Global Warming - Lie No More - American Physical Society

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:57:11 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:


Basically just to water livestock. They pumped it up into the tank when wind was available and watered the livestock from the tank when it wasn't. They did not use it's return to earth as an energy source.

with an efficiency loss

with an efficiency loss

with an efficiency loss
Get those pesky losses under control and you have a perpetual motion machine that goes and goes but has no useful output. Wonderful. Write it up and send it to 0bama.
Pumped storage has been used for at least 70 years. They use excess energy from the grid when it's available rather than build a whole parallel infrastructure to run the pumps. It's not efficient but it does conserve water and stores some energy that would otherwise be lost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity "The only way to store a significant amount of energy is by having a large body of water located on a hill relatively near, but as high as possible above, a second body of water."
jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:23:36 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

As in a hydro-electric dam which is what I was referring to. I neglected to mention that as it's been covered in recent threads and I got to lazy to write it all out again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However, in many cases, the cost of pumping the water to the higher source is usually higher than any savings from the flow back into the lower source. But, yes, it will store it. ;)
One of the buildings I worked in in California had the top floor as a large water reservoir. If the electricity got interrupted, the water on the upper floor could be drained through the sprinkler system for fire protection.
--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message

It has to do since they don't have a better way to level the demand for electricity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, I figured that there was a reason. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/2014 5:02 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

I hope NOT.... I think I was saying that more energy in and you get more energy out. To get what might be enough for a typical useful energy supply. It looked like you were telling me that a battery would charge and do the same as the size I was suggesting so I was upping the amount of energy and thinking 2 or 3 batteries would be closer to being useful and to do that you need to maybe increase the speed of the cycle or the number of gallons. To do that you have to pump more water and that takes more solar and wind. The lifted water is only storage of energy it never created any energy.... So I'm replacing the batteries with the elevated water, is all. The batteries have a short life and are toxic waste with the lead/acid and they don't store all that much energy and yet neither did the elevated water(not as much as I had been guessing) but there are ways to increase the waters stored energy, and you can do it without buying more batteries and dealing with more lead and acid and throw away batteries that last only 4 or 5 years.
Not that water lifted is the best option but it's an option and given all the eco-socialist pet peeves, we need to examine all the options.
I still like it and I don't think its the best for all situations but I think the elevated water is NOT bad.

The solar would be storing the energy by lifting the water. to use that energy the gravity turned a generator. It only needs to generate when there isn't enough sun or wind to supply the electric you are drawing. You'd only need enough solar/wind capacity to keep one tank always full. And being on the grid would make the whole concept redundant, it's for storage and a link to the grid makes the need for storage a moot point.
The place where I was wrong is that more than one rotation per day would mean you need to pump water at night and then you're back to what if there is NO wind.
The way to make it a more stable energy source is to make the water cycle slower.
The better idea rather than moving the tank with gravity is to move the water and use a water driven turbine to turn the generator. The tank atop a multi-story building or up a hill and the turbine at the base only make it turn the generator while you use electric and when the load drops the water stops. But then that's back to pumped storage like you can do large scale with an upper and lower dam.
1 cycle every 2 days means that you need 2 days of no wind or sun for it to run down.... so it would require more water or more elevation or a combination to get the 2 day cycle. The idea being to make it more stable than batteries where you may need a lot of expensive batteries over 30 years and yet the water being pumped to store the energy for a 2 day storage capacity may be cheaper over the long haul of 30 years of maintaining enough batteries to do the same thing. Batteries are cheap enough today but what will they cost in 15 years after the EPA is done regulating them.
The big question is will something fantastically cheap and easy come along and make this water/solar engine useless and make it a waste of money or more hassle than it's worth?
Maybe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

So basically now you're talking 100 to 150 tons of mass.
What is going to be your structural support? How much will it cost in materials and fabrication? How will you insure safety not only for the operation but from children getting into the works?
Do you suppose they would allow this in your average suburban neighborhood?

Increasing the speed of the cycle doesn't increase your overall power. It just means you're having more charge/discharge cycles.

Well, we're already at over 1,500 gallons simple to replace 2 golf chart batteries that cost about $120.
How much do you plan to spend on your water tower, and do you suppose your neighbors would complain?

Yep, so now your generating plant has become larger and more expensive......

Yep, and you've got to pump a lot of water and/or pump it very high to make the energy storage really significant.
How much do you suppose all this would cost?

Great, less storage for more expense and less suitable for people to use.

About 8 years, longer if you don't subject them to as many deep discharge cycles.

More than your 10 ton block, or an equal amount of water....or do you plan to put up a 200 foot tower in your backyard?

Sure, you can increase the height. Do you suppose the neighbors would object to you building a 200 foot water tower in your backyard, assuming you can get the permit to do it?

