It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Green Movement, Toyota Prius, an Endtime Sign

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vonholland
never thought of it that way. S+F.

so hydrogen guy, if i took a week off work to have you rebuild my engine into hydrogen powered, could you do it and for how much?


Friend, it's not about a rebuild. Type "Water Powered Car" in the search engine. Or, look here at these:
www.gear6.net...

waterpoweredcar.com...

As for doing the job for you, nothing doing. This is a do it yourself project. If you are willing to U2 me your email, I will send you the files for the model we are working on. BTW, I paid $50 for these plans, and they will work to build a working unit.




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Here is the fatal flaw with electric cars. The Power Grid, and what is used to make the electric power. I live in Southern Ohio, our electric power comes from AEP. www.aep.com...
Most of the power comes from burning coal. Ever seen coal burn? It is not a clean burning fuel, and I know about how the Germans did it, so don't go there. It burns dirty, and produces dangerous chemicals that are released into the air, and by the way, take a little trip and see what the land looks like after the coal companies get finished with it.....
www.smithsonianmag.com...
www.onearth.org...

How Important is Coal in Generating Electricity?

Very important. More than half of the electricity in the country is generated using coal. (See the Power Generation Chart below.)www.bydesign.com...

Study: Electric cars not as green as you think
news.cnet.com...

Coal Power
www.wikinvest.com...

Coal Staging Comeback As Natural Gas, Oil Prices Rise
www.futurepundit.com...

www.eia.doe.gov...

OK, so we will all have nice, clean, electric cars that do not pollute the atmosphere at all, but when we plug the car in to charge the battery, we are burning coal to produce the power. How does this make sense in the long run? Do you really think people are gong to stand for nuclear power plants all over the country? Just how far in the future in solar power anyway?
Just food for thought.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


On my own based on numbers I could dig up I computed pretty much the same conclusion based upon the technology in the current state, taking generation into account as part of the automobile itself. It's not really the grid itself (that isn't so bad at around 90%-94% efficiency depending on source) but the ineffiency of old-school coal generation that plays the largest part in making it little more than feel-good propaganda.

Of course, the Prius in current form is a hybrid, not an electric car. Toyota is currently experimenting with going electric. The need to recycle it's components is a no-brainer really.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Again you get lost in "lab" conditions for T&D. Then bring in site-source calculations for generation.

The T&D losses in addtion to those I earlier indicated also should include harmonic distortion losses which will impact the simplistic 6-10% conductor losses you keep throwing out.

The 75% loss I indictae comes from before deregulation. Point is that under regulation the only way to raise revenue was to "buy" more stuff and get the authorized ROI on it. So the calculations of T&D losses were based on actual tested losses confirmed by FERC.

Now under deregulation all those complex "multipliers" seem to have been minimized.

The grid is unchanged, only the methodology has changed in calculating losses to minimize "required" efficiency upgrades.

The T&D losses based on some 300 different factors is still in the 75% range.

Electricity generated by big centralized plants with hundreds of miles of distribution is a 100 year old model. Small localized generation with minimum distance between genset and end user is much more efficient.

A hydrogen fuel cell in each home to recharge electric cars would work.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Again you get lost in "lab" conditions for T&D. Then bring in site-source calculations for generation.

The T&D losses in addtion to those I earlier indicated also should include harmonic distortion losses which will impact the simplistic 6-10% conductor losses you keep throwing out.


Then I requote:

The transmission and distribution or “T&D” system, then, includes everything between a generation plant and an end-use site.



Generally speaking, T&D losses between 6% and 8% are considered normal.



The 75% loss I indictae comes from before deregulation. Point is that under regulation the only way to raise revenue was to "buy" more stuff and get the authorized ROI on it. So the calculations of T&D losses were based on actual tested losses confirmed by FERC.


Again, from your own source that you said I should learn from:

Electricity losses in transmission and distribution
systems exceed 10 percent of total electricity generated.


I'm still not finding your 75% figure anywhere for the transmission & distribution system itself. The only thing that approaches is the overall plant efficiency. Net losses will include all sources of loss between the plant and use point. And so, you're redirecting to other source material, not the material we have available.

