Energy: Choose
 

On Jun 27, 3:03*pm, JustWait wrote:
On 6/27/2012 11:29 AM, *e#c wrote:





On Jun 27, 10:16 am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

Pick the one who makes more sense, and go with that.

Justwait

or

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sado...o_renewable_en
ergy.html

Also google Vanadium Redox flow Battery.
This stuff is happening pretty fast.
Good, because the obvious problem with solar/wind is storage.
I don't know how it will all work out, but it will.
If we don't listen to the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Here's another choice.

Justwait

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqokqE5dRmM

It's up to you.

Now you've went and confused him with facts! His insane lying rants will
surely go full steam ahead now!

Both of you should shut the **** up.

Hey, leave me out of this. He made up the post, he trolled me, I didn't
respond...

I didnt know that was your sock puppet, sorry Scott.

Energy: Choose
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:05:53 PM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Another problem not addressed is the battery stores and sources DC, but the power grid is AC. So now we'll have to convert that with big power stations that take DC and convert it to AC. DC motors turning AC generators?

===

Absolutely not - high efficiency solid state power inverters.

Being an electronics guy, I thought about inveters... just wondered if you could scale one up enought to power 200 homes, as he says his ultimate big battery will do. Assuming 200 amps per house, that's 40,000 amps. That's one hell of an inverter. And another big heat source, even with the high efficiency.

=====

There are solid state switching devices that will handle huge amounts
of power with efficiencies in the 90 to 95% range. That's a lot more
efficient than a typical motor-generator set. Of course heat is
related to the amount of conversion loss so higher efficiency means
less heat. I worked in a reserch lab at Cornell University back in
the late 1960s where we had a multi-million watt solid state inverter
for powering the magnet ring of a particle accelerator. The
electronics were not that exotic even then.

Energy: Choose
 

On 6/27/2012 5:55 PM, *e#c wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:03 pm, JustWait wrote:
On 6/27/2012 11:29 AM, *e#c wrote:





On Jun 27, 10:16 am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

Pick the one who makes more sense, and go with that.

Justwait

or

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sado...o_renewable_en
ergy.html

Also google Vanadium Redox flow Battery.
This stuff is happening pretty fast.
Good, because the obvious problem with solar/wind is storage.
I don't know how it will all work out, but it will.
If we don't listen to the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Here's another choice.

Justwait

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqokqE5dRmM

It's up to you.

Now you've went and confused him with facts! His insane lying rants will
surely go full steam ahead now!

Both of you should shut the **** up.

Hey, leave me out of this. He made up the post, he trolled me, I didn't
respond...

I didnt know that was your sock puppet, sorry Scott.


No prob, man... you got my email, it's all good...

Energy: Choose
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:05:53 PM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Another problem not addressed is the battery stores and sources DC, but
the power grid is AC. So now we'll have to convert that with big power
stations that take DC and convert it to AC. DC motors turning AC
generators?

===

Absolutely not - high efficiency solid state power inverters.

Being an electronics guy, I thought about inveters... just wondered if you
could scale one up enought to power 200 homes, as he says his ultimate big
battery will do. Assuming 200 amps per house, that's 40,000 amps. That's
one hell of an inverter. And another big heat source, even with the high
efficiency.

=====

There are solid state switching devices that will handle huge amounts
of power with efficiencies in the 90 to 95% range. That's a lot more
efficient than a typical motor-generator set. Of course heat is
related to the amount of conversion loss so higher efficiency means
less heat. I worked in a reserch lab at Cornell University back in
the late 1960s where we had a multi-million watt solid state inverter
for powering the magnet ring of a particle accelerator. The
electronics were not that exotic even then.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The power grid has to stay AC. Was the big battle between Edison and Tesla.
The DC was short distance, and the losses were large.

Energy: Choose
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:54:03 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

The power grid has to stay AC. Was the big battle between Edison and Tesla.
The DC was short distance, and the losses were large.

===

Yes, for the most part. There has been some interesting work done
however using very high voltage DC for long distance transmission.
HVDC has been made possible by the development of high powered
semiconductors and has the advantage of fewer losses in some
environments. It also allows power to be transmitted between grids
that are out of phase with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-vo...direct_current

Energy: Choose
 

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:11:03 PM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:05:53 PM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Another problem not addressed is the battery stores and sources DC, but the power grid is AC. So now we'll have to convert that with big power stations that take DC and convert it to AC. DC motors turning AC generators?

