|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
It IS Apples to Apples, the only important factors are Fuel IN and Energy OUT.
You could compare a wind turbine to five guys pulling a rope.
You are essentially correct about the Earth's magnetic field being too weak. Actually diffuse would be a better word, the total field has a massive power output. Various schemes have been tried, but SFAIK no one has effectively used this field for propulsion, at least not on the surface of the planet.
Oh yes, you spelled "condescending" wrong. My ex always used to say "condenscending", which annoyed the hell out of me. How many times do you have to explain that you cannot spend $350 when you have $200 in the bank? There comes a point when correction becomes so necessary that you no longer care how you are perceived.
I prefer to call it being brutally honest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
It IS Apples to Apples, the only important factors are Fuel IN and Energy OUT.
But you didn't give me any numbers to backup how much fuel went in versus how much energy came out. If I put a bunch of fuel into a inefficient process ... it wouldn't matter if it was "bigger" if a smaller process was using a more efficient means of generating the energy.
I could have 100 people rub sweaters together to generate static electricity, to charge a battery, that would run a motor that would pull 100 cars up a hill ... Does that mean it's automatically more efficient than having 100 people just push their car up a hill?
I know gasoline powered engines are more efficient than a steam powered turbines ... otherwise we'd all be driving Stanley Steamers and steam locomotives. I also know that supplying electricity on a power-grid, pushing an electric charge across powerlines, charging a battery, and holding a charge all cause small percentage loss of energy, where as putting a driveshaft on an engine is a direct transfer of power. So to me, it just didn't seem logical to say ... "well it's bigger, it has to be more efficient", and I've never seen any numbers to show otherwise, till now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
(a) it isn't like EPA emissions standards were created under the Kings watch - put some some blame on whomever forgot to take that into consideration in the first place. As well, put some blame on whomever created the standards and the inflexibility of them.
(b) in addition to some additional domestic drilling, we NEED viable alternative energies
(c) remember those BILLIONS that the oil companies are spending to find oil - well they're pocketing multiple times that and not paying taxes on it. I'm sure that is the King's fault too
a = The King just a week or so ago laid out his "Plan" to fix the problem. That "plan" is the same old crap that many President's have spewed for years. He can fix it...or at least help reduce the burden that gas prices are putting on the middle and lower classes...yet HE is choosing not to fix the problem. Actually, he is making it worse by limiting drilling permits and his various unconstitutional moratoriums on offshore drilling.
Let's blame Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and George Washington. None of those guys are in position RIGHT NOW to do anything about it.
Think of all the stupid economy-crushing things that the King had to have RIGHT NOW...that he got. But we are supposed to wait a decade or longer...again...to maybe...maybe...have a viable alternative to gasoline?
The King's leadership in this regard has been woeful and par for the course for him.
b = We've been hearing talk of alternate sources of energy for the past 40 years. We DO need alternate sources...however, that effort is secondary to reducing the burden being forced upon our citizens RIGHT NOW. Ethanol is not the answer...yet is another favorite of the King.
Let's drill like mad on our own land...build three new refineries...AND get cracking on wind and solar and fuel cells and such. Starting RIGHT NOW.
c= Exactly who is Mr. or Mrs. BP? or Shell? Those are companies that are owned by shareholders...so who exactly is "pocketing" the money? If the company pays dividends to the shareholders they are doing their job. If the company keeps the money and turns that money into even more money...then they are doing their job.
I hear that all the time and wonder just who's pockets people think are being filled?
If the King wants to stop the tax-free nature of big oil activities, he could have done that when in charge of the House & Senate...he chose not too...the fault is now his.
Yet he was going to be different?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
This is a blatant case of someone using a technicality to stifle and shut down the operation. If someone were to dig, they'd probably find a money trail back to some lobbyists, probably the Environmentalists or the Saudi's or something like that. Quote:
The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator.
That stinks something fierce... and only four people are in charge of making that decision? And one is an activist herself??
