Let's develop a new business model for artists (that results in more money in their pockets overall). Let's convince young people (the media firms' primary customers) that the media companies are evil, for the same reason everyone hates Monsanto or $EVIL_CORP.
The only hope for freedom is the destruction of the media companies. If we fight the individual legislation, they will simply bring it back, again and again.
You've been duped. You have lost. Have a nice day.
Obama was a corporate-backed candidate, sent by Wall Street and friends to allow them to steal money from the taxpayers. He sold his message of hope and change to the latte liberals, but of course that was all just a campaign lie. The questions that need to be answered are:
1. Why did the media hate Senator Clinton so much? (calling her racist, etc.)
2. Why did the media like both Obama and Bush when they are so-called opposites?
3. Where did Obama get his money from?
If you answer these questions, you will be well on your way to understanding the process.
Carbon dioxide scrubbing is already a solved problem. You mix baking soda with quick lime (CaO) and produce limestone. You then heat up the limestone and release the carbon dioxide gas in a closed container.
If he does have a better CO2 capture method, he should use it to capture CO2 from the air, as CO2 + Hydrogen = gasoline.
The other thing you could do is unobtainium mining. Since most of the sea floor has not been mined, we could mine for stuff like platinum, gold, indium, and those trendy rare-earth metals. There's also uranium and thorium everywhere and no-one will care if you build a nuclear power plant out there.
Make sure you test drive one. My family went car shopping recently (we have two pre-1990 Toyota Camrys). The problem with the Toyotas is that their new styling is just awful, because the windows are really small. I could not see out of the Corollas and Camrys we sat in (kind of a problem for driving). The dashboard is too tall, the roof too low, and the hood too long. IMO, the new styling is just ugly. Toyota ain't what it use to be. The result of our car shopping expedition was that Hyundai was the winner.
They might be fine for you, but make sure you test drive (or at least sit in one), before you buy.
There has been some research on the electrolysis of sodium carbonate (baking soda) solutions to produce hydrocarbons, such a methanol. There are fuel cells called alkaline fuel cells that do not contain platinum or other expensive stuff. They are more efficient as well.
Still, the best way to store energy I think is by electrolysing zinc sulfate solution to produce zinc metal, and then burning the zinc in a zinc-air fuel cell.
Because then you would have a hydrogen storage problem. Hydrogen energy density by volume (which is the metric that is most important) is the worse fuel available. Ironically, Iceland produces one of the best fuels in large quantities: aluminium. Anyway, creating hydrogen is a good idea, but it would be better to create synthetic hydrocarbons, I.E. gasoline.
AFAIK, that capacity decrease is does not effect efficiency, only the energy stored. You are right that battery wear-out is a huge cost that is often not taken into account with electric vehicles. If the battery lasts 3000 cycles and you get the batteries at 2 watt-hours/dollar, then the electricity stored over it's lifetime is only 0.6 dollars. (3000 cycles * 2 watt-hours is 6 kWh, so at 0.10 dollars/kWh = 0.6 dollars). That means that although that nice Tesla uses 250 watt-hours/mile = 0.025 cents/mile of electricity, battery wear-out means that you pay 0.083 in battery wear-out costs. Total 0.11 dollars.
Flywheel energy storage is nice, but expensive. It's too scary to have an automobile that is purely powered by flywheels, but you can have a hybrid. You just have to be really careful about the possibility of the flywheel flying apart.
As for the train slowdown, about 8 megajoules of energy will be produce for every 3000 ft of decent at %100 efficiency. At the same time, a ton of coal contains 25827 megajoules of energy. So the energy of the fall is about %0.03 of the combustion energy.
That's all really, really, expensive. When you here the word nano, you should think $1000/gram, completely unprofitable technology. Mechanical and simple chemical systems are the future, because they are cheap. They might not be pretty, they might be slightly less efficient, but they will be much more reliable. They're pumping air into the ground. it's not really all that bad.