What I found was (seems it's also a FERC-related doc but main about India):

High Transmission and Distribution Losses

Privatization is seen as the only cure to an ailing power industry, which is reeling under large Transmission and Distribution (T&D) losses. In some states, the T&D losses are as high as 50%. This is several times higher than T&D losses seen elsewhere in the world. For example, in the US, T&D losses average around 8%. Much of the high T&D losses in India are from theft, which is very common in India. Antiquated equipment is also to blame to some degree for high T&D losses.

li nk


Now under deregulation all those complex "multipliers" seem to have been minimized.


We only need two. The average generator plant efficiency and the overall T&D efficiency to get a good idea. Any further losses are the consumer itself.

Secondly, to actually measure losses between the plant and the consumer without hundred of factors and without estimation, two measurements are required: KWh billed to customers divided by KWh generated.

efficiency %=Pout/Pin * 100
loss % = 100 - efficiency %

What happens in between IN and OUT can be considered a black box.

"300 factors", "harmonic losses", "before deregulation" are red herrings to confuse people that aren't inclined in these areas. They haven't anything to do with answering the question at hand.


The grid is unchanged, only the methodology has changed in calculating losses to minimize "required" efficiency upgrades.

The T&D losses based on some 300 different factors is still in the 75% range.


List and calculations please? You must have the actual source for this that I asked for already? I am sincerly attempting to find the information you are talking about. It looks like a needle in a haystack from here. So, unless you explicitely refuse to provide it or produce it, I'll keep asking.

To be clear, I am including the grid only, not the plant itself, just the machinery, not storm damage and other incidents that are repaired though any generation capacity used as a result of such incidents would be included by default in an overall evaluation like I mentioned.


Electricity generated by big centralized plants with hundreds of miles of distribution is a 100 year old model. Small localized generation with minimum distance between genset and end user is much more efficient.

A hydrogen fuel cell in each home to recharge electric cars would work.


That should help massively but we don't presently have that. I imagine it won't happen overnight. An efficient hydrogen production method is needed in that case as well.

[edit on 8/25/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Well I have to agree with some of this. We are being sold down the river with this green agenda and most don't seem to notice.

I find it curious that someone actually claimed polution was greenhouse gas they're looking at. Do you see CO2 when people are talking? Do you generally see water vapor in the air and is that water vapor bad for you? A very significant question given that this water vapor can account for up to about 76% and CO2 about 26%

I'm not saying you don't get CO2 or water vapor in pollution, what I'm saying is that what you see and smell isn't this its smoke and other pollutants.

But I digress. What I find most disturbing lately in this trend is what I have taken to calling the bastardization of green. And that would be the move to cull the population. Its become mainstream these days to talk about population reduction for the sake of the environment no one seems to bat an eye. Very disturbing.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


One more try at simplifying this for those who refuse to see the truth. In the link below is most of what you need to get YOUR math correct. The bottom line is 1 out of every 4 units generated is usable to the "enduser".

You problem is you are looking at a long series of variables (upto 300) and focusing on perhaps 2 of the 300...........

Link

sites.energetics.com...

www.ferc.gov...

And lastly


Electric power generation is biggest source of lost energy in absolute terms. Only 31% of the energy used to generate electricity ends up as distributed energy. When line losses, transfer stations, and the inefficiencies of the appliances and factories that use electricity are added, useable energy can drop as low as 2 percent.



greenfuture.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


One more try at simplifying this for those who refuse to see the truth. In the link below is most of what you need to get YOUR math correct. The bottom line is 1 out of every 4 units generated is usable to the "enduser".


I see the truth, my math is correct and I am talking about a very specific portion of the electrical distribution system. I am not continually changing the boundaries of the portion in question. I have made clear in every post just what I mean and precisely why every minute detail of the process is not required to understand the overall losses in energy utilization of the fuel used to generation by the customer. Your counter argument and resources in reality support my position.


You problem is you are looking at a long series of variables (upto 300) and focusing on perhaps 2 of the 300...........


Overall efficiencies do not require consideration of each variable in question. Considering each variable within the black box does tell you which portions of the system are most responsible for loss.

