 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Will Electric Vehicles Work For Us?
OK, lets say that a viable electric vehicle is on the horizon: http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm The idea is to charge it up and it'll run for 300 miles. It can be fully charged in 5 minutes. A family car would accelerate like a Ferrarri. Etc. Superior to an internal combustion engine car in practically every way. Well, are you going to be able to charge it? The thing is, if it'll run for 300 miles, it'll use just as much energy as any other car driving 300 miles. I use about 13 gallons to drive 300 miles in a 3000 lb Subaru WRX. According to various internet resources, there's about 8.8 kilowatt hours (KwH) in a gallon of gasoline. 13 gallons would be about 114 KwH. Since power is voltage times amperage, 114 Kw, or 114,000 watts would be 518 amps to charge it in 1 hour giving 114,000 watt-hours, or about 64 amps for an 8 hour charge. 64 amps is about like turning on the air conditioner and the electric dryer both at the same time, and maybe a little more than that. And, then you leave it on all night. Now, air conditioners cycle on and off. That is, they run for a while, then quit for a while. Yet, in places like California, they challenge the power grid and cause brownouts and rolling blackouts on really hot days. This battery charging would be continuous. That's a heckuva draw on the power grid. Now, figure its 10 years after the intro of this amazing electric car, and everyone has one. Now, people aren't driving 300 miles a day, but they'll probably drive that in 5 days. So, every 5 days they have to charge the car. That would be every 5th house charging the car at 64 amps, continuously, all night. Some people might have 2 cars, a his and hers, and then they are charging at 128 amps all night. Don't think about running the air conditioner or the dryer when charging like that. The achilles heel is the power grid. In 10 years, can that much extra capacity be added? The arguement that this can be done in off-peak hours probably doesn't apply, as this will be a _bigger_ draw than daytime air conditioners. The new peak hours are going to be 6 PM to 2 AM. As the amazing electric motor and electric storage replaces the internal combustion engine in cars, so it will in trucks, trains, etc. The funny part is that the electric vehicle that would allow us to achieve energy independence by running on either coal or nuclear wouldn't happen because the NIMBYs and the lefty-greenies wouldn't allow the nuke plants to be built nor the coal plants to be built nor the power distribution wires to be built. So, the electric vehicle won't work, either, save a major attitude adjustment from the enviro-whiners and the bunch that thinks they have to control their view of the land all the way out to the horizon and so get all the construction, including power lines, stopped. And then there'd have to be an unprecedented construction project to make all that electrical distribution exist. It might not be quite the scope of building the interstate highway system but it'd be huge. Would it ever happen? Dave Head > The funny part is that the electric vehicle that would allow us to achieve > energy independence by running on either coal or nuclear wouldn't happen > because the NIMBYs and the lefty-greenies wouldn't allow the nuke plants to be > built nor the coal plants to be built nor the power distribution wires to be > built. > So, the electric vehicle won't work, either, save a major attitude adjustment > from the enviro-whiners and the bunch that thinks they have to control their > view of the land all the way out to the horizon While some environmentalists may be well meaning and ignorant of the bigger picture, the goal of the groups they are in isn't 'saving the environment' but political control. Take a step back away from the emotions of the issue and look at the policies that are pushed. Management of resources by elite that know what is good for us. Resources available to the elite but not everyone else. Emmissions policies designed to help break the US and other 'western' nations economically while building up police states such as China. The goal isn't to have cleaner cars for everyone, but cars for the priviledged and no cars for everyone else while the masses pay for the infastrucure. The grid is sufficent for the elite few to charge their cars fast. In the end, the environmentalist groups seem to be pushing what is termed 'new world order' where a small group of elites control things for our own good. >> The funny part is that the electric vehicle that would allow us to achieve >> energy independence by running on either coal or nuclear wouldn't happen [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >bigger picture, the goal of the groups they are in isn't 'saving the >environment' but political control. Yeppir - that's why they don't want to hear anything about 1) nuclear power, because it would be a real _solution_ to the energy problem, which would deprive them of an issue by which they can control people and 2) that's solar shield, because again it would be a real solution to the global warming problem which would deprive them of an issue by which they can control people. >Take a step back away from the emotions of the issue and look at the >policies that are pushed. Management of resources by elite that know what [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >termed 'new world order' where a small group of elites control things >for our own good. There's a lotta people out to gut the middle class, leaving only the wealthy elite and the very poor. They've been at it for decades. They don't realize the peril that they are in, as the American people will not ultimately put up with that. When it comes down to elite and the peasants, the elite are going to get a load of deer rifles and bird shot up their a.ses, since the _people_ still have the power in this country, as the old commie bastard, Mao Tse Tung said, "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." And of course there's the American quote, "The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Another revolution is at the end of this war on the middle class, if they keep it up. All the gun control laws proposed to date are an attempt to short-circuit this eventuality but have been largely