| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
12-01-2004, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I have been reading about the immense progress being made in fuel cell technology for more than twenty years now. Why are they not yet in daily use in every household? Why isn't every new and rennovated houses built to superinsulation and passive solar standards, virtually eliminating a heating system? Not rocket science and many examples are all over the world right now, so not airy fairy ideas at all. It would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement. Because super insulation is useless without other means to reduce ventilation losses. It is not useless. As you know, superinsulated and air-tight homes have heat recovery and vent in them, rendering your criticism rather silly. You need things like heat exchanges on ventilation - this gets very expensive. As there will be no full heating system this serves as the heating system too, to top up the heating when it is rarely required. Not expensive at all, when looking at the total cost of a house. It is arguable that the energy used to build all this stuff doesn't get paid back in a sensible timescale. It is arguable, but an argument lost. And as the topic is emissions etc, from a global view, this is a way of drastically reducing emissions, reducing fossil fuel usage and eliminating fuel poverty, besides the comfortable environment it creates. Curemnt insulation levels are at around ten times what they were in say the 1950's, with windows being perhpas 3 times better. Insulation was only mandatory in the UK from 1974. The insulation levels currently are dire, but are being ramped to something acceptable soon. We need a quantum leap, not staged pussy footing. Superinsulation and passive solar can be implemented right now We are reaching teh law of diminishing returns on insulation. We are reducing the emissions drastically, eliminating fuel poverty, and reducing millions of damp and cold related diseases, which is what counts. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004 |
|
#62
12-01-2004, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Hang a cable out of the window, or *gasp* build undergroung parking areas with electrical sockets? If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free? An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for congestion. Or charge them up in supermarket car parks etc etc. I only go to the supermarket on a day when I can be in and out in an hour. You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need specailsed charging facilities to do it safely. Apart from the fortune needed to buy and replace such a battery for car use. -- *Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"? Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
|
#64
12-01-2004, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"IMM" wrote in message ... "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: Because there have been minor improvements in a flawed highly inefficient piston engine design over the past 30 years, you appear to think this exonerates the internal combustion engine, or it is efficient or clean or something. It is NOT. The engine it at the end of its lifespan, it should have gone 50 years ago. snip As I mentioned in another post, according to MIT the fuel cell is not viable yet for vehicles, which are the world's worst polluters. Far more efficient Rotary and Stirling diesel and petrol units appear the best options to fill the gap. The Stirling is external combustion, which is much a clean on the burn. Even the Rev Tec Aussie engine, a piston engine, improves thermal efficiency from 25% to over 50%. What you have failed to realise, is that even these are only stopgaps too. It is obvious that I know that, as I have already said that. At the very best, a fuel BURNING engine delivers only 60% efficiency - maybe a little more. The rest is waste heat. If you had goine to a snotty uni, where the theory is taught, you would understand that any heat engine - and all the above are heat engines - has its efficiency dictated by the ratio of the temperature of burn to the echaust temperature. Not quite right. The overall mechanical efficiency of the unit has to be up to it. Also in road engine, the power to weight ratio is one of the most important factors. The big picture is about energy conservation, especially in terms of waste heat, and the irreversible (in the short to medium term) problem if taking fossilised carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the ai r. To solve that you need to - use less. - burn plants you grew last year. - generate power by means that don't generate waste heat OR - use waste heat to replace the use of fuel elsewhere (CHP) ..and use less fuel cleanly. Use of the engines described does not solve any of these apart from, in a minor way, the first. I did say in the short to medium term the diesel and gasoline engines will have to do, but there are far more efficient versions around than the abomination we all currently use. Fuel cells can solve many of the above, but in the end. electricity is bets because it generates very little waste heat when used to generate mechanial motion. It is the loses at generation and transmission losses. This can be reduced by having smaller local power stations, the UK had, using natural, using CHP to heat the local district. The indirect transmision losses involved in shovelling large numbers of loads of small amounts of fuel to thousands of small power stations all over the country are vastly greater than the transmission losses in power cables. Transmission losses then are low and overall energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this. I bet they have not looked carefully enough at the costs and energy efficiencies of such a policy, unless they are in a position in which the fuel is naturally available dispersed all over the country. The issues then become how to generate electricity without using fossil fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but usually use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use a heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power, and woefully inefficient in terms of space used. "woefully inefficient in terms of space used"? You see cows grazing under them. They can be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore all over the UK right now, Out of sight. Sadly, incapable of producing anything more than a negligible amout of power. Water and wave power does neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are even ore woefully inneficient, Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot, You should not use such a meaningless term in a discussion which is more or less scientifically based. Efficiency is defined as power out/power in. There is no room for a subsidiary phrase "per square foot". but have the whole of a south facing roof being a solar panel and the by shear size you have an efficient collector, that will virtually provide all of the houses needs if you can store the heat in a large thermal store Put PV cells on every south facing roof and most of the power generation station will not be needed. The solutions are there. It needs political will to force it through. Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise they would have been in use by more than the afficionados. but there mat be better technology coming.. burning domestc rubbish and biomass is good as it doesn't use (much) fossil fuel - i.,e. it's more or less carbon neutral, but it does tend to need treatement to reduce pollution of toxic flue gasses. There is no easy answer. But simply slightly better heat engines burining fossil fuils are almost the worst of all possible answers. On the domestic and commercial build front, insulation levels to superinsulation, passive solar design of homes, as Germany as doing with Passiv Solar regs, south facing roofs having integrated wet solar/PV cells, boiler with integrated CPH elec/gas Stirling boilers and soon to be introduced. The Stirling CPH boilers cut the peaks of electricity usage. All this is right now, and can and should be implemented. Doing so will drastically cut fuel usage and emissions and prevent fuel poverty. And mo re efficiency is on the way... What looks promising and appear likely to be introduced is the Zeolithe heat pump, which runs on natural gas for the provision of domestic heating and hot water. Currently these units are floor mounted and resemble a typical boiler in appearance. Zeolithe heating appliance's use less energy and are more environment-friendly than electric heat pumps and gas boilers. It provides considerably higher output levels than the current conventional and condensing boilers. Carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by approximately 20 to 30%. On the vehicle side, matters are more complex. Of course, local CHP power stations drip charging electric car overnight is very sensible, but we do not have the infrastructure for this, as yet. Also what do you do in a city, when you car is parked on the road? How do you charge it? You should not have a car if having one means the appropriation of public highway space for your exclusive use. Or do folk who misuse roads in this way pay rent to the local authority? There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline engines around, and are running. These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup. Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency, driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run on non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted heat. The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the starter motor too. And how many folk are gong to be trained to be proficient in servicing such a vastly complicated object? Franz |
|
#65
12-01-2004, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"martin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:37:53 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: I am truly surprised that some such object has not yet been developed. I wonder if anybody has reckoned the energy economics in my case, where I have to take my newspapers and junk mail by car to the nearest collection point. Why don't you compost them? Too much junk, too little garden, too old to shove compost around. Franz |
|
#66
12-01-2004, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in Holland, where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit was also sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent, well above a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically generates electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent". That is typical of an old station running coal or gas, built to 60's standards. Noit a modern set. The report was quite recent, like a couple of years old. *shrug* maybe people aren't too bothered about efficiency and still build cheap gas powered sets. *more shrug* Maybe 60% is reached in the occasional "flagship" power station. I think it is exceptional. [snip] Franz |
|
#67
12-01-2004, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: Hang a cable out of the window, or *gasp* build undergroung parking areas with electrical sockets? If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free? An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for congestion. That is simply not so. With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it would be ideal for rural use and commuting. What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys... Or charge them up in supermarket car parks etc etc. I only go to the supermarket on a day when I can be in and out in an hour. You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need specailsed charging facilities to do it safely. Apart from the fortune needed to buy and replace such a battery for car use. Yes. That is the only issue left IMHO. But I would suspect you would not replace all teh battery - simply those cells that were below standard. That would essentially be the major part of every 'service' |
|
#68
12-01-2004, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... It is the loses at generation and transmission losses. This can be reduced by having smaller local power stations, the UK had them, using natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district. The indirect transmision losses involved in shovelling large numbers of loads of small amounts of fuel to thousands of small power stations all over the country are vastly greater than the transmission losses in power cables. Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines. Transmission losses then are low and overall energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this. I bet they have not looked carefully enough at the costs and energy efficiencies of such a policy, unless they are in a position in which the fuel is naturally available dispersed all over the country. The last time I looked, there were highly viable. The issues then become how to generate electricity without using fossil fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but usually use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use a heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power, and woefully inefficient in terms of space used. "woefully inefficient in terms of space used"? You see cows grazing under them. They can be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore all over the UK right now, Out of sight. Sadly, incapable of producing anything more than a negligible amout of power. The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too. Water and wave power does neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are even ore woefully inneficient, Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot, You should not use such a meaningless term in a discussion which is more or less scientifically based. ??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very" expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient. Efficiency is defined as power out/power in. There is no room for a subsidiary phrase "per square foot". You should understand how flat plate collectors work. but have the whole of a south facing roof being a solar panel and the by shear size you have an efficient collector, that will virtually provide all of the houses needs if you can store the heat in a large thermal store Put PV cells on every south facing roof and most of the power generation station will not be needed. The solutions are there. It needs political will to force it through. Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise they would have been in use by more than the afficionados. The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is feasible. It is the kick-start that is required. There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline engines around, and are running. These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup. Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency, driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run on non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted heat. The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the starter motor too. And how many folk are gong to be trained to be proficient in servicing such a vastly complicated object? Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less complicated than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004 |
|
#69
12-01-2004, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in Holland, where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit was also sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent, well above a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically generates electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent". That is typical of an old station running coal or gas, built to 60's standards. Noit a modern set. The report was quite recent, like a couple of years old. *shrug* maybe people aren't too bothered about efficiency and still build cheap gas powered sets. *more shrug* Maybe 60% is reached in the occasional "flagship" power station. I think it is exceptional. The point is that it is achievable. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004 |
