Text 2258, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 20:49:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2704.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <4e1k8259espmlrba9fqth49hl13mpt1enl@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <ou34829dfu03me0nugcqgsuehaauocqopp@4ax.com>
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 22:41:08 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:46:26 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
>> <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Hi Josh,
>>>Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.  You have been reading 
>>>propoganda produced by the proponents for hydrogen, and I have been 
>>>reading propoganda produced by the opponents, although mine was 
>>>generally written by engineers with engineering analysis, and the 
>>>pro-hydrogen pieces are typically written by professional writers 
>>>speaking to researchers - hype aplenty... 8-)
>> 
>> 
>> What I've seen in the popular press swings both ways, with some
>> reporters focusing on all the good things that might happen, some
>> presenting a fairly balanced account, and some focusing on every
>> problem as if it were an insurmountable roadblock in a way that
>> suggests to me they're completely unfamiliar with R&D.
>> 
>> The engineering analyses I've seen have been fairly optimistic. I'd
>> always be glad to see papers that take other views.
>> 
>> 
>>>And, there are theoretical limits on the fuel cells and the 
>>>electrolysers, which we are a long way from even approaching.  When we 
>>>get close, that will be when the fuel cells are 3-5% better than an ICE. 
>>> Beware when you hear someone talk about the efficiency of one part of 
>>>the system, such as just the fuel cell, and compare it to the entire 
>>>system, such as an ICE.  Also, take care when they mention botton 
>>>cycling, and such 'efficiency boosters' as they will have little place 
>>>in vehicle applications.  That is where you take the waste heat from the 
>>>unit, and use it for something else.  Except for heating your car 
>>>interior in winter, there is little use for the waste heat in a mobile 
>>>application.
>> 
>> 
>> That's a significant use, though.
>> 
>> 
>>>And take a better look at the reality of those metal hydride storage 
>>>tanks.  The only place I have seriously seen them considered is in a 
>>>submarine, and even there, it is a demonstation vehicle.  They weigh A 
>>>LOT, don't hold that much hydrogen, require high temperatures to 
>>>function, and are therefore a nice research project but have little hope 
>>>of being in your garage!
>> 
>> 
>> That was true a couple of years ago, but no longer seems to be the
>> case. Still a research project, but no longer a long shot.
>> 
>> 
>>>Also, you spoke of grid storage ADDING to the cost of electricity.  Have 
>>>you seriously priced the alternatives?
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not talking about grid storage that's used to store power for peak
>> demand, but grid storage that's used to compensate for wind
>> intermittency: the figures I've seen suggests that it raises the
>> delivered cost of wind power by about 50 percent.
>> 
>> 
>Hi Josh,
>Glad you are looking around over in sci.energy.hydrogen.  If you're 
>interested, take a look at Don's websites.  He enjoys a bit of 
>hyperbole, but he really does know his stuff.

Don's name sounded familiar. Turns out he wrote several books I
dog-eared when I was a kid learning electronics, including the TTL
Cookbook, which was sort of my Bible . . . 

>Waste heat to warm the car interior is nice, but it doesn't get you any 
>farther on the road, so you can't add it in to your efficiency figures. 

>  But you knew that!  8-)

Heh, I'm not sure I do. Because if you don't have that waste heat, you
have to heat the car from another source. Of course, the same
calculation applies to an ICE vehicle. And existing hybrids apparently
lose most of their efficiency advantage when the climate's cold,
because the engine has to run to provide heat. (Heat pumps, anyone?)

>Ok, you are talking about the stuff like resevoirs (darn, can't spell 
>all the sudden... 8-) ) and the pumps and generators for elevated water 
>storage.  Yep, does add to the costs, but they pay for themselves real 
>quick.  You store it during the evening when demand and prices are low, 
>then sell the power during the day whe prices are high.  You can make 
>nice profits from them if you have a good place to keep the water.

Sure. In the case of high penetration wind, though, the storage
requirements approach 100% and up to several days at a time, so the
economics are different. I gather that the currently quoted 3-5 cent
cost of wind power refers to only supplemental use, that is, when the
wind penetration is <20%. So most of the time the wind generator is
used as a baseline plant, in that most of its output is used by the
grid irrespective of load and the excess capacity is shed by taking
other plants offline. So when figuring the cost of wind at high
penetrations, you have to add the cost of hydroelectric storage to the
cost of the turbines. That's partially offset by the fact that the
turbines need to an approximation only be sized on the basis of
average output, and in that respect the figure includes the savings
you mentioned.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                                               
                                              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)