Solomon Technologies - "Electric Wheel" electric motor propulsion systems

Discussion in 'Hybrid' started by lockhughes, Jun 18, 2002.

  1. lockhughes
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 110
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: Wards Island Toronto north shore, Lake Ontario

    lockhughes ElectricGuy

    Jan 2005 Power & Motoryacht article on Diesel-Electrics

    Original URL here:
    http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/engines/0105dieselelectric/

    The Next Big Thing

    Is diesel-electric power finally going to get its day in the sun?

    January 2005

    Diesel-electric power has been around for a while, and though it isn’t widely used in yachts and pleasureboats, it has proven itself as an efficient means of propulsion in military and research vessels. Advantages such as increased control, improved fuel efficiency, longer engine life, and lower maintenance costs have made this hybrid system the power of choice in these fields. The question facing yacht builders and owners is whether those benefits outweigh the system’s additional cost.

    The idea of using an engine to power a genset that in turn creates propulsion was initially used in locomotives and ships by General Electric in the early 20th century, and in World War I diesel-electric power gained more momentum. U-boats were some of the first diesel-electric military vessels, but surface ships also had adopted it by the onset of World War II. Today the U.S. Navy employs an updated version of diesel-electric power to help fulfill the demanding electrical requirements of modern warships, as do most cruise ships and commercial and research vessels.

    The concept is simple enough: engines powering gensets that both provide propulsion via electric motors and electrical power to a busbar. Thus two formerly independent functions, propulsion and onboard electrical power, can be controlled by a single system. In essence, the genset operates the entire boat, from moving her through the water to flushing the MSDs.

    Removing the engines from the prop shafts has an additional benefit: They can run at optimum efficiency while shaft revolutions are regulated by variable-speed electric motors. This increases engine life, since they are never under- or overloaded. An additional bonus is that by removing the marine gears altogether and the prop shafts from the engines, you get much quieter propulsion.

    Yachts can and do reap these benefits. Two that currently employ this system are the 414-foot Octopus and the 315-foot Limitless. Their large sizes are not coincidental. Ken Robbins, president of Marine Propulsion, says, “When the energy required to power a ship’s auxiliary systems is equal to or greater than what it takes to propel it, then diesel-electric is a logical choice.”

    Because of their complexity, diesel-electric systems are heavy and take up a lot of space.

    Engineers refer to the energy required by these auxiliary systems, ranging from air conditioning to high-tech cinema setups, as “hotel load.” On most yachts this figure is a fraction of what is required to actually propel the boat. On warships, cruise liners, and, in this case Octopus, hotel loads either approach or exceed what’s required to move the boat. In the case of Limitless, however, the reasons for using diesel-electric power go deeper.

    Limitless doesn’t require nearly as much auxiliary power as she does propulsion power. Therefore she employs a hybrid system that utilizes both straight diesel inboard drives and diesel-electric drives to deliver a whopping 22,000 hp and a reported top speed of 27.5 knots. According to Capt. Craig Tafoya, Limitless’ project manager, “It is this top speed that mandated the use of diesel-electric. Conventional diesels [that could achieve this speed] were so high strung that, when [at] idle speed [they] would never let us go below 16 knots. The diesel-electric option allowed for precision control while maneuvering (once the primary diesels were disengaged) and provided us with redundancy—we had backup propulsion if the main engines were lost.” Such redundancy is a huge advantage for any yacht using diesel-electric. In an emergency the output from any number of gensets can be combined to supply propulsion to electric motors to get you home.

    But all this comes at a price. Because of their complexity, diesel-electric systems are heavy and take up a lot of space. Vripak International, a Dutch naval architecture firm, estimates the average weight penalty at two to five percent more than a conventional system, due to the additional gensets, electric motors, and frequency converters. However, diesel-electric does provide flexibility in engine and genset placement. The engines no longer have to be inline with the shafts, and gensets, and converters can be placed virtually anywhere. This ability to position equipment at the designer’s (and owner’s) discretion has significant advantages when it comes to trim characteristics of the boat and the spaciousness of guest quarters. No longer does the engine room have to occupy that critical space amidships where the beam is widest, and heavy components can be positioned to achieve optimum running angle.