|
#70
12-01-2004, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
Franz Heymann wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message *shrug* maybe people aren't too bothered about efficiency and still build cheap gas powered sets. *more shrug* Maybe 60% is reached in the occasional "flagship" power station. I think it is exceptional. Yes, but in the conxtext of hugely expensive and very new technology fuel cells, one should compare like with like. ould it coset less to build a 60% efficint CCP or a 40% efficient fuel cell station? Remember that the fuel cell produces DC, which needs to be chopped and flitered to feed the grid. Or a rotary conertor. All this adds to teh cost as well. I hope we do see cheap efficient fuel cells, but they have been around snce the 60's AFAICR, and never caught on. Lithium cells have obnly really been devleoped in teh tast ten years or so, and have swept the marjket where their cots/weiht/energy profiles havce made them 'the best in class' [snip] Franz |
|
#71
12-01-2004, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"Franz wrote in message after me... [snip] Much more efficient to burn the hydrogen in a reciprocating (or rotary) engine than to convert it through a fuel cell to run an electric motor, though electrically propelled vehicles do have the potential to convert the slowing down process back into usable power. Totally wrong, and ever heard of regenerative braking, Evidently he had, as evinced in the paragraph you described as "totally wrong". The rotary engines we have developed have all proved less efficient in practice than the old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption) which is why only Mazda persist with them and then in only one vehicle in their range. Controlling pollution from them has been a major problem too. Fuel Cells (chemical batteries) are much more efficient at converting chemical energy to electricity than burning it in any way, be it steam powered turbines or reciprocating engines. It's why it is expected that Power Generation will follow the Fuel Cell route idc. As far as regenerative braking is concerned he mentioned Electrically Propelled Vehicles, I've not seen a normal coach powered in such a way. Normal diesel engined coaches have had brake generators for years. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars 359 data units completed. |
|
#72
12-01-2004, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free? An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for congestion. That is simply not so. With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it would be ideal for rural use and commuting. Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than breeding flying pigs. 2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up. Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJoules in 300 miles. Recharging that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda. 2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to a detectable degree. You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need specailsed charging facilities to do it safely. You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the reasons that they are expensive. Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group? Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
|
#73
12-01-2004, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... The rotary engines we have developed have all proved less efficient in practice than the old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption) which is why only Mazda persist with them and then in only one vehicle in their range. Controlling pollution from them has been a major problem too. Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here. The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225 HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that. Also these engines are physically small with a very high power to weight ratio. They are best suited to high revving applications. That is why they are used in light aircraft. The Norton motorbike rotary (which improved the design too) was sold of to two concerns. One makes it for light aircraft and the other for target drone aircraft, requiring a small heat and sound signature, which end up at the bottom of the sea. The Russians make two rotary engines: one for a plane and the other is used (well two of them) in a helicopter, which is an ideal application for this unit. The "Wankle" design of rotary is flawed to what is acheivable, (Wankle never invented the rotary) and far newer and improved designs are in development. Again the Russians just reversed an idea that is the reverse of the wankel. Instead of an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse. The seals are in the engine block, and can be readily and super easily changed if necessary. The mixed gas input is via the rotor, which is the equivalent of injecting the mixture via the piston in a piston engine. The Canadians have the Qusiturboine, a sort of rotary and turbine together which has received good press. Here are some web sites on concept engines and some that are in development http://conceptengine.tripod.com/ http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/ All it needs is a big maker to adopt one of the concepts and run with it. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004 |
|
#74
12-01-2004, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free? An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for congestion. That is simply not so. With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it would be ideal for rural use and commuting. Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than breeding flying pigs. 2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up. Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJoules in 300 miles. Recharging that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda. 2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to a detectable degree. You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need specailsed charging facilities to do it safely. You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the reasons that they are expensive. Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group? Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
|
#75
12-01-2004, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free? An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for congestion. That is simply not so. With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it would be ideal for rural use and commuting. Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than breeding flying pigs. 2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up. Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJoules in 300 miles. Recharging that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda. 2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to a detectable degree. You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need specailsed charging facilities to do it safely. You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the reasons that they are expensive. Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group? Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Moss/Lichen on roof | United Kingdom | |||
| Moss/Lichen on roof (was:victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?) | United Kingdom | |||
| Moss/Lichen on roof (was:victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?) | United Kingdom | |||
| [IBC] Air pollution (Lichen or knot) | Bonsai | |||
Linear Mode