What you are doing is actually blackboxing the entire thing and not considering any factors at all.


Link

sites.energetics.com...



Most power plants are about 35 percent efficient. That means that for every 100 units of energy that go into a plant, only 35 units are converted to usable electrical energy.



www.ferc.gov...


This divides the eletrical system into three stages much like I have done.

Generation->T&D->Consumer

I have been clear that I'm talking about the middle stage. Its figures seem slightly different than other sources from FERC but not wildly out of bounds:

Generation: 40/100 units from fossil fuel become electrical energy = 40% efficiency which is rather high compared to other figures and even more so than the sources you've quoted.

T&D: 30/40 units of electrical energy make it to the customers = 75% efficiency which is the lowest quote I've seen from any source by far, but still far more efficient than inefficient-- not 25% for sure.

Consumer: 20/30 units of electrical energy are avaiable to devices and machinery = 66 2/3% efficiency at the outlet and is attributed to "inefficient grounding".

T&D is the most efficient portion of the grid in its entirety.

Edit: Educated guess on the fuzzy boundary of the consumer end stated in that doc.
The "pole pig" transformer than provides the split-phase or three-phase power to the user has the neutral line connected to the ground on the pole but independent from the main safety ground (reasons are outside scope). I'm guessing this is the ground to which they refer since normally equipment doesn't rely on the ground itself as a conductor for normal operation. Sometimes one leg of the primary is attached to ground as well. I have also seen setups with the primary attached to 2 of the three phases.


And lastly

greenfuture.blogspot.com...



Electric power generation is biggest source of lost energy in absolute terms. Only 31% of the energy used to generate electricity ends up as distributed energy.


I have mentioned this in previous posts. I already agree based on data I have found about power plant thermodynamic and generator efficiency. The power plants themselves suck and improving them would contribute to the greatest portion of energy savings which would render the electric car superior overall-- in efficiency but not necessarily environmentally since more generating capacity would be used around the clock, requiring the need for more extraction of power generating resources if all contributors to loss are not improved to compensate. As things currently are, they are equal to slightly better than gasoline and inferior to diesel. Increasing plant efficiency would provide proportionally more energy for the same amount of extracted resources.

It is clear to me from this and other source is that the 31% figure refers to the generation plants and not the T&D stage itself. I've seen figures for overall generation efficiency from all sources (nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, etc.) that are a few percent better though. The factsheet.pdf you provided states 35%.

This figure also treats the power plant like a black box where all forms of loss within it are compounded wihin the cited figure-- things like "brush losses" from generator sliprings, friction, utilization of heat from the fuel source through the heat exchange system, resistive losses, EM-radiation, etc.


When line losses, transfer stations, and the inefficiencies of the appliances and factories that use electricity are added, useable energy can drop as low as 2 percent.


The latter two in bold are not in the domain of discussion at this point and never have been. As low as also does not contribute anything useful but makes for great hyperbole. The statement "useable energy" is ill-defined though I will make a guess that it means, for example, in the case of a customer's electric motor, that as little as 2% of the energy available in the fuel used to generate electricity becomes rotating mechanical energy at the output shaft.

To go back to your original statement and summarize:

Note about "plug in cars".......the most inefficient method of delivering energy is the electric grid. FACT 75% of all electricity generated is LOST in transportation. YES only 1 out of every 4 kilowatts generated is consumed by the enduser.


A 75% loss is a roughly correct figure but not for the correct reasons nor would that include inefficiencies in the end users actual devices. 75% is not "lost in transportation". What this means is that 25% of the of the energy available in the source fuels themselves actually make it to the end user which is a very, very different situation.

What this also means, considering the various sources you and I have quoted, is the anywhere from 75% to 94% of the electricity actually generated is available to the end user after "transportation".

Improving the situation at every stage will help but most fingers should be pointing squarely at the generating plants.

Or as you had mentioned an efficient way of on-or-near-site generation should be used by getting away from the grid altogether. There is no doubt security and robustness benefits to it as well with susceptibility being highly localized.


[edit on 8/27/2009 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 8/27/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


You still don't seem to get it. You still focus on simplistic "ressistance" losses and can't seem to grasp the overall inefficiency of the "grid". Of all the "system" the grid is the biggest moster to maintain.

You must also include maintanence and bad engineering. Harmonic distortion due to all the devices that corrupt the wave itself. The losses due to incorrect grounding of transformers, substations, etc. Many, many grids combine neutral and grounding into a single conductor. In effect the neutral is taken directy into the earth. These are the practical issues of the grid, not a theoretical calculation of system losses.

Rectifier efficiency in most telecommunications grids are 68% at best, this corrupts the wave form seeding feedback in the form of "triplen" harmonics throughout the grid. This still does not include variable drives and other devices that "chop" the waves even more.

As modern devices attach to the grid the capacity of the grid shrinks. The conductor capacity actually becomes less and less...........

Enough of the discussion of crap I retired from years ago, current "greenies" have no understanding of reality only simplist "ideals" that will lead to complete meltdown of the "grid".

But as stated in the OP. A sign of the endtimes............."children" shall lead nations...........



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


You still don't seem to get it. You still focus on simplistic "ressistance" losses and can't seem to grasp the overall inefficiency of the "grid". Of all the "system" the grid is the biggest moster to maintain.


Did you read my post? No, I do not focus on simple resistance losses, I focus on all losses compounded for each main grid sectioning. I see no sources siting anything as simple resistance losses but as overall numbers, much like that quoted for other stages of the grid. Most of my citation are very the references you provided and the remainder I located myself.

For some reason I am to presume to completely reinterpret them or add information they do not provide?

I have provided definite accounting based off the sources whereas in your claim I am require to intuitively imagine what might end up making distribution itself only 25% efficient. Where is the accounting math to arrive at that number? How did you get it...a definite number? Did you just say, in essence, well, there's all these myriad losses and I'm gonna guess 25% (post-generation)?

The best gift you could give to an apolitical, technically-minded skeptic (of all claims) is the data, most notably the list.


You must also include maintanence and bad engineering. Harmonic distortion due to all the devices that corrupt the wave itself. The losses due to incorrect grounding of transformers, substations, etc. Many, many grids combine neutral and grounding into a single conductor. In effect the neutral is taken directy into the earth. These are the practical issues of the grid, not a theoretical calculation of system losses.


Yeah, I think I dicussed that in my last entry and grounding in particular. I read up on ways things can be hooked up.

Is maintenence a significant drain per KWh? No doubt some maintence means taking parts of the grid down. Some energy for maintenance must also come from the grid itself.


Rectifier efficiency in most telecommunications grids are 68% at best


That seems crummy. Must be old equipment because some searching turned up newly available ones at being 90% efficient or more.


, this corrupts the wave form seeding feedback in the form of "triplen" harmonics throughout the grid. This still does not include variable drives and other devices that "chop" the waves even more.


There's more than triplen harmonics and its due to nonlinear loads. Those are particularly nasty in three-phase system because the currents are additive on the neutral line (end up in phase on each leg). The sum of the three phases should be zero, ideally.


As modern devices attach to the grid the capacity of the grid shrinks. The conductor capacity actually becomes less and less...........


The conductor efficiency changes due to temperature and weather and a host of other conditions. Increased use increases heating somewhat, but the "capacity" doesn't "diminish". The capacity would have been specified in advance by engineers. Ok, you mentioned bad engineering, so I suppose that may contribute to real capacity being lower than specified capacity.

Perhaps you are getting at that addition of nonlinear loads increases the distortion present (presence of harmonics above f0) in the grid in general, dropping efficiency for all users. That's what it sounds like. This makes some sense to me. Many modern devices contain rectifier bridges and switchmode power supplies...nonlinear. Of course the actual switchers run at 10s of KHz to MHz and have filtering inductors and capacitors to attenuate the switching noise. The actual rectifier bridge on the mains side must play the significant role.


Enough of the discussion of crap I retired from years ago, current "greenies" have no understanding of reality only simplist "ideals" that will lead to complete meltdown of the "grid".


You have made attempts to make this ad hominem while I've tried to keep it on track though I'll admit previously you steered me there a little bit.