    As to cost, Dick Boone of Vripak estimates materials alone add 15 percent to the total price of a diesel-electric boat, a figure somewhat offset by the greater fuel efficiency and longevity of a properly loaded diesel engine. Boone states, “On average a conventional engine running at 30 percent of rated power suffers a fuel penalty of 36 percent.” Diesel-electric allows engines to run at optimum efficiency continuously, thus negating that fuel penalty. The payback time for such savings is, of course, proportional to how much the yacht is used. Vripak compares a prototype 160-foot motoryacht with conventional diesels to one with diesel-electric. At 9 knots the conventional diesels actually had 12 percent better fuel efficiency. At 12 knots the two systems rated the same. At 15 knots the diesel-electric was an impressive 15 percent more efficient, plus the engines emitted less nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.

    So which yachts could benefit from diesel-electric? Well, the larger the better. The more space a yacht has to accommodate the hardware and the closer its auxiliary power requirements are to its propulsion demands, the better the candidate. Lürssen, the German yard that built Octopus and Limitless, says a yacht should be at least 250 feet, while Vripak has found advantages in a 160-foot test vessel.

    So why don’t more owners chose diesel-electric propulsion? Many do, but only a few owners can afford to build over 160 feet. Still, over the last two decades the use of diesel-electric has increased by 250 percent, according to Daniel Reinhardt, senior press manager at MTU, though he admits the number of yachts using diesel-electric 20 years ago was small. But builders and owners tend to stick with what they know. Working with an unfamiliar system like diesel-electric can be costly, and owners may not see or be attracted to the eventual savings. Owners won’t invest until the cost of diesel electric comes down, and until that happens, there may not be enough diesel-electric yachts to prove the system works in pleasureboats.

    However, the 2004 Fort Lauderdale Boat Show revealed some interesting trends, among them that more builders are integrating all the systems on their boats. Diesel-electric power does that with propulsion and auxiliary systems and allows an owner to monitor and control everything from one automated program. Imagine powering up your entire vessel from a single touchscreen. Diesel-electric lets you do that, which is why it just may be the future of marine power.

    The reasons to power smaller craft with diesel-electric may soon become more compelling. In 1999 FAST Electric Yacht Systems was founded in Houston, Texas, with the aim of adapting reliable diesel-electric power to any boat, regardless of size. Using technology developed by Siemens for German electric buses, FAST developed a diesel-electric system for boats with power requirements as small 50 hp.

    One of the first boats to be fitted with the system is April K, a 1995 Ocean Alexander Classico 423, whose power went from twin Caterpillar 3208s to a single Cummins B220. According to her owner, Paul Smith, April K’s fuel economy increased by 22 percent, maintenance costs were halved, and he had 35 percent more engine space.

    When I asked Smith why he would install an arguably more complicated system that flies in the face of conventional marine thinking, he said, “There is nothing in your face about this technology. It’s being proven all around us: New York City buses, South Florida water taxis, smart cars, and golf carts all use this technology.” Besides, the results speak for themselves. Who wouldn’t do this?” —C.C.
    FAST Electric Yacht Systems((713) 952-9908. www.feys.org.

    Hmmmmm.... I see I haven't been alongside here since April 2005...
    Yikes - "20829 unread posts since your last visit"

    You guys have been busy!

    Fair winds and following seas
    LoCk


    In 2002, and 135 messages ago, I wrote:
     
  2. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

  3. Sander Rave
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 204
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 59
    Location: Amsterdam; The Netherlands

    Sander Rave Senior Member

    Guillermo, check this:
    Government Study
    "The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory did a feasibility study on these types of floating turbine farms and found that they could be built using existing technology and provide electricity at approximately $0.05/kWh. The turbines studied did not include the battery storage and hydrogen production described [here]." (Ref.)

    in the article. I love the thought, but I am just as optimistic as Nick Cave
    Storing energy from sea water in this particular case is only a waste of energy.
     
  4. cyclops
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 1,059
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: usa

    cyclops Senior Member

    If the process can generate BTU's compareable to fossil fuels. I will invest money. Otherwise you are wasting the worlds time also.
     
  5. Sander Rave
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 204
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 59
    Location: Amsterdam; The Netherlands

    Sander Rave Senior Member

    I agree. I want to see the figures: Input and results, not only a pretty story on how things might be in the future.
     
  6. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Thanks, Sanders Rave :)
    Why do you think it's a waste of energy?
    I know in Holland they are already adapting a big tanker with wind turbines and hydrogen tanks, so they can produce hydrogen and then sell it wherever necessary. I think it will be operative soon (I Don't remember the web pages now).

