Entropy being shown false is more plausible than electrons being able to go under the ground state, and plenty of people have tried (and failed) to disprove that entropy never decreases.
Bad scientist! You are smart enough to avoid such an unqualified statement.
Toyota's hybrid solution might provide a fairly quick return on NOX emissions, but it does not with total energy or cost. Half the energy footprint of a car comes from building it. The minimum return is 5 years if your new car uses no fuel.
Right. I get 34mpg. ~16 years before a hybrid(EPA#) will become energy effective. This doesn't even consider the multitude of strategies I could use to further extend either my emissions or energy advantage.
This is a lie. I have an old car that gets good mileage and does not pollute. 'Increased energy use' and 'pollution' are not inherent qualities of old vehicles. MPG hasn't changed in 20 years. If your weary about emissions buy a new exhaust.
The SUV argument is so worn out. Give it up already. Unless you live in a box and hunt squirrels for food you have no sense in complaining about your neighbor's V8. The world is being destroyed by your mere presence in this society at a rate far more consequential then some guy's extra cylinders. Please realize the externalities of your own excessive lifestyle.
Combined cycle (gas + steam turbines) can push 50% TE. Theres no need to give them credit for anything higher. Average efficiency for US coal plants is around 38%.
The difference is energy density is understandably obnoxious. Much more energy is tied up inside atoms then between them. Proliferation is a "concern" that serves political purposes. There is plenty of readily recoverable fissile material to power the continued growth of human economies for a long time. Certainly beyond the point where separate issues will a present larger problems.
Reality check. Large facilities are more efficient then small facilities. How exactly are millions of solar roofs, micro turbines, and fuel cells cheaper or easier to upgrade? How many people have the money to buy solar panels let alone a micro turbine? How long would it even take to develop the infrastructure to build to that demand? Distributing generation certainly has some interesting possibilities so long as we remember that we live on planet earth. National security concerns are imagined to satisfy agendas. Paranoia about "top secret nuclear programs" is just that. Nuclear research in the US took a nose dive 25 years ago and still hasn't recovered.
There are no magic answers, just some better then others. A good answer has been available to us for a long time. The fact we do not utilize it is an unfortunate consequence of democracy.
Nuclear is safe. Modern nuclear is cheap and safe. Public opinion is a travesty. Fission processes will outlast coal if reprocessing is allowed (hundreds of years). IGCC (gasification -> gas turbines -> Rankine cycle -> carbon sequestration) or similar technology will help get us there. The technical challenges of more sustainable energy futures pale in comparison with the political, economic, and societal obstacles.
What does any of that have to do with Stirling engines? Solar power? Energy? Absolutely nothing.
Give me a break. An expert in "Industrial Electric Engineering" does not qualify him as an expert in all things. Furthermore, no where in his bio do I see ANYTHING that indicates he has any training or experience in fluid mechanics or heat transfer.
Irregardless of your (and his) confusion; the regenerator problem has not hindered Stirling engines from achieving excellent %TE (above all other heat engines.) His claims are also quite out of date in the context of research into this area. The subjects of oscillating compressible fluid mechanics and porous media heat transfer have been burgeoning fields of study for applications directly related to regenerators (see NASA), but also in many other applicable fields.
Real experts will disarm your attempts at notoriety so long as you rely on google over a real education.
Another unfortunate victim of The Slashdot Syndrome... You've supplied just enough information to convince laypeople you are reputable.
"The Stirling cycle runs at 10% efficiency. { Note: most Stirling engines are about 5x less efficient that this}."
Did you make this up? Clearly, you have no understanding of thermodynamics. TF% of the Stirling cycle approaches Carnot maximum. There exist engines today that run nearly 20x your given practical efficiency.
Reputable critics of regeneration technology exist, but you are not among them. Allow me to summarize for those who haven't taken the time to read. The provided citation consists of one sentence in an outdated and unpublished newsletter by an author not even remotely attached to the appropriate field. Nice. Even *his* statement indicates a complete lack of understanding.
A brief review of some other posts indicates you believe yourself to be an expert in many areas in addition to thermodynamics and finance. Access to information makes you a more convincing charlatan, not an expert.
My purpose is not to purport "fact;" I simply aim to highlight the untrustworthiness of even convincing comments.
The Slashdot Syndrome: A brain [and ego] disorder where upon the victim grows so dependent on Google, he can not see past his own fraudulent claims!