unsuccessful. Hopefully this revolution will be far enough in the future that I won't have to get involved, or may somehow be averted altogether. Dave Head > been largely unsuccessful. Hopefully this revolution will be far enough in the > future that I won't have to get involved, or may somehow be averted altogether. There is a chance for the first time since I've been able to vote, a real canidate for president. http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/ http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml > OK, lets say that a viable electric vehicle is on the horizon: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Dave Head The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport that energy several times there are losses and the overall efficiency suffers. We are going to have to work some real magic to get the overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30% range where it currently hovers, no matter the energy source. > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport > that energy several times there are losses and the overall efficiency > suffers. We are going to have to work some real magic to get the > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30% range where it currently > hovers, no matter the energy source. Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient. Graham > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Graham Ummmm... ...sounds doubtful. I'd like to see some references.  Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'd like to see some references. Check out the efficiency of electric motors ! The motor controllers these days are *very* efficient and charging losses with Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as 0.1% ! ). I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of the kinetic energy of the vehicle with regenerative braking. Graham > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of the kinetic energy of the > vehicle with regenerative braking. Actually they can recover a certain portion of the kinetic engergy under certain conditions. > Graham > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the kinetic engergy > under certain conditions. Would you care to elaborate ? Graham > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Would you care to elaborate ? Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not recover "a large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about it for a moment. > Graham > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about it for a > moment. How do you think regenerative braking works ? Graham > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > How do you think regenerative braking works ? Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part of the kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be using regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill statement. However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs when the electric motor isn't being used to power the car. How do you think regen braking works. > Graham > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to > > > > > > > > > move a [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > How do you think regen braking works. Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem. You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is moving, but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains constant while the cars speed remains constant. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to > > > > > > > > > > move a [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains constant while > the cars speed remains constant. Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking will in the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy" will be in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains that energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state. Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain situations. > -- > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of > > > > > > > > > > > energy to [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain > situations. There's your problem: "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other object) to a given speed." That statement is incorrect. Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in relation to something else. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in relation > to something else. Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered" only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine. > -- > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen > braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine. No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that, but the OP made no such implication You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient. > > -- > > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- > > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system > which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient. Will you please go back and read the thread.... > > > -- > > > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > Will you please go back and read the thread.... Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you underline what you think I've missed... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you > underline what you think I've missed... Clearly it is otherwise. I'll try once more - Go reread the thread. > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <1169216959.961322.64610@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > Clearly it is otherwise. I'll try once more - Go reread the thread. I'll try once more: Since you claim you *know* precisely what I missed, quote it. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. >> > > > > > In article >> > > > > > <1169216959.961322.64610@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you > underline what you think I've missed... Oh, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to show how ignorant it is to post everything posted previously, then have nothing relevant to add. And I think I've done that. Steve ;-) <snipping that which is not relevant... ...in this post, anyway> > >> Will you please go back and read the thread.... > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve ;-) Except in this case, the whole point is that the PP to me is telling me that there is something in the thread I'd missed and I wanted to give him an opportunity to display it. So deleting everything would have defeated the very purpose of my post. Hence, everything previously posted was relevant to what I was posting and vice versa. But since it's not directly necessary for this post, I've deleted it. ;-) Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > <snipping that which is not relevant... ...in this post, anyway> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > ;-) IS SO! IS NOT! IS SO! IS NOT! (you get the point) Steve > Will you please go back and read the thread.... Will you please get a brain that works ! *An object in motion* has a kinetic energy of 1/2.m.v^2. That energy will be 'liberated' in one form or another when bringing it to a halt. Normally as heat in the brakes. Regenerative braking can convert that energy to useful electrical energy that can be stored back in the battery. Graham > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of the kinetic > > > > > > > > energy of the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy" will be > in limited situations. When slowing down or braking of course. > Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains that > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state. Uh ? > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain > situations. Like so many otherwise sensible ppl you have too much faith in a false idea of 'common sense' that contains serious errors ! Why do you think brakes get hot ? Where does that energy come from ? Graham > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part of the > kinetic energy of a car. It does. > For it to do so it would have to be using > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill statement. Utter rubbish. > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs when the > electric motor isn't being used to power the car. When the motor's being used to *stop* the car of course ! > How do you think regen braking works. I think you should read it up. A regenerative brake is an apparatus, a device or system which allows a vehicle to recapture part of the kinetic energy that would otherwise be lost to heat when braking and make use of that power either by storing it for future use or feeding it back into a power system for other vehicles to use. Regenerative braking should not be confused with dynamic braking, which dissipates the recaptured electrical energy as heat. In that respect, dynamic braking behaves much like an electromagnetic brake, which employs eddy current losses to produce the braking effect. None of these methods of braking are capable of completely stopping a vehicle, and therefore are not a substitute for friction brakes...................... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking Graham > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors ! Not my job. > The motor controllers these days are *very* efficient and charging losses > with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Graham Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not my job. 90% is commonplace. I did briefly try looking for a good link but preferred to reply first. Graham >>>>>> The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of >>>>>> energy to move a car from point a to point b. When we [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>> overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30% range where >>>>>> it currently hovers, no matter the energy source. >>>>> Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient. >>>> Ummmm... >>>> >>>> ...sounds doubtful. >>>> I'd like to see some references. >>> Check out the efficiency of electric motors ! >> Not my job. >90% is commonplace. Not for a widely-variable load over a range of speeds. I've not found one type that'll do that in about 6 years of looking. You'd think somebody making such motors would advertise, wouldn't you? >I did briefly try looking for a good link but preferred to reply first. Do it the other way around and save us the trouble. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient. Literally imposible unless you ignore the fact that carbon fuel usually in form of coal is burned to heat steam which in turn spins a turine/generator and the resulting electiccity is transported over great distances all resuling in a rather large loss of energy by the time it gets to the electric car. But I think you already know this.... > Graham > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > time it gets to the electric car. But I think you already know > this.... Yes. I said the *car* is ~90% efficient. How you generate the electricity is another matter for sure. See combined cycle power generation for the latest ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle Graham > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > See combined cycle power generation for the latest ideas. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle Ah, yes the perfect colution for power plants with wheels. > Graham > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ah, yes the perfect colution for power plants with wheels. Did you see the link to BMW's research ? Graham >> > How you generate the electricity is another matter for sure. >> > See combined cycle power generation for the latest ideas. >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle >> Ah, yes the perfect colution for power plants with wheels. >Did you see the link to BMW's research ? A blog about it? The PR doesn't show the turbo that's on the exhaust in many cars. That's a combined-cycle already in common use. With a turbo already in the exhaust stream, the available heat source is of low "quality" and is probably not enough to make a cup of coffee in a short time; and very likely insufficient to contribute sensibly to traction power. Even without a turbo, most cars have heaters that use the coolant from the engine to heat the vehicle's interior when required. That also counts as a combined cycle. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. >> > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to >> > > move a car from point a to point b. When we have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > > number above the 20 - 30% range where it currently hovers, no >> > > matter the energy source. >> > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient. >> Literally imposible unless you ignore the fact that carbon fuel >> usually in form of coal is burned to heat steam which in turn spins a >> turine/generator and the resulting electiccity is transported over >> great distances all resuling in a rather large loss of energy by the >> time it gets to the electric car. But I think you already know >> this.... >Yes. I said the *car* is ~90% efficient. >How you generate the electricity is another matter for sure. >See combined cycle power generation for the latest ideas. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle Combined cycle is *not* new. It's been used since steam power pushed most of the trains around. What combined cycle does is to try to recover some of the energy that would otherwise be lost to the "cold sink". In doing so, it inevitably increases the temperature of the cold sink available to the primary heat engine, reducing the efficiency of that part. The efficiency of any heat engine (thermal cycle) is limited by the heat source temperature and the cold sink temperature. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > >> > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to > >> > > move a car from point a to point b. When we have to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Combined cycle is *not* new. It's been used since steam power pushed > most of the trains around. Triple expansion engines as in ships were a low-grade form of same even. > What combined cycle does is to try to recover some of the energy > that would otherwise be lost to the "cold sink". In doing so, it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The efficiency of any heat engine (thermal cycle) is limited by the > heat source temperature and the cold sink temperature. They still do better though ! Graham >> What combined cycle does is to try to recover some of the energy >> that would otherwise be lost to the "cold sink". In doing so, it >> inevitably increases the temperature of the cold sink available to >> the primary heat engine, reducing the efficiency of that part. >> The efficiency of any heat engine (thermal cycle) is limited by the >> heat source temperature and the cold sink temperature. >They still do better though ! The Carnot efficiency; the maximum possible for that part of the cycle is in the vicinity of: eta = 1 - (Tc/Th) = 1 - (330/400) = 17% The practical efficiency will be closer to 5%. If the engine is producing 20kW to move the car at fast highway speed, then about that amount is going out the exhaust pipe, getting sucked up by the turbocharger where the efficiency is far greater because it's much, much hotter; then feeding down to the "steam producer". The steam producer has perhaps 10kW (being generous) available to it; and the likely yield is 500W. Where will you stick that? The amount is going to be very difficult to justify because carrying the paraphenalia around all the time; even when there's far less waste heat available; is going to cost more fuel than not carrying it. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > If the engine is > producing 20kW to move the car at fast highway speed, then about > that amount is going out the exhaust pipe, getting sucked up by the > turbocharger where the efficiency is far greater because it's much, > much hotter; then feeding down to the "steam producer". What happened to the other 40kW ? Graham >> If the engine is producing 20kW to move the car at fast highway >> speed, then about that amount is going out the exhaust pipe, >> getting sucked up by the turbocharger where the efficiency is far >> greater because it's much, much hotter; then feeding down to the >> "steam producer". >What happened to the other 40kW ? 40? Oh you're assuming 25% efficiency. Most of the other heat is dumped by the coolant. via radiator, etc. There are internal, mechanical pumping and friction losses, (disposed of largely via the oil sump's surface) as well as the need to spin an alternator/generator for lights, ventilation, DVD, etc. You know how real cars work; don't you? Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > >> If the engine is producing 20kW to move the car at fast highway > >> speed, then about that amount is going out the exhaust pipe, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 40? Oh you're assuming 25% efficiency. That's what you said wasn't it ? > Most of the other heat is dumped by the coolant. via radiator, etc. > There are internal, mechanical pumping and friction losses, > (disposed of largely via the oil sump's surface) as well as the need > to spin an alternator/generator for lights, ventilation, DVD, etc. > > You know how real cars work; don't you? Oh I do but I wanted to hear it from you. Is 100 C heat not adequate for any kind of recovery ? Graham >> >> If the engine is producing 20kW to move the car at fast highway >> >> speed, then about that amount is going out the exhaust pipe, >> >> getting sucked up by the turbocharger where the efficiency is far >> >> greater because it's much, much hotter; then feeding down to the >> >> "steam producer". >> >What happened to the other 40kW ? >> 40? Oh you're assuming 25% efficiency. >That's what you said wasn't it ? Nope. Not me. Turbo-diesel engine thermal efficiency can easily exceed 30%. It gets "easier" with bigger engines that turn more slowly for the same power. >> Most of the other heat is dumped by the coolant. via radiator, etc. >> There are internal, mechanical pumping and friction losses, >> (disposed of largely via the oil sump's surface) as well as the need >> to spin an alternator/generator for lights, ventilation, DVD, etc. >> You know how real cars work; don't you? >Oh I do but I wanted to hear it from you. Why? I did my last exams in 1982. Not yet old enough to be senile to have forgotten the basics. >Is 100 C heat not adequate for any kind of recovery ? Mobile, on-road, in a passenger car; no. Not worth it for a thermal process in terms of the possible output that could be obtained. Road surface temperatures can exceed 60 degrees C, so 100 degrees as the hot source is not going to yield any useful power unless you have very efficient (read large) heat exchangers. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > >> >> If the engine is producing 20kW to move the car at fast highway > >> >> speed, then about that amount is going out the exhaust pipe, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Nope. Not me. Sure ? I was sure you had done. It's typical for a modern gasoline engine anyway. > Turbo-diesel engine thermal efficiency can easily > exceed 30%. It gets "easier" with bigger engines that turn more > slowly for the same power. I know. > >> Most of the other heat is dumped by the coolant. via radiator, etc. > >> There are internal, mechanical pumping and friction losses, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Mobile, on-road, in a passenger car; no. Not worth it for a thermal > process in terms of the possible output that could be obtained. I've heard otherwise suggested with useful energy recovery achieved. Possibly entirely removing the direct mechanically driven electrical and ancillary equipment load from the engine. > Road surface temperatures can exceed 60 degrees C, so 100 degrees > as the hot source is not going to yield any useful power unless you > have very efficient (read large) heat exchangers. I think you should compare it with air temp not road temp. Graham > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > Graham Sorry, but if you're going to count all of that against the efficiency of the electric car, aren't there a few items you're going to have to include for internal combustion engines? Things such as drilling, pumping, refining, transportation... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > include for internal combustion engines? Things such as drilling, > pumping, refining, transportation... Sure. But lets compare apples and apples. We can talk about the potential energy that goes into and comes out of a given energy stream. Or we can talk about indirect costs. But we sould not mix the two. How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not nearly as much as the energy lost by burning coal, converting it to mechanical energy which is then converted to electrical energy which is then transmitted over great distances and suffers a lot of losses in transmission. I would imagine the evaporative losses in transporting a tanker load of gasoline are minimal in comparison. We could separately talk about indirect costs too like drilling, building and running a power plant or refinery, etc. But the direct energy losses are probably the best way to analyze efficiency. > -- > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to transform and transport [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > building and running a power plant or refinery, etc. But the direct > energy losses are probably the best way to analyze efficiency. Except your "direct energy losses" seem to count generation of electricity but not generation of gasoline.... If we're going to analyze efficiency, let's start with what we know: the cost of gasoline and electricity -- delivered -- in dollars per megawatt-hour.... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that is > cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not nearly as > much as the energy lost by burning coal, converting it to mechanical > energy which is then converted to electrical energy True enough but there's room for improvement in that efficiency iff ppl could be bothered. > which is then transmitted over great distances and suffers a lot of losses in > transmission. Such losses could be minimised by better use of local generation and microgeneration though. > I would imagine the evaporative losses in transporting a > tanker load of gasoline are minimal in comparison. Don't forget the fuel used too. > We could separately talk about indirect costs too like drilling, > building and running a power plant or refinery, etc. But the direct > energy losses are probably the best way to analyze efficiency. But a gasoline engine's doing well to recover just 25% of the energy in the tank. Often only 20%. Graham >> How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that >> is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not >> nearly as much as the energy lost by burning coal, converting it >> to mechanical energy which is then converted to electrical energy >True enough but there's room for improvement in that efficiency iff >ppl could be bothered. No amount of wishful thinking is going to overcome physical limits. Enormous investments for marginal gains are also not welcome at shareholder meetings. >> which is then transmitted over great distances and suffers a lot >> of losses in transmission. >Such losses could be minimised by better use of local generation and >microgeneration though. The specific losses in the thermal processes involved, i.e. the proportion of energy "lost" in generation, reduce almost inevitably with the size of the plant. >> I would imagine the evaporative losses in transporting a >> tanker load of gasoline are minimal in comparison. >Don't forget the fuel used too. Usually miniscule (<<1%) compared to the amount of fuel transported. Only remore areas, where fuel delivery is by "road" over a very long distance (hundreds of km) have anything like a significant fuel use component. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > >> which is then transmitted over great distances and suffers a lot > >> of losses in transmission. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > proportion of energy "lost" in generation, reduce almost inevitably > with the size of the plant. Not with on-site co-generation. There are almost no losses. Graham >> >> which is then transmitted over great distances and suffers a lot >> >> of losses in transmission. >> >Such losses could be minimised by better use of local generation and >> >microgeneration though. >> The specific losses in the thermal processes involved, i.e. the >> proportion of energy "lost" in generation, reduce almost inevitably >> with the size of the plant. >Not with on-site co-generation. >There are almost no losses. Are you trying to be a troll? Or are you really that thick? Thermal processes always have losses. Energy conversion from one form to another always has losses. Always. No exception. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > >> >> which is then transmitted over great distances and suffers a lot > >> >> of losses in transmission. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Always. No exception. With diesel CHP generation for electricity and heat how much do you reckon is lost as heat in the exhaust gases ? 