Well the majority of liberals believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document, as such open to all sorts of wild interpretation. The majority of conservatives believe that the intent of the document is as it's stated.
Well the majority of liberals and conservatives believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document, as such open to all sorts of wild interpretation. The majority of libertarians and other third parties believe that the intent of the document is as it's stated.
FTFY
Bill O'Reilly: I don't care about the Constitution
So she had a NiCd? That's surprising that it went bad the way it did. As far as I understand, most NiCd (at least flooded) are quite durable. I guess not.
But there's no way that ultra cap is going to store the energy needed to go more than say 10 (or even 1) in the ultra caps. All the ones I've seen have less energy density than lead-acid batteries.
No, you can't. First the capacitors are just too darn heavy. Second, there's too much power used. A 5 minute, 300 mile charge = 0.9 megawatts. In the future, the grid might be able to handle it, but not any time soon.
I don't just mean water, but I mean crud in general. Lithium-ion systems need to be defended from just about everything imaginable. The only way to do that in the end is a thick coating, like a solid block of plastic.
Solar charging on the cars is fine unless it damages their areodynamics. Oh, and 75 mpge is what a big SUV will be getting with electric. Small SUVs (like the rav4) are 100+ mpg. SUVs are better electric cars because they can carry more batteries per unit of energy consumption. If you look at a DIY electric car site, you'll find that many of the conversions are pickup trucks, so they can handle the weight of the batteries. I did a simulation of various cars filled completely full of lead-acid batteries. The winner? A GMC savana van, filled with 2 tons of lead-acid. Second were SUVs of various types. Then sedans and sports cars. Small cars had no range. The killer in all these scheme is price and wear-out. Fortunately, Tomas Edison may have had the answer...
Coating the body is probably not the best idea (sorry). It will cost a lot in terms of manufacturing to put battery coating all through out the body. The problem with spray paint is that most of this lithium stuff requires really really high purity. You'll have crud (like water) diffuse through the paint and clog em' up.
The way people make high surface area batteries right now is by rolling em' up. You take two foils (~ the thickness of aluminium foil), paper, and roll it up. Then you get very high surface areas, often quite easily. Maybe some kind of printing could do that here.
As for solar on cars, it's a good and cool idea, but in most cases it only gets you 4-5 miles of range per day. One thing the solar can do is power the A/C (either passive or active).
The real cost is (as you said) batteries. Even the cheapest lifepo4/nimh batteries on the market would cost $10,000 in this scenario. Fast charging (I.E. less than 15 minutes) is a non-starter. Where are you going to find that 100 kW outlet? The problem is a chicken and egg problem. In order to have cars, you have to build all these chargers. But who wants to build chargers until there are cars? A much easier solution to this problem can be found here.
Purity. The purity requirements for lithium-ion are very high - almost clean room in some cases (not all but many). So a lot of work goes in to getting crud out of the system. Nickel metal hydride uses rare earth metals. Lead-acid, which is cheapest, needs a lot of lead.
Yep. There's also these folks who are doing zinc-air fuel cells in africa. It's a mini-"zinc economy" that's like the hydrogen economy, but way better (more energy efficient, cheaper, no storage problems). I'm not sure why electric fuel's zinc-air vehicle did not pan out. I'd love to be able to buy those fuel cells. I tried building my own, and it just doesn't work (of course I don't have a lot of resources). If someone from electric fuel could explain why, that would be cool.
