Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191595)	10/12/2001 7:53:43 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You said one thing right finally: "I'm no expert in these matters," It's time to give it up, you're beyond your knowledge base. Jim

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191595)	10/12/2001 10:32:28 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

>>>>> Errrr, higher mileage efficiency (ceuterus paribus) = lower fuel consumption. (Nobody said anything about driving twice as many miles :-)<< It equals only lower fuel consumption on a per mile basis. If I have x number of dollars to spend to recreate I can go 3 miles down the road in my SUV and see a movie for me my wife and kids for like $50. Total distance 6 miles. OR I can drive up to the mountains if I'm forced to have a fuel efficient car car that gets twice the miles per gallon. Now I can drive up to Breckenridge that 70 miles away on 2 gallons of gas each way and ride the mountain slide. Same price. It doesn't matter what the fuel mileage a car gets, it's a function of disposable income, this is not rocket science. By the way; it's your logic that's wobbling, now tipping over. >>> I meant they were looking at reducing particulate emissions from diesels. If they are also looking at higher efficiency engines that would be a <good> thing, but that's not what I was referring to.<< I know what your taking about reducing particulates in diesels is easy. Is the regulation and cost of measurement worth it based on your oft quoted study? >>>> High line losses in long distance high tension power runs is a FACT.<< Depends on how far your talking over what size capacity line vs voltage. But your 1st assertion of 40% loss in current systems and later claim of up to 60% are lunacy. In addition since the majority of capacity is now produced local to usage it's a mute point, there are just not huge savings in going to superconducting lines. AND there are probably no savings factoring in the fragility of current superconducting materials, it would result in extremely high maintenance cost. >>>> If we A) decentralize power production, (putting more generating capacity nearer to the users), than by definition we have less electric loss in the total system.<< Your contradicting yourself in a sense. In general the vast majority of power is now generated in close proximity to the user. But your also advocating better grid interconnections which implies longer distance transmission. >> If we B) upgrade the transmission system itself by implementing new technologies (for example super conducting, instead of aluminum cores in the high tension power lines) than line loss drops dramatically along those routes.<< So what? 1. Line loss is no where near the numbers that you give. 2. Most electrical production exists near the point of use now. 3. Existing superconducting materials are too fragile to warrant using this way. Mild winds would snap these lines resulting in excessive disruptions and excessive mantenance cost. >>This too, results in an increase in efficiency (less wasted power going back to ground) throughout the entire system.<< What a total crock. First, I don't know where you get the idea that companies produce power and then waste it to ground. That's actually called a short circuit and would result in the grid failing, it would trip off line. Systems produce electricity to meet demand. That's why large demand systems are restricted to motor starters that ramp a system up so that large system don't "stall" the system out. Grids produce power to exactly meet demand there is no excess dumping. >>In an electric grid, what power isn't used immediately goes back to ground. That can clearly be defined as 'waste'.<< No it doesn't per the previous discussion. This is where one of your problems lies. When you use a 200hp car, you aren't always generating 200 hp. You generate hp based on demand such as climbing hills and accelerating. In a steady state sense such as driving staight and constant 55mph you might only pe producing 50hp to maintain speed. Power generation works the same way, as demand increase more power is generated, as demand decreases less power is generated. >>I'm no expert in these matters, but those that are are saying that by decentralizing generation, increasing inter-grid exchange capacity, and decreasing line loss on the high tension grids, we can 'easily' achieve a greater efficiency in the utilization of generating capacity on an order of 40% or so.<< But in your own statement you say it : Capacity. It doesn't save energy it saves building power plants, you still have to generate a megawatt of electricity whether it's use point is 3 miles from the generation plant or 3000 miles from the generation plant, assuming neglegable line loss.. I could go on but I realize it's pointless. Jim