15 % Even some of that can be recovered. http://www.energytech.at/kwk/portrait_kapitel-2_4.html Suggests up to 88% efficiency can be realised. Graham > >> How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that > >> is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No amount of wishful thinking is going to overcome physical limits. So what do you think the limits are ? Graham >> >> How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that >> >> is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not >> >> nearly as much as the energy lost by burning coal, converting it >> >> to mechanical energy which is then converted to electrical energy >> >True enough but there's room for improvement in that efficiency iff >> >ppl could be bothered. >> No amount of wishful thinking is going to overcome physical limits. >So what do you think the limits are ? More than I can possibly write here. Try a text book on physics, another on thermodynamics, another on chemistry. Don't *eat* them. Read them and get somebody who groks to quiz your comprehension. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > >> >> How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that > >> >> is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Don't *eat* them. Read them and get somebody who groks to quiz your > comprehension. Well........... Combined cycle power generation is up to 60% efficient. Combined cycle plus chp is good for about 85% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle Graham >> >> >> How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that >> >> >> is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Combined cycle power generation is up to 60% efficient. Even assuming wikipedia has it right, that's for large fixed power plants, not small mobile ones. >Combined cycle plus chp is good for about 85% Ordinary cars already use engine waste heat for heating, but it does nothing for the fuel efficiency of the car. The extra efficiency comes from counting heat as useful output. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >> >> How much potential energy is lost from a gallon of crude oil that > >> >> >> is cracked and converted to all those petroleum products. Not [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Even assuming wikipedia has it right, that's for large fixed power > plants, not small mobile ones. Why need it be any worse ? > >Combined cycle plus chp is good for about 85% > > Ordinary cars already use engine waste heat for heating, but it does > nothing for the fuel efficiency of the car. The extra efficiency > comes from counting heat as useful output. Heating's only useful when you need it and provides far far more than you can use. Graham >> >> Don't *eat* them. Read them and get somebody who groks to quiz your >> >> comprehension. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why need it be any worse ? Because, as Bernd Felsche has explained to you, some of the measures used to get high efficiency don't scale down. >> >Combined cycle plus chp is good for about 85% >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Heating's only useful when you need it and provides far far more than you can >use. Precisely why that 85% efficiency figure has to be taken with a grain of salt. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> >> Don't *eat* them. Read them and get somebody who groks to quiz your >>> >> comprehension. >>> >Well........... >>> >Combined cycle power generation is up to 60% efficient. >>> Even assuming wikipedia has it right, that's for large fixed power >>> plants, not small mobile ones. >>Why need it be any worse ? >Because, as Bernd Felsche has explained to you, some of the measures >used to get high efficiency don't scale down. Indeed. Especially insulation and the need to maintain a cold sink and hot source to maximise thermal efficiency. For the benefit of the non-trolls: Once heat is removed from a hot source, that source necessarily cools near the point of removal and reduces efficiency. Similarly at the cold sink, releasing heat into that will increase the temperature near that point and reduce efficiency. The harder the the engine works (provides power), the colder the hot source and the warmer the cold sink. By having a larger area for heat exchange, the temperature difference at the source and/or sink is reduced so the efficiency is less variable depending on the rate of heat transfer over the area. The rate of heat transfer limits the power that the heat engine can deliver; being driven by the temperature difference between hot and cold. From the basic principle of thermodynamics of efficiency being limited by the available temperature difference and the practicality of the limits of heat transfer in providing heat at the hot source; and of removing heat at the cold source, the highest thermal efficiency can only be realized from physically-large plant. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >OK, lets say that a viable electric vehicle is on the horizon: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >charged in 5 minutes. A family car would accelerate like a Ferrarri. Etc. >Superior to an internal combustion engine car in practically every way. Sounds great - Where do I get one? >Well, are you going to be able to charge it? A perfect use for these will be "station cars" - cars that train riders use to drive the "last mile" between home/work and the station. You can charge it at home in your garage, and at the charging stall at the station. >The thing is, if it'll run for 300 miles, it'll use just as much energy as any >other car driving 300 miles. I use about 13 gallons to drive 300 miles in a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >grid and cause brownouts and rolling blackouts on really hot days. This >battery charging would be continuous. That's a heckuva draw on the power grid. In Arizona, land of 100+ degree daily temperatures in the summer, there are houses out in the boonies that are too far from the power grid to be economicaly served by the power company, so they run entirely off of solar panels and batteries. Yes, that includes the air conditioner. >The achilles heel is the power grid. What's amazing to me is the same open mind that can envision multi-quadrillion-dollar