Only if you're subjecting the batteries to a continuous series of deep discharge cycles. If you limit it to 50% or less, you can easily get 8 years or more.
And for what your project would cost they could buy replacement batteries for the rest of their lives and still have money left over.

It's been examined and for the small scale being considered....not worthy of more consideration.

Then you go right ahead and start building that water tower in your backyard. How many 10s of thousands of dollars do you suppose that will cost you?

Except you can't be assured that you will always have the sun out or the wind blowing. As such, you can't insure that one tank will always be full.
Oh, and if you've got enough capacity to pump enough water all the time to run the generator....why don't you just use the power from the solar panels and hook your generator directly to your windmill?
What advantage to you seen in introducing additional loses into the system, if you're not using it purely for energy storage?

Unless the grid is down, when means you're down anytime the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing.
Maybe we need some sort of energy storage to handle those sorts of events?

Doesn't matter if you spin it like a freaking ferris wheel. You are not going to generate any more power than your solar/wind generation capacity will provide. The ONLY purpose of your 'wheel' is as an energy storage device, and it's storage capacity is limited by the potential energy of the mass at some elevation. Once that mass reaches the lowest point......blackout.

How does slowing it down alter the stability of your solar/wind generation capacity?

Ya, think?

Sure, everyone lives next to a multi-story building that will let you put a big tank that when full is going to weigh many tons on their roof, and of course if you don't live there then naturally you have a big hill right next to you and no one is going to mind that you run a pipe through their property and put a big water tank at the top.
Meanwhile, back in reality......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:31:28 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

If you have solar energy at the moment, just use it. Skip all the extra steps; they just cost you efficiency.

That was my point. One solar cycle per day is all you get. Anything else is foot shuffling. If you bye more solar, you have more energy, as you say. But you can't run multiple solar cycles per day.
Realistically most work is done in the day time, so direct consumption would be the rule.
A little lighting, some security, and maybe some sort of domestic water would be all you would need and that's small stuff. A pressure tank on the latter will take that out of the picture with reasonable conservation.
Electronic loads are small stuff compared to heating or doing mechanical work. You can even have some TV.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, my HDTV uses less than 30W with the backlight minimized. A laptop that's playing and recording TV uses only a little more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Keller:

...
Science is not about consensus. Consensus has never been a part of science. It's just stupid for idiots to go around saying "9 out of 10 scientists" blah blah. So what?
The science loop is something like
observe connect hypothesize test test more analyze share repeat
Where is the consensus???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since no theory can be proven, only disproven, how can it be anything but a consensus? The basic premise says we can never know "for certain".
Two scientists may "hypothesize" differently. They may "analyze" differently. Which gets more weight - factor A or factor B?
Why "share" if you are not open to disagreement?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:00:16 -0700, Winston_Smith

Con-sensus. As with gathering sensing the same, with a significance of forinstance 99.9%
... And that is not "polder model" politics...!     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model

Sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the hard sciences a theory is sufficiently "proven" if it explains all observations and experimental results and its predictions are correct. Newton's Law of Gravity is a good example even though we have to make relativistic corrections near the speed of light.
The soft sciences haven't mastered precise measurement and fall back on a faith-based consensus to establish "truth".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mar 2014 11:24:11 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:

    For some reason, people seem to believe that all it takes is one little bullet (okay, a not so little bullet in the case of a 50 BMG) and - ka-bloowie! Too many movies. Even shooting a tank truck full of gasoline with tracer rounds isn't going to get that to happen.
    But tracer, or incendiary, or Rofus rounds into the proper fuel air mixture - that can be spectacular. Heck, put a lighter flint in the hollow of a twenty two long rifle, and strike metal ....
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on Sun, 23

Yup First couple rounds open up the tank Wait a little while,,,,preferably dumbfuck will come out to inspect the damage.... 1 tracer round to light it off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
about Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:45 -0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

    OTOH "Tracer rounds work both ways"....

--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In WW1 the British found hydrogen-filled Zeppelins almost impossible to ignite with standard tracers. http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A912124
jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be contrary to everything I've read so far. And it is not the conclusion of the article you reference. Over half the zeppilins were destroyed. and they stopped coming. By any measure seems pretty succesful to me.
In any case the real problem was getting to the zepps. Climb to altitude was long, performance suffered at altitude adn pilots suffered from oxygen depravation the higher they got.
Plenty of zepps and observation ballons burned under fire.
--
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/ "Any one of these bullets was only marginally effective when fired at a zeppelin, but when mixed, they formed a lethal combination. The explosive rounds blew holes in the zeppelin's gas cells, allowing the hydrogen to escape and mix with the oxygen outside, forming an explosive mixture. The incendiary bullets then ignited the mixed gases! This new "mixed ammo" sequence was to become Britain's wonder weapon against airships." jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.