I'm not a "greenie" per se. Obviously that is meant as an overgeneralized, knee-jerk epithet. I am a seeker looking deeper into a number that is thown into a discussion and questioning the merit of these "green" magic bullets at the same time. I do consider the wellbeing of plants and animals as important and not more or less so than humans. I think there is judgement of one's stewardship of that which is in one's dominion. It says something of the character, the appreciativeness and ability to love of the one in charge. Have you never made at least a mental evaluation of a homeowner based on how well they appear to care for their property and by extension those residing thereon?


But as stated in the OP. A sign of the endtimes............."children" shall lead nations...........


Endtimes indeed and I'm happy to do my part, however small. There are signs of greater significance than electric cars not being all they're cracked up for whatever reasons to be but that's OT.

All in all, are you saying that any development and changeover to electric vehicles should be ditched forever based on the current status of things? From what I can see it has great potential iff the necessary ducts are aligned first, from grid improvement to proper handling of materials.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Perhaps I gave you too much credit for your freshman year class on electrical engineering. There are differences between classroom calculations and practical application in the real world.

The real world knows Generation, Transportation/distribution and enduser are all interative parts of the beast.

The 'capacity" of the conductor diminishes from the first day of use due to crystalization of the conductor itself. Many conductors are approaching 60 years and beyond. As resistance inceases, capacity decreases, all are affected by heat, harmonics, animals, storms, insulator beakdown, poor ditribution engineering, and on, and on , and on......

Then there are emergency 'patches" after storms like katrina, rita, Ike, tonadoes, ice storms, when the issue is getting the grid "up" with attention to balance coming years later.

Add ongoing transformer failures, substation failures..........

All these thing add up to an overall "grid" loss of 75% and more. A dirty little secret EPRI and FERC want to hide now...........

Redistribution of energy use from decentralized fossil fuel cars to an already overburdened electric grid is INSANE.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Perhaps I gave you too much credit for your freshman year class on electrical engineering. There are differences between classroom calculations and practical application in the real world.


Translation: An attempt to repaint my identity as a fanciful, naiive, wet behind the ears pup who thinks in idealizations and establish yourself as an expert, at least in relative terms.


No, I'm not ignoring aging, animals, heat, etc. The only way the data provided in the sources is valid is if it in fact a net loss of the stages in their current state, basically measured or estimated by considering all known factors rather than guess from engineering specification.

So, perhaps you are involved professionally and have access to proprietary data that contradicts the official numbers and are protecting your livelyhood by not disclosing said data. Possible but you never made that claim and always provided publically available information that seems to agree more with what I am saying.

If all the publicly available quotes are bad and all the good ones are hidden, then having the discussion is pointless because noone can back anything up and arrive at knowedgeable conclusion. Thus, you can claim 75% with suppressed sources or alternative interpretations, I can claim 6%-50% with public sources and straightforward interpretations and no knowledge of the situation is gained. I guess that's how "they" want it.


The real world knows Generation, Transportation/distribution and enduser are all interative parts of the beast.


Ok, WT.... Those are the three stages I've been talking about all along. Yes, it's possible to denote losses at particular divisions, A to B, B to C, C to D, over the long term to arrive at averages that include all factors. Comparing energy billed to energy generated shouldn't be Sisyphean and other losses averaged to all customers.


All these thing add up to an overall "grid" loss of 75% and more. A dirty little secret EPRI and FERC want to hide now...........


You advocate that there is specific and concrete data that should lead me to the 75% and yet "they" want to hide it so therefore I cannot see it. That's convenient. Yet, you know about it and have a specific estimate or measurement, perhaps per above but who knows why, really.


Redistribution of energy use from decentralized fossil fuel cars to an already overburdened electric grid is INSANE.


Where's my Thorazine? Sigh.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Well it took weeks to get the blood to stop spirting from my eyes at the ignorance here. As the grid melts down, your batteries die, your computer UPS drains down to an unusable state, and you generator finally runs out of gas, please keep pushing "pugin" cars.........

These same morons have stopped water from getting to farmers in kalifornia......

You all have but a short time before Jesus returns to destroy this eveil and insanity......

Last laugh and all that.......



[edit on 26-9-2009 by heliosprime]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join