There was an interesting article the other day about storing electricity in molten aluminium/alumina
We already have fuel cells that consume aluminium. They're only about %40 efficient, but they are 100-1000 times cheaper than hydrogen fuel cells. So, without any technology development, the "aluminium economy" is %25 efficient (%70 percent efficient electrolysis, %40 percent efficient fuel cell). I think if you re-designed an aluminium fuel cell, you could get 90 percent efficiency, so you would have overall %60 efficiency. Not great, but it works. My idea is to use the ZEBRA electrolyte, (or maybe another electrolyte like it) to avoid corrosion and inefficiency in the al-air fuel cell.
Compressed air is a good load leveller because of it's high power density. Superconducting energy storage is also a good load leveller, but really expensive.
I think the best way to store the energy long term would be to make synthetic gasoline (maybe natural gas) by reacting hydrogen with carbon dioxides. There has been research in the past about the electrolysis of carbonate solutions to produce hydrocarbons.
Yes, but eventually, you want to store more air than the free stuff can store, so you want to use the bags. The bags are useful for off-shore wind farms.
Another solution for the large scale storage of electricity is the inflation of airtight bags deep under water. Since water is so heavy, it exerts a lot of pressure against the air, leading to a cheap method of energy storage. The problem with all compressed-air systems is that have losses due to the non-isothermal nature of the process. That means some energy is lost as heat during compression, and you don't gain it all back thanks to Carnot. The energy density by volume is quite low, unfortunately, but in this application, that's basically irrelevant.
For the curious, the energy density of compressed gas, is 100*P*ln(P/A) kJ/m^3, where P is the maximum pressure and A is the ambient pressure. That m^3 term is in the volume when compressed.
It's tricky business because the oxygen maker consumes a lot of energy. Graham R.L. Cowan has some numbers about this (search for on-board oxygen purification). His idea of using elemental boron as fuel is interesting but a little crazy.
The best way to have both an efficient and green system is to have a gasoline-air fuel cell. If only we had spent all the money on the hydrogen fuel cells on gasoline fuel cells.
No, you be the to understand the laws of thermodynamics. It does not matter how many steps there are. It matters what the total efficiency is.
The battery is not the "direct" storage of electricity (no such thing really exists). It is the storage of electricity in the form of lithium fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells (as well as other fuel cells) merely mean we take apart the battery before use and put it back together again when we need it. Capacitors might work, but they have very low energy density, and are expensive.
Natural gas and oil are renewable resources if you use carbon dioxide from the air as the source. Why don't you see them as renewable?
Hydrogen is silly, because of its ridiculously low energy density. The best way to store hydrogen is in the form of gasoline. The thing is that synthetic gasoline is really the only way to power all our cars without replacing them all.
And by the way, that original post was not sarcasm. Using renewable energy to synthesize oil completely eliminates batteries, fuel cells, and a lot of other nonsense from the equation. You'll have to do it anyway to make plastics and other oil-based products. Fortunately, some folks are working on it. The only fuels which can really fully compete with oil are aluminum, silicon, lithium, boron, magnesium and other hydrocarbons. Zinc, iron, and some other transition metals might work, but they still can't compete with the raw power of gasoline. Even if you believe EEStor's claims, it's still got no energy density when compared to gasoline.
It seems like this would be good as a battery/fuel cell air cathode. You could put this stuff, then a layer of activated charcoal, then a current collector. This would cause the water-air interface to be somewhere inside the activated charcoal, so you would end up with a huge surface area of the air/water interface. This would improve alkaline fuel cells of all types (aluminium, iron, zinc and hydrogen).
..idiotic politician registry. Fortunately, it will be very easy to create. Just add up every the names of the politicians in the every congress, house, senate, and parliament in the world. Throw in the presidents and kings, delete all the dupes, and you're done. Now you know if an idiot lives near you!
Slashdot Mirror
Let's develop a new business model for artists (that results in more money in their pockets overall). Let's convince young people (the media firms' primary customers) that the media companies are evil, for the same reason everyone hates Monsanto or $EVIL_CORP.
The only hope for freedom is the destruction of the media companies. If we fight the individual legislation, they will simply bring it back, again and again.