===

Absolutely not - high efficiency solid state power inverters.

Being an electronics guy, I thought about inveters... just wondered if you could scale one up enought to power 200 homes, as he says his ultimate big battery will do. Assuming 200 amps per house, that's 40,000 amps. That's one hell of an inverter. And another big heat source, even with the high efficiency.

=====

There are solid state switching devices that will handle huge amounts
of power with efficiencies in the 90 to 95% range. That's a lot more
efficient than a typical motor-generator set. Of course heat is
related to the amount of conversion loss so higher efficiency means
less heat. I worked in a reserch lab at Cornell University back in
the late 1960s where we had a multi-million watt solid state inverter
for powering the magnet ring of a particle accelerator. The
electronics were not that exotic even then.

I don't doubt it, but that was intermittant duty, and not really mission critical. We're talking about 10 million watts (give or take) and 24/7/365.
5-10% of that is a LOT of heat to dissipate. That particle accelerator could go down for a week and it was not that big of a deal.

This is all cool stuff. We'll get there, where "there" is, one day.

Energy: Choose
 

On 6/27/2012 4:54 PM, Califbill wrote:

The power grid has to stay AC. Was the big battle between Edison and
Tesla. The DC was short distance, and the losses were large.

High voltage DC has less loss than AC due to reduced skin effect and
radiation loss and is used for long distance transmission.

Energy: Choose
 

On 6/27/2012 11:59 AM, wrote:

Being an electronics guy, I thought about inveters... just wondered if you could scale one up enought to power 200 homes, as he says his ultimate big battery will do. Assuming 200 amps per house, that's 40,000 amps. That's one hell of an inverter. And another big heat source, even with the high efficiency.

Why do it all in one place? The inverters could be distributed and
tailored to smaller loads.

Energy: Choose
 

wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:05:22 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
Pick the one who makes more sense, and go with that.

Justwait

or

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sado...o_renewable_en
ergy.html

He's a captivating and convincing speaker, and his battery is a pretty
cool idea. However, he glosses over some serious and real problems
and concerns.

Antimony is toxic and in some forms can ignite or explode. Don't even
get me started about magnesium. A 40 foot shipping container full of
molten antimony and magnesium would be a high value target for someone
wanting to wreak some serious havoc.

Also, for example, antimony melts at almost 1200 degrees F. That's
going to be one hot sucker... wonder what hundred (thousands?) of
those will do for global warming?

Another problem not addressed is the battery stores and sources DC,
but the power grid is AC. So now we'll have to convert that with big
power stations that take DC and convert it to AC. DC motors turning
AC generators?

He knows all this stuff, but in his talk to that audience, it doesn't
make sense to go into those things. That's why it's important to
listen with a critical ear sometimes.

I wish him and all the people working on these kinds of problems the
best of luck! They are sure gonna need it.

-------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting presentation but storage is not the primary challenge.
Generation is the challenge.

The only viable alternative to oil and other fossil fuel energy
generation is nuclear until some other
major breakthough is discovered.

I got a kick out of his presentation though. It was obviously not to
a group of his peers in the scientific
community. Well done, but if that presentation had been given at a
technical convention it would
have been met with multiple challenges and hot debates from the
audience, not a standing ovation.

Energy: Choose
 

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:30:42 AM UTC-4, thumper wrote:
On 6/27/2012 11:59 AM, wrote:

Being an electronics guy, I thought about inveters... just wondered if you could scale one up enought to power 200 homes, as he says his ultimate big battery will do. Assuming 200 amps per house, that's 40,000 amps. That's one hell of an inverter. And another big heat source, even with the high efficiency.

Why do it all in one place? The inverters could be distributed and
tailored to smaller loads.

The presentation was talking about hooking this "to the grid", which implies a single connection point. You could distribute the DC then supply smaller loads, but now you'd have a single point of failure for those small loads, and you'd have the addition issue of the DC distribution. If you retain the present connection to the AC grid at each smaller load point (for redundancy), now you have two completely different distribution systems. We're quickly pricing this technology out of the realm of possibility.