As far as I understand, this system is basically a zinc-air or zinc-water battery. What you get is a reaction like this:
2Zn + O2 -> 2ZnO (zinc air)
Zn + H2O -> ZnO + H2 (zinc water)
The potato is decorative, and simply acts as the electrolyte, the copper is also decorative and simply acts as substrate for the air or water reaction (it could be iron, nickel or even a graphite rod). Their are using copper, as far as I understand, because it is cheap. The copper won't be consumed. The potato won't be consumed, unless it rots. It will eventually be filled with zinc oxide, which will "clog" the electrolyte. So basically, you'll save the copper until it corrodes (likely never because the zinc protecting it from corrosion), and replace the zinc constantly. My guess is that you'll eventually have to replace the potato, but not as often as the zinc. Part of the problem with this system is that the copper is not oxidized - instead of copper wire, you need copper rust. What you really want in such a system is this:
Zn + CuO -> ZnO + Cu
That's what the Lalande cell does. It was used in the late 1880's and 90's to power stuff like telegraphs. Instead of a potato, they used an alkaline electrolyte, like potassium hydroxide. This is way, way better at conducting electricity than a potato. Before the Lalande cell, we had the Daniell cell. The Daniell cell was based on a similar construction, but it used sulphuric acid instead of potassium hydroxide. Sulfuric acid dissolves both copper and zinc oxides, which lead to problems because some of the copper sulfate would make it across to the zinc. This would lead to the corrosion of the zinc, and the copper plating of the zinc, stopping further reaction. To resolve this, a porous bot or salt bridge had to be used to stop the copper from getting the the zinc. Unfortunately, although zinc-copper is a cheap chemistry with high energy density, it is tough to recharge successfully. This is because when the reaction is reversed, and zinc oxide is changed to metallic zinc, the zinc plate will change shape. This will cause the shorting of the battery, and its destruction. Zinc-copper is not really used all that much these days. Zinc manganese appears to have replaced it because it is cheap and has higher energy. It still has the same recharging problems, and if we could solve em', lithium would be out of business.
Yes, Edison did steal from Tesla. I would not say he was a "poor" inventor. He had unorthodox methods that worked really well in some fields. He's known for light bulbs and the phonograph, but what he really invented was the Nickel-Iron battery. These batteries are utterly amazing. They have about 2x the energy density of lead-acid (which is not impressive compared to li-ion), but many are still working today (100+ year life times). As you can probably tell, it's likely that NiFe will play a big role in our future. Edison was also give us detailed instructions on reproducing them in his patents, which can be found here.
Even if he screwed people over and was dishonesty, wouldn't it be valuable to recover what he said so we could avoid people like him in the future?
Sorry, I think you're wrong. Efficiency does not go up with the square of the radius of the wind turbine. Energy output goes up as the square of the radius - which makes sense the amount of wind energy hitting the turbine is proportional to the area of the turbine. It doesn't say anything about efficiency as the size. If you made a set of small wind turbines in the shape of a big wind turbine (like a big grid of turbines), it would put out about the same amount of energy as the big turbine.
Energy conservation won't work. Why? Because what would happen is that we would cut are energy use by say %10 percent. This would lead to a reduction in the price of oil, which in turn would lead to more consumption in other places. Unless you got every single person (even all the meglomaniacs and dictators) to agree to conservation, it won't work. And even then, it's debatable whether we use more energy talking about and working on conservation projects than what would be saved by those projects.
Now there are cars, which weigh 3000 kilograms and more. It can be limited, say, by 1500 kg. Still it can be quite a comfortable car.
It would save some gas - this would lead to people driving more. Thus a net wash. And a bunch of pickup truck drivers would overthrow the government.
Limiting area of a air-conditioned (heated) house or apartment by 100 square meters per one person. There are houses of hundreds of rooms, tens of thousand of square meters, where only a couple of persons live. 100 square meters per person is enough for a comfortable apartment or house.
Or you could just plug all the holes in the wall and save way more energy, without the draconian laws and telling people what is "right".
Overweight people could be mildly, but unequivocally, taxed via increased medical insurance payments, because large amounts of food mean large amount of energy. Besides additional medical care for overweight people also takes a lot of energy. And also via 2-tickets rule for any mode of public transportation.
It's not clear. They die sooner and thus need less medical care. Oh, and it's not clear that those people eat more.
There should be process in media and in societal conversations to stop billions of women to shave legs (and other parts) nearly daily.
Do you have any sense of scale? This essentially amounts to tuning the radio from "10" to "9.99" in an SUV to save fuel.
Otherwise energy consumption will be only increasing and no windmills will help us.