You've been duped. You have lost. Have a nice day.
Obama was a corporate-backed candidate, sent by Wall Street and friends to allow them to steal money from the taxpayers. He sold his message of hope and change to the latte liberals, but of course that was all just a campaign lie. The questions that need to be answered are:
1. Why did the media hate Senator Clinton so much? (calling her racist, etc.)
2. Why did the media like both Obama and Bush when they are so-called opposites?
3. Where did Obama get his money from?
If you answer these questions, you will be well on your way to understanding the process.
Disclaimer: I was a Clinton supporter.
Carbon dioxide scrubbing is already a solved problem. You mix baking soda with quick lime (CaO) and produce limestone. You then heat up the limestone and release the carbon dioxide gas in a closed container.
If he does have a better CO2 capture method, he should use it to capture CO2 from the air, as CO2 + Hydrogen = gasoline.
The other thing you could do is unobtainium mining. Since most of the sea floor has not been mined, we could mine for stuff like platinum, gold, indium, and those trendy rare-earth metals. There's also uranium and thorium everywhere and no-one will care if you build a nuclear power plant out there.
Make sure you test drive one. My family went car shopping recently (we have two pre-1990 Toyota Camrys). The problem with the Toyotas is that their new styling is just awful, because the windows are really small. I could not see out of the Corollas and Camrys we sat in (kind of a problem for driving). The dashboard is too tall, the roof too low, and the hood too long. IMO, the new styling is just ugly. Toyota ain't what it use to be. The result of our car shopping expedition was that Hyundai was the winner.
They might be fine for you, but make sure you test drive (or at least sit in one), before you buy.
Nice idea. Unfortunately, at 40 ft (the max tide I know of), it's going to produce 16 kJ for every m^3 of bag. That's not all that much.
There has been some research on the electrolysis of sodium carbonate (baking soda) solutions to produce hydrocarbons, such a methanol. There are fuel cells called alkaline fuel cells that do not contain platinum or other expensive stuff. They are more efficient as well.
Still, the best way to store energy I think is by electrolysing zinc sulfate solution to produce zinc metal, and then burning the zinc in a zinc-air fuel cell.
Because then you would have a hydrogen storage problem. Hydrogen energy density by volume (which is the metric that is most important) is the worse fuel available. Ironically, Iceland produces one of the best fuels in large quantities: aluminium. Anyway, creating hydrogen is a good idea, but it would be better to create synthetic hydrocarbons, I.E. gasoline.
AFAIK, that capacity decrease is does not effect efficiency, only the energy stored. You are right that battery wear-out is a huge cost that is often not taken into account with electric vehicles. If the battery lasts 3000 cycles and you get the batteries at 2 watt-hours/dollar, then the electricity stored over it's lifetime is only 0.6 dollars. (3000 cycles * 2 watt-hours is 6 kWh, so at 0.10 dollars/kWh = 0.6 dollars). That means that although that nice Tesla uses 250 watt-hours/mile = 0.025 cents/mile of electricity, battery wear-out means that you pay 0.083 in battery wear-out costs. Total 0.11 dollars.
Flywheel energy storage is nice, but expensive. It's too scary to have an automobile that is purely powered by flywheels, but you can have a hybrid. You just have to be really careful about the possibility of the flywheel flying apart.
As for the train slowdown, about 8 megajoules of energy will be produce for every 3000 ft of decent at %100 efficiency. At the same time, a ton of coal contains 25827 megajoules of energy. So the energy of the fall is about %0.03 of the combustion energy.
That's all really, really, expensive. When you here the word nano, you should think $1000/gram, completely unprofitable technology. Mechanical and simple chemical systems are the future, because they are cheap. They might not be pretty, they might be slightly less efficient, but they will be much more reliable. They're pumping air into the ground. it's not really all that bad.
No. It's far *less* efficient.