Slashdot Mirror
Option 3 is embraced by current space explorers!r l_radisotope.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/stirling/doc/sti
Entropy being shown false is more plausible than electrons being able to go under the ground state, and plenty of people have tried (and failed) to disprove that entropy never decreases.
Bad scientist! You are smart enough to avoid such an unqualified statement.
Toyota's hybrid solution might provide a fairly quick return on NOX emissions, but it does not with total energy or cost. Half the energy footprint of a car comes from building it. The minimum return is 5 years if your new car uses no fuel.
Right. I get 34mpg. ~16 years before a hybrid(EPA#) will become energy effective. This doesn't even consider the multitude of strategies I could use to further extend either my emissions or energy advantage.
No I don't read comments less then 4. I don't drive an 82 civic either. I think any 4cyl 5-7yr or older will win the battle you proposed.
This is a lie. I have an old car that gets good mileage and does not pollute. 'Increased energy use' and 'pollution' are not inherent qualities of old vehicles. MPG hasn't changed in 20 years. If your weary about emissions buy a new exhaust.
The SUV argument is so worn out. Give it up already. Unless you live in a box and hunt squirrels for food you have no sense in complaining about your neighbor's V8. The world is being destroyed by your mere presence in this society at a rate far more consequential then some guy's extra cylinders. Please realize the externalities of your own excessive lifestyle.
Combined cycle (gas + steam turbines) can push 50% TE. Theres no need to give them credit for anything higher. Average efficiency for US coal plants is around 38%. The difference is energy density is understandably obnoxious. Much more energy is tied up inside atoms then between them. Proliferation is a "concern" that serves political purposes. There is plenty of readily recoverable fissile material to power the continued growth of human economies for a long time. Certainly beyond the point where separate issues will a present larger problems.
Reality check. Large facilities are more efficient then small facilities. How exactly are millions of solar roofs, micro turbines, and fuel cells cheaper or easier to upgrade? How many people have the money to buy solar panels let alone a micro turbine? How long would it even take to develop the infrastructure to build to that demand? Distributing generation certainly has some interesting possibilities so long as we remember that we live on planet earth. National security concerns are imagined to satisfy agendas. Paranoia about "top secret nuclear programs" is just that. Nuclear research in the US took a nose dive 25 years ago and still hasn't recovered. There are no magic answers, just some better then others. A good answer has been available to us for a long time. The fact we do not utilize it is an unfortunate consequence of democracy.
Nuclear is safe. Modern nuclear is cheap and safe. Public opinion is a travesty. Fission processes will outlast coal if reprocessing is allowed (hundreds of years). IGCC (gasification -> gas turbines -> Rankine cycle -> carbon sequestration) or similar technology will help get us there. The technical challenges of more sustainable energy futures pale in comparison with the political, economic, and societal obstacles.
What does any of that have to do with Stirling engines? Solar power? Energy? Absolutely nothing.
Give me a break. An expert in "Industrial Electric Engineering" does not qualify him as an expert in all things. Furthermore, no where in his bio do I see ANYTHING that indicates he has any training or experience in fluid mechanics or heat transfer.
Irregardless of your (and his) confusion; the regenerator problem has not hindered Stirling engines from achieving excellent %TE (above all other heat engines.) His claims are also quite out of date in the context of research into this area. The subjects of oscillating compressible fluid mechanics and porous media heat transfer have been burgeoning fields of study for applications directly related to regenerators (see NASA), but also in many other applicable fields.
Real experts will disarm your attempts at notoriety so long as you rely on google over a real education.
Another unfortunate victim of The Slashdot Syndrome... You've supplied just enough information to convince laypeople you are reputable. "The Stirling cycle runs at 10% efficiency. { Note: most Stirling engines are about 5x less efficient that this}." Did you make this up? Clearly, you have no understanding of thermodynamics. TF% of the Stirling cycle approaches Carnot maximum. There exist engines today that run nearly 20x your given practical efficiency. Reputable critics of regeneration technology exist, but you are not among them. Allow me to summarize for those who haven't taken the time to read. The provided citation consists of one sentence in an outdated and unpublished newsletter by an author not even remotely attached to the appropriate field. Nice. Even *his* statement indicates a complete lack of understanding. A brief review of some other posts indicates you believe yourself to be an expert in many areas in addition to thermodynamics and finance. Access to information makes you a more convincing charlatan, not an expert. My purpose is not to purport "fact;" I simply aim to highlight the untrustworthiness of even convincing comments. The Slashdot Syndrome: A brain [and ego] disorder where upon the victim grows so dependent on Google, he can not see past his own fraudulent claims!