orbiting solar shields to stop global warming cannot envision a solar panel on the roof of his garage. :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > What's amazing to me is the same open mind that can envision > multi-quadrillion-dollar orbiting solar shields to stop global warming > cannot envision a solar panel on the roof of his garage. :) Or a battery that outperforms last year's version ! Graham Scott en Aztl?n wrote: > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > multi-quadrillion-dollar orbiting solar shields to stop global warming > cannot envision a solar panel on the roof of his garage. :) I can envision it, alright, but I can't envision it being cheap enough nor provide enough power. Right now, they're prohibitively expensive for a homeowner, and those of us that exist where things like solar panels get blocked by clouds and snow know that we'd need several garages worth of solar panels. It might be $50,000 worth of solar panels to run the house and charge the car. And, they have a lifespan - you might need to spend another $50,000 in 10 - 20 years, depending on when they do expire. I'm all for it, tho. A white paper dated 2002 that I ran across when looking into solar conversion claimed that some Japanese scientists were working on the light-frequency equivilant of a rectenna, which would be 85% efficient. Hoory - not only would that be the sort of efficiency needed, but it would also not likely degrade over time in the manner of the PV cells we have today. But, that was 2002, and there's no further news that I've seen, so either they're still working, or they've abandoned the idea. Either way, its not likely real yet. But the reason for optimisim is that things like this supercapacitor enabling an efficient electric car, to breakthroughs like a light-wave rectenna are being worked, and so numerously that SOMEBODY is bound to have success with SOMETHING - supercapcitors, light-wave rectennas, fusion, etc. and our energy problems will be solved. I think it'll likely happen within the next 20 years. Dave Head > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> What's amazing to me is the same open mind that can envision >> multi-quadrillion-dollar orbiting solar shields to stop global warming >> cannot envision a solar panel on the roof of his garage. :) > >I can envision it, alright, but I can't envision it being cheap enough >nor provide enough power. I see. Where were your cost objections when we were discussing the upteen billion dollar pricetag for an orbiting space shield? :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I see. Where were your cost objections when we were discussing the >upteen billion dollar pricetag for an orbiting space shield? :) Well... that's different, in that it is something that, assuming global warming _must_ be stopped, is something that just MUST be done. I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and then things will get simple. And, such an approach would be absolutely guaranteed to work, unlike a 'reduce the CO2' approach which is unlikely to work due to non-compliance by the parties involved. Dave Head > I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were > speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and > then things will get simple. There are finite limits ( of physics ) that determine the amount of energy to do that and the numbers are horribly big. That is truly the biggest problem. Graham >> I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were >> speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Graham Naw, not a problem. We _have_ horribly big amounts of energy to throw stuff into orbit. Our only problem is capturing the energy we have and using it. 'Fer instance, the Navy base where I work just tested a new 8 megjoule railgun. The thing, when perfected, is expected to throw ordnance 200+ miles and the top of the trajectory will be 95 miles. That is outer space. If you threw a rocket up there, it would only have to burn to gain the added orbital velocity and orbit circularization energy and presto, orbit. The thing is, the damn thing is electric. OK, what have we been talking about here? Why, solar power. 1,400 megawatts per square kilometer in the vicinity of earth, maybe 700 to 1000 megawatts per square kilometer on the earth's surface. What happens when we figure out how to finally capture that? Right - we have virtually limitless energy. Would you bet against someone figuring that out in the next 20 years? I wouldn't. Anyway, _someone_ will figure out a cheap way to orbit. 20 years from now, 40, 60, whenever. And, with a sun dimming strategy, that will be in plenty of time to stop global warming from wrecking things. Sun dimming could be used to cool Venus to earth-like temperatures if we wanted to do that. The best thing about a sun-dimming strategy is that it will absolutely, irrefutably, work. We could make another ice age if we wanted to. We might even have to be careful not to do that accidentally. But the fact that it will, without question, work is why I'm for it. Dave Head > >> I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were > >> speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The thing, when perfected, is expected to throw ordnance 200+ miles and the top > of the trajectory will be 95 miles. In which case the shell must weigh < ~ 6kg. I didn't even factor in losses due to air resistance either. > That is outer space. Is it ? Only just ! > If you threw a > rocket up there, it would only have to burn to gain the added orbital velocity > and orbit circularization energy and presto, orbit. How about an orbital gun then ? Graham > > >> I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were > > >> speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Graham Yes, but better still is to stick it on the moon. From there, material could be launched with solar power and part of the moon itself to the L1 point between the sun and the earth. This is, of course, future stuff - stuff to be done in 20 - 40 years from now, when technology has made things orders of magnitude cheaper. Dave Head > > > >> I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were > > > >> speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > stuff - stuff to be done in 20 - 40 years from now, when technology has > made things orders of magnitude cheaper. Hey