There was an interesting article the other day about storing electricity in molten aluminium/alumina
We already have fuel cells that consume aluminium. They're only about %40 efficient, but they are 100-1000 times cheaper than hydrogen fuel cells. So, without any technology development, the "aluminium economy" is %25 efficient (%70 percent efficient electrolysis, %40 percent efficient fuel cell). I think if you re-designed an aluminium fuel cell, you could get 90 percent efficiency, so you would have overall %60 efficiency. Not great, but it works. My idea is to use the ZEBRA electrolyte, (or maybe another electrolyte like it) to avoid corrosion and inefficiency in the al-air fuel cell.
Compressed air is a good load leveller because of it's high power density. Superconducting energy storage is also a good load leveller, but really expensive.
I think the best way to store the energy long term would be to make synthetic gasoline (maybe natural gas) by reacting hydrogen with carbon dioxides. There has been research in the past about the electrolysis of carbonate solutions to produce hydrocarbons.
Yes, but eventually, you want to store more air than the free stuff can store, so you want to use the bags. The bags are useful for off-shore wind farms.
It may or may not be more efficient. Its a hell of a lot cheaper. Efficiency is not really the be-all and end-all. Cost is.
It would also transmit the electricity. 3 birds, 1 stone.
Another solution for the large scale storage of electricity is the inflation of airtight bags deep under water. Since water is so heavy, it exerts a lot of pressure against the air, leading to a cheap method of energy storage. The problem with all compressed-air systems is that have losses due to the non-isothermal nature of the process. That means some energy is lost as heat during compression, and you don't gain it all back thanks to Carnot. The energy density by volume is quite low, unfortunately, but in this application, that's basically irrelevant.
For the curious, the energy density of compressed gas, is 100*P*ln(P/A) kJ/m^3, where P is the maximum pressure and A is the ambient pressure. That m^3 term is in the volume when compressed.
I like that road because I hope to be one of "them".
It's tricky business because the oxygen maker consumes a lot of energy. Graham R.L. Cowan has some numbers about this (search for on-board oxygen purification). His idea of using elemental boron as fuel is interesting but a little crazy.
The best way to have both an efficient and green system is to have a gasoline-air fuel cell. If only we had spent all the money on the hydrogen fuel cells on gasoline fuel cells.
What can I do to encourage Europe and help them?
No, you be the to understand the laws of thermodynamics. It does not matter how many steps there are. It matters what the total efficiency is.
The battery is not the "direct" storage of electricity (no such thing really exists). It is the storage of electricity in the form of lithium fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells (as well as other fuel cells) merely mean we take apart the battery before use and put it back together again when we need it. Capacitors might work, but they have very low energy density, and are expensive.
Natural gas and oil are renewable resources if you use carbon dioxide from the air as the source. Why don't you see them as renewable?
Hydrogen is silly, because of its ridiculously low energy density. The best way to store hydrogen is in the form of gasoline. The thing is that synthetic gasoline is really the only way to power all our cars without replacing them all.
And by the way, that original post was not sarcasm. Using renewable energy to synthesize oil completely eliminates batteries, fuel cells, and a lot of other nonsense from the equation. You'll have to do it anyway to make plastics and other oil-based products. Fortunately, some folks are working on it. The only fuels which can really fully compete with oil are aluminum, silicon, lithium, boron, magnesium and other hydrocarbons. Zinc, iron, and some other transition metals might work, but they still can't compete with the raw power of gasoline. Even if you believe EEStor's claims, it's still got no energy density when compared to gasoline.
We need to use wind electricity to synthesize gas.
It seems like this would be good as a battery/fuel cell air cathode. You could put this stuff, then a layer of activated charcoal, then a current collector. This would cause the water-air interface to be somewhere inside the activated charcoal, so you would end up with a huge surface area of the air/water interface. This would improve alkaline fuel cells of all types (aluminium, iron, zinc and hydrogen).
..idiotic politician registry. Fortunately, it will be very easy to create. Just add up every the names of the politicians in the every congress, house, senate, and parliament in the world. Throw in the presidents and kings, delete all the dupes, and you're done. Now you know if an idiot lives near you!
Arigato. I did not know that (I'm an American student learning japanese).