Ironically, there are no windmills, because of people like you. We can't build nuclear, thanks to environmentalists. So, we burn coal and give everyone mercury poisoning.
I could go on and on, but it's really clear from your post that you don't like people because of their choices in life. All the measures in your post give you (and by extension the government) more control over other people's lives. People like you are the reason we fight wars of ideology, because one person believes he or she has the right to control another's life. Then people die.
So what you're saying is that it's the same delta-v everytime? The issue with that, IMO, is that the gun fires N times and thus velocity is kN and energy spent is eN, while the energy of the shooter goes is 1/2k^2N^2. So what that means is that if the gun fires enough times, 1/2k^2N^2 > eN (e and k are both > 0). Thus more energy out than in at some point.
There's plenty of energy around. Enough is hitting my yard right now to power my house, fuel my car, desal my water, and make plastic. Why am I not using it? Because the devices I could buy to convert that energy into usable form are to expensive compared to oil, coal and gas. As business people and scientists improve those devices, energy will become cheaper and more available. The reason we could not get into space was a technical and regulatory issue - we had to settle for hydrogen-oxygen rockets, with 1000's of times less energy then the best fuel - uranium.
As oil gets more expensive, capitalists, entrepreneurs and other members of the "parasite class" will be take advantage of the opportunity created by high prices, and search for solutions. Many will fail, but in a free society, a solution will eventually be found, and energy prices will be reduced in long run. It's easy to see how this will happen due to the insane amount of solar energy that hits our planet every day (100's of times more than 15 billion Americans could use), as well as the extreme amount of uranium, thorium and other nuclear fuels. There is also a world-wide rescission and thus a labor surplus, as well as very large quantities of many elements such as iron, aluminium, and carbon. We will not head into a new age of energy efficiency, but a new age of growth and inefficiency. Prosperous times ahead. This economic growth will halt population growth.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the majority of liberals believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document, as such open to all sorts of wild interpretation. The majority of conservatives believe that the intent of the document is as it's stated.
Well the majority of liberals and conservatives believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document, as such open to all sorts of wild interpretation. The majority of libertarians and other third parties believe that the intent of the document is as it's stated.
FTFY
Bill O'Reilly: I don't care about the Constitution
Ok thanks.
So she had a NiCd? That's surprising that it went bad the way it did. As far as I understand, most NiCd (at least flooded) are quite durable. I guess not.
But there's no way that ultra cap is going to store the energy needed to go more than say 10 (or even 1) in the ultra caps. All the ones I've seen have less energy density than lead-acid batteries.
Really? I thought they started with zebra (molten salt) and then moved to li-ion.
Just curious, did your college get a Think with a Zebra or li-ion?
We need cold fusion under the hood!
And takes zero time out of my day to do so.
Ohh, come on. You have to unplug it and plug it in :)
Mod parent up.
No, you can't. First the capacitors are just too darn heavy. Second, there's too much power used. A 5 minute, 300 mile charge = 0.9 megawatts. In the future, the grid might be able to handle it, but not any time soon.
I don't just mean water, but I mean crud in general. Lithium-ion systems need to be defended from just about everything imaginable. The only way to do that in the end is a thick coating, like a solid block of plastic.
Solar charging on the cars is fine unless it damages their areodynamics. Oh, and 75 mpge is what a big SUV will be getting with electric. Small SUVs (like the rav4) are 100+ mpg. SUVs are better electric cars because they can carry more batteries per unit of energy consumption. If you look at a DIY electric car site, you'll find that many of the conversions are pickup trucks, so they can handle the weight of the batteries. I did a simulation of various cars filled completely full of lead-acid batteries. The winner? A GMC savana van, filled with 2 tons of lead-acid. Second were SUVs of various types. Then sedans and sports cars. Small cars had no range. The killer in all these scheme is price and wear-out. Fortunately, Tomas Edison may have had the answer...