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Here are the 4 people who sit on the Environmental Appeals Board for the EPA... web page
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Yup, sure stinks to me. Quote:
Judge Stein served as Director of EPA's RCRA and Air Enforcement divisions within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and as Acting Regional Counsel for EPA Region III
How much you want to bet that she dug up the sticking point to block this based on the supposed air emissions of a single vessel out at sea?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
No, incorrect Again, steam turbines are more efficient than gasoline engines. You do not have one in your car because the boiler is too heavy and sometimes explodes, they take too long to warm up, and in order to work well they really need to be large. How many really large gasoline engines have you seen that do not need to be portable?
Also, they run best at a constant velocity, making them unsuited for personal vehicles.
Take a wild guess what type of engine most large ships use.
The transfer of energy in your car is not perfect, as you seem to think it is. Touch a driveshaft sometime, you will notice it is HOT. That heat comes from friction, which is a loss of energy. Also, you may notice that quite frequently, the engine is running but the driveshaft is not turning, that is total wasted power.
I don't happen to have the figures handy to demonstrate basic facts that you should have learned in high school. I've seen the breakdowns enough times, and understand the underlying principles well enough, to know that it is true.
Look it up, Google it, RTFM. Get yourself some accurate information, and if your ideas came from a particular source, stop listening and tell others to do so, as well. You "know" a whole bunch of totally incorrect stuff.
In terms of efficiency, bigger is ALMOST ALWAYS better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Take a wild guess what type of engine most large ships use.
Um, Diesel? It's not a boiler though, so what's your point? Many are diesel electic so they aren't dead in the water if the engine breaks down.
Quote:
The transfer of energy in your car is not perfect, as you seem to think it is.
Never said it would ... all that driveshaft friction and loss of energy would apply also to electric motors driving the car as well. I get your point about powerbands and idling though.
Quote:
I don't happen to have the figures handy to demonstrate basic facts that you should have learned in high school. I've seen the breakdowns enough times, and understand the underlying principles well enough, to know that it is true.
Ah yes ... the "I know it's true", I can't explain to you why or back it up with hard data, but you're dumber than a high schooler if you don't agree with me defense. Thanks. 
Quote:
Look it up, Google it, RTFM. Get yourself some accurate information, and if your ideas came from a particular source, stop listening and tell others to do so, as well. You "know" a whole bunch of totally incorrect stuff.
I did and there's not much other there. The best I could do was some number crunching on some loose values. Judging by the number of barrels of oil used and the total output of electricity of all US Petroleum powerplants. I came out to around 900kw generated per barrel of oil which if you apply it to a Chevy Volt ... works out to about 2400 miles per barrel. Gasoline works out to around 700 miles per barrel for a similar type car.
Of course that 2400 is assuming that 100% of the power generated is distributed from the power plant (which is never the case) ... that none of it is lost passing through Transformers ... none of it lost through resistance on power lines ... all of it goes to your car battery on charge ... and none of it is wasted through friction within the car mechanics that you mentioned. The 700 mpb already takes all of that into account, so I'm not sure how close the two numbers really are. I'm gonna assume it's safe to say that it doesn't lose 70% and will be more efficient. ... that's all I needed.
Quote:
In terms of efficiency, bigger is ALMOST ALWAYS better.
... if you are talking about the same system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Well, some do use diesel electric, though most are steam turbines. However, the reason has nothing to do with being able to move if the engine breaks down, because they can't. There is no storage system, engine breaks down, ship stops.
No driveshaft in an electric car, most are direct drive to the wheels. No gears or transmission, either. Power-wasting assemblies are eliminated.
The reason diesel electric is used is related to the RPM efficiency I mentioned earlier. Also, electric motors can easily change speed without extensive gearing.
For very large ships, the steam turbine is still the preferred power plant, as you get bigger, it becomes more efficient compared to other systems. Also fewer moving parts, able to handle different fuels, etc.
