Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216128@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:43:08 -0700
On Aug 17, 4:14 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <fa4uou01...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
On Aug 17, 6:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
And why run hybrids? Natural gas runs internal combustion engines
just fine. The problem there is that if the tank is not designed
into the vehicle then it usually doesn't leave much storage space.
The previous poster had suggested EVs. I don't think
EV technology is there yet. I suggested hybrids because
they're more fuel efficient than an IC engine alone, particularly
when engine load's are low, as in urban driving.
Fuel cells work fine.
Not sure whether fuel cells would work better with
storage or not. The whole idea of a hybrid is to use
storage to buffer the difference between driving
demands and optimum running of the powerplant.
Ideally, you want to be running an IC engine at ~50%
or better of full load. Don't know any of the fuel cell
curves but suspect that you might be able to fit a
smaller one if you added storage for the occasional
burst of accelleration.
What would be the point of that? I can see using a battery for
regenerative braking, but a fuel cell produces electricity directly--I
don't see anything that would be gained by using it to charge a battery.
A fuel cell is just a different technology for a box that you connect to
fat electrical leads to so you can put electrical energy into it and get
it back out with reasonable efficiency.
The Toyota Prius has a tiny little IC engine in it and an electric
motor. If you romp on the accelerator, it uses both of them to go
faster. When you coast downhill, it shuts off the IC engine and uses
regenerative braking to charge up the batteries, which could just as
well be fuel cells.
<snip>
So it's a blindingly stupid feelgood idea to suggest something
moves several orders of magnitude too slowly to solve the
problem it's proposed for.
How is it "moving several orders of magnitude too slowly to solve the
problem"? The problem is that we want to put it somewhered where we
won't see it again. Putting it under ten miles of rock and sea water in
an area where it isn't going to go anywhere but down does that.
If we put it in a subduction zone, what mechanism do you envision that
will result in its returning prematurely from that subduction zone?
Well, you need to calculate the rate at which granite gets returned to
the surface through island arc and other volcanoes.
More importantly, subduction zones have magnitude 8 and 9
quakes, as evidenced by the morning news recently.
People who are burying waste, (the Swedes for example)
pick stable rather than unstable rock for obvious reasons.
Also, since a typical subduction rate is centimeters
per year, don't hold your breath waiting for any subduction
help in your efforts to bury stuff. At the rate of a couple meters
per century, it's going nowhere fast. Compared to
a moho, subduction is a peeho in the snow.
Has anybody made a serious proposal that we do this ?
I very much doubt it. More internet foolishness I suspect.
.
- References:
- OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rayvan
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: BryanUT
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rayvan
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rob Kleinschmidt
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Russell Watson
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rob Kleinschmidt
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Calgary
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rob Kleinschmidt
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rob Kleinschmidt
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Rob Kleinschmidt
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- From: Timberwoof
- OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- Next by Date: Re: late 80's dual purpose Yamaha with an rz350 engine?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- Next by thread: Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading