Re: F**K!

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:05 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:17 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:48 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
And like I
suggested elsewhere some of the tax should be returned in
the
form
of
credits toward insolation and/or some new form of heat.
Geothermal
heat pumps cost more initally but use a lot less energy to
heat
a
home.

Show me the numbers on system costs including inefficiency at
the
power generator.

Not tonight.

And not ever I suspect.

I can do it sometime if you are really interested. A geothermal
system will save most anyone in a cold region money in the long
run.
I intend to go that route myself in the next few years.

If you don't know the numbers then how do you know that it's
going
to
save anything?

I didn't say that I don't know the numbers, I said that I wasn't
going
to bother posting them for you.

Check this site out.

http://geoexchange.us/

Then take a look at your own numbers, they will be differnt from
mine.

Not interested in sales pitches from shill groups.





<snip>

There would be nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, tidal, and
geothermal.
The geothermal is not the heat pumps above but power produced
using
geothermal heat. There are dozens of plants being built out west
and
there are plenty of potential sites to build many more. It gives
power 24/7 and I haven't heard of any complaints from the
greenies
yet.

You haven't? Look harder. They're whining like crazy about it in
Hawaii. Seems that it's destroying some swamp or some such (I let
one
rant on for a while but never quite got what he was on about, he
seemed pretty incensed though).

Yes, I'm sure you can find people complaining about any power
source
under the right circumstances. I don't know about the particular
plant you are talking about, but if there is a problem with the
particular site they should build it somewhere else. The whole
island
is a hot spot. They could build the plant somewher less offensive
to
the greenies. They don't have a problem with geothermal on basic
principal like they do with other power sources. Geothermal is
clean
and the plants can be made pretty inconspicuous if need be.
Building
in Yellowstone Park would not be a good idea either since you know
who
would get blamed if Old Faithful came up late.

It's only environmentally friendly until it's in sufficiently
widespread use for the problems to be discovered.

Now, how many sites are suitable for geothermal and how much
power
can be gotten from them?

Have a look for yourself.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html

Most any of the dark red areas will work easy. The orange and
yellow
areas are more of a challenge but can be made to work.

Yeah, and we need lots and lots of power plants in the Rockies.

The coast of California is in the Rockies? Between the red and
orange
about a third of the country qualifies as potential sites and you
don't think there are enough. Even if the only sites were in the
Rockies, you don't think there are a few energy intensive businesses
out there that might think it worth their while to move to a
location
where they had an almost unlimited source of nearly free energy?

The coast of California does not appear to be in a "red or orange
area".

As for "moving to a location where they had an almost unlimited source
of nearly free energy", a few might move, but have you SEEN the
Rockies? It's not an area conducive to bulding exensive industrial
facilities unless you're into blasting away whole mountains.

This site has a write up on equipment that can produce power when
there is a 100 F temperture difference.

http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/

The yellow area on the map has a low end temp of 100 C or 212 F so
it
will work just about anywhere in the US. Back in the 1970's the
OTEC
project was making power from warm and cool sea water with a
temperture difference of just under 40 F degrees.

Sure you can make power at tiny efficiency, resulting in massive
plants for the power to be derived and thus huge costs.

That might apply to the 40 degree difference, but not so much to a
150
degree difference. That installation shown here

http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/

uses 165 F water and the equipment seems reasonable enough. They
give
a maintenance cost of 1 cent per KW hr. Sure beats the 30 cents per
KW hr they used to pay for diesel.

Efficiency remains low, so size per unit output has to remain large.
This is a basic law of thermodynamics that you can't work around with
cleverness and bullshit. The lower the temperature differential the
lower the efficiency.

From the web site that you keep linking "Two well-known manufacturers
of binary ORC systems for geothermal applications were approached in
2002 and 2003 about designing a system for Chena Hot Springs. One
manufacturer declined the opportunity due to the low resource
temperature, and the second manufacturer was more than willing to
build a one of a kind system for Chena, however the cost
per kW output would be very high.

In 2004, Chena Hot Springs was presented with a new opportunity of
working with United Technologies Corporation (UTC) to demonstrate
their existing PureCycle technology on the geothermal resource at
Chena. UTC was awarded funding from the Department of Energy to
complete design work on the system, and the power plant modules were
designed, assembled, and tested at UTRC in Hartford, Connecticut
beginning in late 2004. The first unit (ORC1)underwent 1000 hours of
qualification testing before being disassembled and shipped to Chena
Hot Springs. The second unit (ORC2) was partially assembled but not
tested before being sent to Chena several months later."