I have tried to explain the facts to you, however with so many incorrect pre-existing assumptions I can understand how you are having difficulty. You were given a complete breakdown, numbers and all, which was much more informational than what you were apparently able to find on your own. Did you forget that, decide you didn't like it, or what?
I am not interested in doing your research for you. I have already put in that time and effort. Do it yourself, and if you come up with more areas wherein you disagree with what I have said, let me know and I will show you where you have gone wrong.
When I state that "I know it's true", this is not a guess or something somebody's cousin told me. It is because I have looked at the hard data, analysed it, run the math, Double-checked, referenced against opposing ideas, Analysed the motivations of the people involved, cross-checked against other sources, and/or combined that with direct, personal experience.
I question EVERYTHING, and remember things I read 40 years ago. THIS is why I KNOW that power plants are more efficient that car engines, that steam turbines are more efficient than car engines, and that diesel-electirc systems have no power storage capability. Along with a truly amazing amount of other info, some of it useful and interesting, much of it not.
The family joke is that I read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica by the time I was 8 years old. This is not true; I was 9 and I stopped at Q.
It does happen that I am wrong but it is exceedingly rare.
Last edited by Nelson37; 04/26/11 07:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Well, some do use diesel electric, though most are steam turbines. However, the reason has nothing to do with being able to move if the engine breaks down, because they can't. There is no storage system, engine breaks down, ship stops.
No driveshaft in an electric car, most are direct drive to the wheels. No gears or transmission, either. Power-wasting assemblies are eliminated.
The reason diesel electric is used is related to the RPM efficiency I mentioned earlier. Also, electric motors can easily change speed without extensive gearing.
For very large ships, the steam turbine is still the preferred power plant, as you get bigger, it becomes more efficient compared to other systems. Also fewer moving parts, able to handle different fuels, etc.
I have tried to explain the facts to you, however with so many incorrect pre-existing assumptions I can understand how you are having difficulty. You were given a complete breakdown, numbers and all, which was much more informational than what you were apparently able to find on your own. Did you forget that, decide you didn't like it, or what?
I am not interested in doing your research for you. I have already put in that time and effort. Do it yourself, and if you come up with more areas wherein you disagree with what I have said, let me know and I will show you where you have gone wrong.
When I state that "I know it's true", this is not a guess or something somebody's cousin told me. It is because I have looked at the hard data, analysed it, run the math, Double-checked, referenced against opposing ideas, Analysed the motivations of the people involved, cross-checked against other sources, and/or combined that with direct, personal experience.
I question EVERYTHING, and remember things I read 40 years ago. THIS is why I KNOW that power plants are more efficient that car engines, that steam turbines are more efficient than car engines, and that diesel-electirc systems have no power storage capability. Along with a truly amazing amount of other info, some of it useful and interesting, much of it not.
The family joke is that I read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica by the time I was 8 years old. This is not true; I was 9 and I stopped at Q.
It does happen that I am wrong but it is exceedingly rare.
Even with the better efficiency(power-wise), you are still pushing the pollution to different locations besides out of the car/vehicle. There a lot of other parts n an EC that causes environmental harm.
A lot of people overlook the batteries, which have plenty of toxic chemicals/metals within them, the fact that you need to "mine" these chemicals/metals and at some point you will need to dispose of them when they get old or damaged in say an accident.
EC's only shift the problem around and with the limited range, it is not feasible for many.
Maybe the technology will advance further in the future, but as of now, it still isn't there. Though there is some hope on the horizon, but that might turn out to be a pipe dream.
As far as the world cares today, it is driven by oil. Even if a new better technology pops overnight, it'll still be driven by oil until the masses can afford it. New tech = Higher prices. Only those with money will be able to afford the new tech. The problem is that people also want to drive the price of using the old tech up as well to give disincentives to use it. That only leads to the rich being able to afford to drive and buy things like food.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The EPA needs to be
"reformed"...this is just stupid
|
|
