maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 1000 tonnes of petrol is about 1,400,000 litres btw. Energy is measured in joules, not watts - power is measured in watts. A litre of petrol is about 44MJ - so 1000 tonnes is about 61TJ all told. Supply 3GW for 24 hours, thats 3GJ per second, so 260TJ of energy supplied. I did the same calculation much earlier in the thread and got the same result. So that 6 times less out than in. How does that compare to a battery, what do you get out compared to what goes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Wrong again. Read up on the scientific method. And the scientific method of stopping the Russians fxxxing us into a cocked hat is what? Not energy efficient. Understood. This is not a purely scientific debate and you've insulted posters repeatedly from early in the thread pretending it is. Economics and politics come into it and you need to reign your horns in and understand that and stop insulting fellow posters based on your expertise in one of the many aspects this broad issue has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Then perhaps you can tell the other posters to quit insulting me and wind their horns in, along with yourself. I've been detailing the economic and political case as well in case you hadn't noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 So that 6 times less out than in. How does that compare to a battery, what do you get out compared to what goes in. That depends greatly on the battery of course, and the manner in which it's used. Note that the energy available from the fuel above isnt the amount that can be used - a car engine will get perhaps a third to a quarter of that which makes it worse. A battery and motor system is about 60% efficient from converting grid power to motion. An Otto cycle petrol engine (as opposed to others like a Prius Atkinson cycle) is much less, about 25% efficient. So in this case you would have an efficieny of one quarter of one sixth - about 4-5% as opposed to 60% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Then perhaps you can tell the other posters to quit insulting me and wind their horns in, along with yourself. I've been detailing the economic and political case as well in case you hadn't noticed. No you haven't. You have been very arrogant. You have failed to provide any specifics as to economics or financials other that vague attribution which in the scientific you have dismissed as appalling guesswork. I appreciate your scientific input and probably everyone would had you not been so arrogant. Your input as to financials and politics has been minimal at best and of little use. So best to understand you are not expert in those matters so trying to falsely convey expertise in one aspect to another does not engender respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 No you haven't. You have been very arrogant. You have failed to provide any specifics as to economics or financials other that vague attribution which in the scientific you have dismissed as appalling guesswork. I appreciate your scientific input and probably everyone would had you not been so arrogant. Your input as to financials and politics has been minimal at best and of little use. So best to understand you are not expert in those matters so trying to falsely convey expertise in one aspect to another does not engender respect. I'd have thought that suggesting we use the input energy in a more efficient manner, as Obelix has, made both financial and political sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 No you haven't. You have been very arrogant. You have failed to provide any specifics as to economics or financials other that vague attribution which in the scientific you have dismissed as appalling guesswork. I appreciate your scientific input and probably everyone would had you not been so arrogant. Your input as to financials and politics has been minimal at best and of little use. So best to understand you are not expert in those matters so trying to falsely convey expertise in one aspect to another does not engender respect. Perception's a funny old thing, isn't it? I've been following this thread with interest, both personal and professional, since the first post and, though Obelix expressed his opinion of the process early on, his posts were largely scientific in nature and in no way attacking Pete or any other posters until Pete started with the jibes in post 12 and 21 and began arguing the toss about a subject in which he, clearly, lacks knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 No you haven't. You have been very arrogant. You have failed to provide any specifics as to economics or financials other that vague attribution which in the scientific you have dismissed as appalling guesswork. I appreciate your scientific input and probably everyone would had you not been so arrogant. Your input as to financials and politics has been minimal at best and of little use. So best to understand you are not expert in those matters so trying to falsely convey expertise in one aspect to another does not engender respect. Perception's a funny old thing, isn't it? I've been following this thread with interest, both personal and professional, since the first post and, though Obelix expressed his opinion of the process early on, his posts were largely scientific in nature and in no way attacking Pete or any other posters until Pete started with the jibes in post 12 and 21 and began arguing the toss about a subject in which he, clearly, lacks knowledge. Yep it was post #12 that started it I think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I'd have thought that suggesting we use the input energy in a more efficient manner, as Obelix has, made both financial and political sense... You have made that point very well without insults. You have also accepted the many situations where energy transfer to other storage methods than electricity can be both worthwhile and economic. He hasn't, he's stuck to insulting the OP based on his superior scientific knowledge. Bad form on his part and unneeded insults to PeteMorris who has opened up a very interesting debate on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Looks like I was right in my first post then. I prefer the Spanish method of turning sea water, CO2, plankton and sun light into oil and they can already produce significantly more than a litre a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.