Coating the body is probably not the best idea (sorry). It will cost a lot in terms of manufacturing to put battery coating all through out the body. The problem with spray paint is that most of this lithium stuff requires really really high purity. You'll have crud (like water) diffuse through the paint and clog em' up.
The way people make high surface area batteries right now is by rolling em' up. You take two foils (~ the thickness of aluminium foil), paper, and roll it up. Then you get very high surface areas, often quite easily. Maybe some kind of printing could do that here.
As for solar on cars, it's a good and cool idea, but in most cases it only gets you 4-5 miles of range per day. One thing the solar can do is power the A/C (either passive or active).
Even better, their work could be combined work by fischer and tropsch to burn uranium.
The real cost is (as you said) batteries. Even the cheapest lifepo4/nimh batteries on the market would cost $10,000 in this scenario. Fast charging (I.E. less than 15 minutes) is a non-starter. Where are you going to find that 100 kW outlet? The problem is a chicken and egg problem. In order to have cars, you have to build all these chargers. But who wants to build chargers until there are cars? A much easier solution to this problem can be found here.
Purity. The purity requirements for lithium-ion are very high - almost clean room in some cases (not all but many). So a lot of work goes in to getting crud out of the system. Nickel metal hydride uses rare earth metals. Lead-acid, which is cheapest, needs a lot of lead.
Yep. There's also these folks who are doing zinc-air fuel cells in africa. It's a mini-"zinc economy" that's like the hydrogen economy, but way better (more energy efficient, cheaper, no storage problems). I'm not sure why electric fuel's zinc-air vehicle did not pan out. I'd love to be able to buy those fuel cells. I tried building my own, and it just doesn't work (of course I don't have a lot of resources). If someone from electric fuel could explain why, that would be cool.
As far as I understand, this system is basically a zinc-air or zinc-water battery. What you get is a reaction like this:
2Zn + O2 -> 2ZnO (zinc air)
Zn + H2O -> ZnO + H2 (zinc water)
The potato is decorative, and simply acts as the electrolyte, the copper is also decorative and simply acts as substrate for the air or water reaction (it could be iron, nickel or even a graphite rod). Their are using copper, as far as I understand, because it is cheap. The copper won't be consumed. The potato won't be consumed, unless it rots. It will eventually be filled with zinc oxide, which will "clog" the electrolyte. So basically, you'll save the copper until it corrodes (likely never because the zinc protecting it from corrosion), and replace the zinc constantly. My guess is that you'll eventually have to replace the potato, but not as often as the zinc. Part of the problem with this system is that the copper is not oxidized - instead of copper wire, you need copper rust. What you really want in such a system is this:
Zn + CuO -> ZnO + Cu
That's what the Lalande cell does. It was used in the late 1880's and 90's to power stuff like telegraphs. Instead of a potato, they used an alkaline electrolyte, like potassium hydroxide. This is way, way better at conducting electricity than a potato. Before the Lalande cell, we had the Daniell cell. The Daniell cell was based on a similar construction, but it used sulphuric acid instead of potassium hydroxide. Sulfuric acid dissolves both copper and zinc oxides, which lead to problems because some of the copper sulfate would make it across to the zinc. This would lead to the corrosion of the zinc, and the copper plating of the zinc, stopping further reaction. To resolve this, a porous bot or salt bridge had to be used to stop the copper from getting the the zinc. Unfortunately, although zinc-copper is a cheap chemistry with high energy density, it is tough to recharge successfully. This is because when the reaction is reversed, and zinc oxide is changed to metallic zinc, the zinc plate will change shape. This will cause the shorting of the battery, and its destruction. Zinc-copper is not really used all that much these days. Zinc manganese appears to have replaced it because it is cheap and has higher energy. It still has the same recharging problems, and if we could solve em', lithium would be out of business.
Yes, Edison did steal from Tesla. I would not say he was a "poor" inventor. He had unorthodox methods that worked really well in some fields. He's known for light bulbs and the phonograph, but what he really invented was the Nickel-Iron battery. These batteries are utterly amazing. They have about 2x the energy density of lead-acid (which is not impressive compared to li-ion), but many are still working today (100+ year life times). As you can probably tell, it's likely that NiFe will play a big role in our future. Edison was also give us detailed instructions on reproducing them in his patents, which can be found here.
