasoning behind that was that we want > battery packs available in as many places as gas is now. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message