In other words the only reason that it was cost effective was that
they got a government grant. Which reinforces my point. Yeah, you
can get energy out of low temperature differentials, but it's not
cheap to build the facility to do it. Further, that was a very small
scale plant--how will it scale?

Then there's the refrigerant issue--such low differential facilities
require R134a, which is a greenhouse gas the banning of which has
already been proposed--the ban was defeated because right now
relatively little of it is used. If in fact it is banned at some
point _then_ what happens to all of your nice little geothermal
plants?

Want more maps? Here are some good ones.

http://www.smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/2004NAmap.htm

Shows the same as the other, best places for geothermal are where
there is the lowest need for power. There are also problems with
the
terrain.


Which terrain would that be? It covers all kinds.

Actually, it covers mostly relatively new mountains, or, more
precisely, is covered by them.

Wind the same. And the greenies don't like wind anymore, at least
not
if they have to look at the windmills.

Might want to run the numbers on electric space heating by the
way.

Why? It makes far more sense to use that electricity to power a
heat
pump that provides 3 or 4 times as much heat as the electric
energy
that you put in.

3 or 4 times as much? That's a mighty damned efficient heat pump.
Now, how much of the energy of the fuel you are consuming goes
into
electricity?

Enough saving the world for now, I'm headed down to the bar
to
get
some ethanol :)

Be sure to get good and drunk.

Not drunk enough. You're still hear when I open my eyes ;)

Good night for now.

Actually I was kind of hoping that I wouldn't have to hear you
anymore.

Don't answer my post and I won't respond to you.

I was hoping for a more permanent solution.

You could try blowing your brains out ;)

BTW, have you found the EIC on you tax form yet mister know it
all?

What about it?

You kept insisting that no such thin existed.

I'm sorry, but your saying "EIC" with no context is kind of like
shouting "badger". If you have some point with regard to it, please
make it.

And you have still not addressed the effect of your proposed tax on
commerce. What do you think is going to be the effect on US exports,
when the price of our goods, which are already expensive compared to
those produced by many other nations, suddently skyrockets due to
increased energy and transportation costs? And how about the effect
on tourism? And then there's the little oddity that it will be much
cheaper to come _to_ the US than it will be to _leave_ the US since
ships and planes will be fueled in the US with your high-tax fuel but
won't be when they are going the other way. The same applies to
imported vs exported goods. So again you're reducing the mobility of
the populace and you haven't addressed _that_ issue either.

Sorry, Bruce but your continued refusal to even attempt to discuss the
effects of your proposed tax on businesses seems to me like you're
burying your head in the sand. You're so in love with your stupid
idea that you don't even want to _think_ about the possibility that it
might make things worse for everybody.

It will likely kill Harley. Nobody in the US will be able to afford
to ride anything bigger than a Vespa and nobody elsewhere will be able
to afford to buy a Harley when they cost several times what a BMW does
(and as sales decline and they lose economies of scale the
differential will get higher and higher) and so they go under.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obliterating the Rocket Equation with a Torusail
    ... > If we're talking about a future where fusion power ... Most of the proposed energy comes from He3 and 3H ... > conversion is the same as a traditional heat engine. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Obliterating the Rocket Equation with a Torusail
    ... >>to tritium which instantly fuses with deuterium (producing ... assumptions that D-D fusion is a viable power source. ... >as a fuel deuterium has the highest energy per unit mass ... >>conversion is the same as a traditional heat engine. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Nuclear energy cant solve global warming
    ... > nucler heat into steam??? ... > on other power sources in the same time ... >>> plus its a very wasterful energy process... ... >> 800 degrees and drop it in five gallons of water, ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: New computer Linux memoquestion
    ... It doesn't matter if the energy is used to push electrons through a light-bulb ... filament or a transistor -- either way it all ends up as heat. ... discharging capacitance within the chip takes power. ... First of all, yes, forcing atoms ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Free electricity is not cheap
    ... He certainly did not know about fusion energy, this was not worked out until ... These "Teslas" are said to be under development by the Tesla company, ... "Free" Electricity ... hidden power of the Universe. ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)