Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Niven at his best is compelling, but some of his books "footfall" and "lucifers hammer" for example, are the worst kind of survivalist, crypto-fascist literary wish fulfillment. Anyway, the book was Friday. Yeah, this housebrick sized thing wasn't a power source, it was an energy repository. I know someone who builds composite flywheels that spin in vacuum on magnetic frictionless bearings. Now those things have incredible efficiency for storage (70%+ of energy in retrieved usefully), but they're not terrifically portable unless you want to go very slowly in a straight line, aligned with the earths rotation. It turns out that storing the energy isn't actually that hard, it's releasing it in a controlled and useful manner that's the tricky part. I always did wonder just how terrifically funny a flywheel could be then I heard about the Australian accident they had with one that burst it's bearings. Very messy.... Pumped storage is of course about the same level - but even less portable, even if you do align it with the Earth... I reckon if you said that all wind and nuclear had to have a pumped storage attachement to allow them to play nicer you'd lose all those blasted windmills overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Neither do you it seems. Those I knew whom would get it - and those whom I was replying to are the ones listed. They are the people who have demonstrated a background in science and I responded appropriately to Truman, who quite clearly did get what I was say. If I'd been replying to you, it would have been different. The simple fact though is that you don't have the background in science for whatever reason and for equally unfathomable reasons you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about that which seems to be the size of a small car. That's your problem, not mine. Deal with it. It's been a long held belief that intellectually superior people seem to be totally bereft of any social graces and have to resort to techno-babble in order to demonstrate their self held belief in their own superiority. I don't understand why in post No 6 (and others) you say it's completely pointless producing petrol from air. It's a pointless idea Yet in post No138 you change your tune somewhat, after spending most of the thread trying to make me look a fool for thinking it's a good idea! For a pilot stage plant it's good enough I guess. It still feels like an answer looking for a question though except in very niche markets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think it’s one of many good ideas worthy of further investigation, because not only does it make storable fuel, it removed CO2 from the atmosphere, OK it’s too expensive for now but they will hopefully get the cost down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think it’s one of many good ideas worthy of further investigation, because not only does it make storable fuel, it removed CO2 from the atmosphere, OK it’s too expensive for now but they will hopefully get the cost down. Infinitely worthy of further development I would have thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Infinitely worthy of further development I would have thought! I think it’s down to some people knowing enough about science to understand that it’s too expensive, but not enough about science to understand the boffins will likely solve that problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The you use that and lose even more of the energy..you've put 100 units into the start..lost 65 at the power station then lost about another 28 with this process..you end up with 7% of the original energy..possibly And the ICE is only about 40% efficient I believe, so you then up with about 3% of the original potential. I don't know which way were going (otherwise I'd be very rich), either hydrogen or battery, both have their problems and flaws. I still think this could be a potential stepping stone or even alternative to those, but the efficiency would need to be improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Niven at his best is compelling, but some of his books "footfall" and "lucifers hammer" for example, are the worst kind of survivalist, crypto-fascist literary wish fulfillment. Survivalist stories are good fun sometimes. Anyway, the book was Friday. Yeah, this housebrick sized thing wasn't a power source, it was an energy repository. Not described though, it's just a black box by the sounds of it. Desktop sized cold fusion, that's what we need. Every vehicle and house completely self reliant (in terms of power anyway). The 'grid' can be done away with and civilisation becomes massively more redundant. I know someone who builds composite flywheels that spin in vacuum on magnetic frictionless bearings. Now those things have incredible efficiency for storage (70%+ of energy in retrieved usefully), but they're not terrifically portable unless you want to go very slowly in a straight line, aligned with the earths rotation. F1 cars use similar tech for their energy recovery, I assume they orient the disk such that it doesn't inhibit turning horizontally but instead acts against vertical turning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 It's been a long held belief that intellectually superior people seem to be totally bereft of any social graces and have to resort to techno-babble in order to demonstrate their self held belief in their own superiority. Held by who? I don't understand why in post No 6 (and others) you say it's completely pointless producing petrol from air. You can see that there isn't complete agreement on that, I'm not quite convinced either way. What it isn't though is a good source of energy in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think it’s one of many good ideas worthy of further investigation, because not only does it make storable fuel, it removed CO2 from the atmosphere, OK it’s too expensive for now but they will hopefully get the cost down. At the cost of generating more CO2 than is removed in a power station... At the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Held by who? You can see that there isn't complete agreement on that, I'm not quite convinced either way. What it isn't though is a good source of energy in the first place. If you've never come across anyone who was very intelligent, but socially inept, you've lived a very sheltered life I'm afraid. For instance, if you mention something I don't understand, having crossed swords in previous threads, I know you're only too happy to explain it in laymans terms. That makes you different. I agree it isn't a complete solution, and contrary to the claim in the first link, it isn't the complete answer to our energy problems. But to reject it out of hand, as 'pointless', and then later to move positions after trying to make me look a fool...That's what I object to, and I will bite back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.