Even if he screwed people over and was dishonesty, wouldn't it be valuable to recover what he said so we could avoid people like him in the future?
Because satire can be insightful.
Against a programmer, oh, and an algorithm, both with a PhD....
-Weird Al Parodied
Sorry, I think you're wrong. Efficiency does not go up with the square of the radius of the wind turbine. Energy output goes up as the square of the radius - which makes sense the amount of wind energy hitting the turbine is proportional to the area of the turbine. It doesn't say anything about efficiency as the size. If you made a set of small wind turbines in the shape of a big wind turbine (like a big grid of turbines), it would put out about the same amount of energy as the big turbine.
Now there are cars, which weigh 3000 kilograms and more. It can be limited, say, by 1500 kg. Still it can be quite a comfortable car.
It would save some gas - this would lead to people driving more. Thus a net wash. And a bunch of pickup truck drivers would overthrow the government.
Limiting area of a air-conditioned (heated) house or apartment by 100 square meters per one person. There are houses of hundreds of rooms, tens of thousand of square meters, where only a couple of persons live. 100 square meters per person is enough for a comfortable apartment or house.
Or you could just plug all the holes in the wall and save way more energy, without the draconian laws and telling people what is "right".
Overweight people could be mildly, but unequivocally, taxed via increased medical insurance payments, because large amounts of food mean large amount of energy. Besides additional medical care for overweight people also takes a lot of energy. And also via 2-tickets rule for any mode of public transportation.
It's not clear. They die sooner and thus need less medical care. Oh, and it's not clear that those people eat more.
There should be process in media and in societal conversations to stop billions of women to shave legs (and other parts) nearly daily.
Do you have any sense of scale? This essentially amounts to tuning the radio from "10" to "9.99" in an SUV to save fuel.
Otherwise energy consumption will be only increasing and no windmills will help us.
Ironically, there are no windmills, because of people like you. We can't build nuclear, thanks to environmentalists. So, we burn coal and give everyone mercury poisoning.
I could go on and on, but it's really clear from your post that you don't like people because of their choices in life. All the measures in your post give you (and by extension the government) more control over other people's lives. People like you are the reason we fight wars of ideology, because one person believes he or she has the right to control another's life. Then people die.
Not really. We have a really, really, really good way to store hydrogen. It's called gasoline. Search for "windfuels"...
So what you're saying is that it's the same delta-v everytime? The issue with that, IMO, is that the gun fires N times and thus velocity is kN and energy spent is eN, while the energy of the shooter goes is 1/2k^2N^2. So what that means is that if the gun fires enough times, 1/2k^2N^2 > eN (e and k are both > 0). Thus more energy out than in at some point.
There's plenty of energy around. Enough is hitting my yard right now to power my house, fuel my car, desal my water, and make plastic. Why am I not using it? Because the devices I could buy to convert that energy into usable form are to expensive compared to oil, coal and gas. As business people and scientists improve those devices, energy will become cheaper and more available. The reason we could not get into space was a technical and regulatory issue - we had to settle for hydrogen-oxygen rockets, with 1000's of times less energy then the best fuel - uranium.
As oil gets more expensive, capitalists, entrepreneurs and other members of the "parasite class" will be take advantage of the opportunity created by high prices, and search for solutions. Many will fail, but in a free society, a solution will eventually be found, and energy prices will be reduced in long run. It's easy to see how this will happen due to the insane amount of solar energy that hits our planet every day (100's of times more than 15 billion Americans could use), as well as the extreme amount of uranium, thorium and other nuclear fuels. There is also a world-wide rescission and thus a labor surplus, as well as very large quantities of many elements such as iron, aluminium, and carbon. We will not head into a new age of energy efficiency, but a new age of growth and inefficiency. Prosperous times ahead. This economic growth will halt population growth.