Dave, it takes even more energy to get stuff to the moon ! Graham > > > > >> I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were > > > > >> speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Graham There's a lot of material already there, that could undoubtedly be processed into a think film to be launched to and unfolded at L1... Is there aluminum on the moon? In 20 - 40 years, would we be able to build robot miners to gather it and process it into aluminum? And, no, it _doesn't_ take more energy to get to the moon, 'cuz where we want the shield would be at L1, which is farther away than the moon. Dave Head > > > Yes, but better still is to stick it on the moon. From there, material > > > could be launched with solar power and part of the moon itself to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There's a lot of material already there, What kind of material ? Rock ? > that could undoubtedly be processed Processed ? It happens by magic ? Does rock change into aluminium by magic ? > into a think film to be launched to and unfolded at L1... Is > there aluminum on the moon? In 20 - 40 years, would we be able to > build robot miners to gather it and process it into aluminum? LMAO @ 'robot miners'. Are they also 'automatically computer controlled' too ? Who reboots the computers when they crash Dave ? Ever heard of the effect of alpha particles and the like ( solar wind ) on microelectronics btw ? > And, no, it _doesn't_ take more energy to get to the moon, 'cuz where > we want the shield would be at L1, which is farther away than the moon. The shield would work fine in geostationary orbit Dave ! Graham >> > > Yes, but better still is to stick it on the moon. From there, material >> > > could be launched with solar power and part of the moon itself to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Processed ? It happens by magic ? Does rock change into aluminium by magic ? No, by electrical smelting. That's why aluminum smelters are located near big power plants. >> into a think film to be launched to and unfolded at L1... Is >> there aluminum on the moon? In 20 - 40 years, would we be able to >> build robot miners to gather it and process it into aluminum? > >LMAO @ 'robot miners'. Are they also 'automatically computer controlled' too ? Who reboots the >computers when they crash Dave ? Now you're getting silly. Tell me how many times the Mars rovers have been rebooted... >Ever heard of the effect of alpha particles and the like ( solar wind ) on microelectronics btw Er... tell me about how none of our geostationary communications satellites are dropping like flies... >> And, no, it _doesn't_ take more energy to get to the moon, 'cuz where >> we want the shield would be at L1, which is farther away than the moon. > >The shield would work fine in geostationary orbit Dave ! The shield would not work at all in geostationary orbit. The shadow would miss the earth most of the time. DPH >Graham > >> Eeyore wrote:. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, by electrical smelting. That's why aluminum smelters are located near big > power plants. Aluminium smelters need Bauxite as a raw material. Where's the Bauxite on the Moon Dave ? Or did you think moon dust *is* Bauxite ? Gaham >> >> Eeyore wrote:. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Gaham There is no evidence either way whether it is there or not. It _may_ be. It may _not_ be. If there is, that would be a good thing. DPH > >> >> Eeyore wrote:. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There is no evidence either way whether it is there or not. It _may_ be. It > may _not_ be. If there is, that would be a good thing. Sorry Dave but this is one of your more fanciful far-fetched ideas. This may eentertain you though. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=4303 59&in_page_id=1770 I was inclined to think it was a hoax but the German professor does really exist. I reckon his marbles have gone astray though. Graham >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> dribbled: >>> >> Eeyore wrote:. >>> >> > Hey Dave, it takes even more energy to get stuff to the moon ! >>> >> There's a lot of material already there, >>> >What kind of material ? Rock ? >>> >> that could undoubtedly be processed >>> >Processed ? It happens by magic ? Does rock change into >>> >aluminium by magic ? >>> No, by electrical smelting. That's why aluminum smelters are >>> located near big power plants. >>Aluminium smelters need Bauxite as a raw material. >>Where's the Bauxite on the Moon Dave ? Or did you think moon dust >>*is* Bauxite ? >There is no evidence either way whether it is there or not. It >_may_ be. It may _not_ be. If there is, that would be a good >thing. Aluminium requires oxygen and hydrogen to make bauxite. e.g. Al(OH)3 and AlOOH If neither is present, then the aluminium doesn't "corrode" to make bauxite. It can't even make a "natural" corrosion-protection skin of oxide because there's not much oxygen. Instead of insisting on bauxite; or even aluminium as a material, one needs to find out what minerals are available (USA forgot how to get there about 30 years ago) from the samples brought back previously and from spectral analysis. This, I understand, was also done 25 years ago and more. www.nasa.gov The absence of oxygen to corrode materials can be an asset. Materials that would be ruled out because of perhaps volatile reactions with our atmosphere, have the potential to be used in pure spacecraft. Now, if anybody a) believes that thay can *control* the Earth's climate and b) want to, then that's two strikes; and they're most of the way to the asylum. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. >Aluminium requires oxygen and hydrogen to make bauxite. >e.g. Al(OH)3 and AlOOH > >If neither is present, then the aluminium doesn't "corrode" to make >bauxite. It can't even make a "natural" corrosion-protection skin of >oxide because there's not much oxygen. There's plenty of aluminum on the moon as silicates (which contain oxygen). I don't think there's bauxites, though. Cryolite doesn't contain oxygen, but I haven't heard of that on the moon either. >Instead of insisting on bauxite; or even aluminium as a material, >one needs to find out what minerals are available (USA forgot how to >get there about 30 years ago) |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message