    Check also this other interesting information:
    http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2465
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Sander Rave
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 204
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 59
    Location: Amsterdam; The Netherlands

    Sander Rave Senior Member

    Because the energy needed to produce and store hydrogen is ineffective. That's dictated bij physic laws. Nothing of "When technology will safe us".

    The possibility for building a big tanker is collecting money from EU allowance. Again, the general idea is good, but the means aren't. Does someone around here know a better way of storing energy? There should be some space on a tanker to store a lot of energy.

    I'm doing just the thing I hate the most: telling stuff without the back-up of the figures. I'll have to find some time first to state my point with some facts. Sorry for this, but it won't be untill after the weekend.
     
  8. JonathanCole
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 446
    Likes: 10, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 58
    Location: Hawaii

    JonathanCole imagineer

    We are in times of great challenge relating to energy and population. But human beings are extremely resourceful and we will figure out a way to solve our problems. Despite what also seems to be the inevitable march of folly in human affairs.


     
  9. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Attached Files:

  10. Sander Rave
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 204
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 59
    Location: Amsterdam; The Netherlands

    Sander Rave Senior Member

    Dear Jonathan,

    I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I only feel this is not the way to solve the global growing energy hunger. Since we are off topic for some time, I'd like to point out my scepsis. This stuff comes from a lecture of a collegue of mine, Theo Wolters. He is developing fuel cells from before I was even a proffesional. I couldn't in any way do it shorter than in his own words:

    Since the oil crisis 30 years ago, all developed counties have been cutting in their energy consumption and set up programs for alternative energy sources. I think it's fair to presume all possible economical means have been used to reach this goal. From this point it will be harder and more expensive to generate more alternative energy sources.

    Status quo after 30 years: trippled energy consuption, from which 3% sustainable energy. This is the same amount as the growth of the consumption in one of these years.

    Coming years the consumption in the most optimistic prognosis wil tripple again, but a five- to ten fold assumption is more realistic. At the same time economical and ecological factors will frustrate mining of fossil fuels.

    I think stating the above, alternative energy programs won't make up for the shortage, so doesn't energy saving. This is just plain and simple logics, not too hard untill now.

    By pointing at a different energy carrier like hydrogen people don't understand the problem. It's nothing else as a carrier and it doesn't generate energy.

    There are a lot of examples of sustainable energy sources, like on Iceland where effectiveness isn't all too important. Turning it into an hydrogen economy won't be a more than a gimmick The fishing fleet is the largest pollution scource, and negligible in the world.

    Zero-emission is attractive for crowded regions and metropolitans (apart from well-to-wheel and well-to-home disadvantages as we earlier spoke of) So that could well be a good experiment, but won't help the environment a bit.

    I think this example has brought some people to the idea to move this hydrogen wonderland from Iceland over the world, which is nonsense. The geografical circumstances there are unique for some places in the world.

    Fuel cells are an important development in generating sustainable energy from remaining fossil fuels. Espessialy for de-centralised energy production.

    Since fuel cells have their highest economical effectivity on hydrogen, a market for hydrogen will evolve. This will not be a large market though, and not of much use to protect the environment. Fuel cells on C-H2 (like methane) will be economically and ecologically more interresting.

    that's the macro-scale. now for the do it yoursel kit:

    C-H2's are easier to transport, have a higher energy volume as hydrogen and is more environmental friendly as to burn it.
    H2 is a greenhouse gas. it oxidates steel an migrates through plastic and rubber. A blend of 4%H2 and air makes a highly explosive brew. Not something I like to have aboard.

    As stated for the hydrogen challenger:
    Hydrogen Challenger's emergence should be viewed against the backcloth of projections of growing demand for industrial hydrogen in Europe. Among the initial targets for the scheme's backers are customers in the food processing and chemical industries.

    If you need electrical energy from this ship stored in hydrogen and converted to electrical energy again, you end up with some 32% of the initial electric energy generated.

    I guess this is only oil on the fire of this discussion. Maybe a good startpoint for a new thread? Like to hear your opinion.
     
  11. JonathanCole
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 446
    Likes: 10, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 58
    Location: Hawaii

    JonathanCole imagineer

    Sander Rave wrote: I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I only feel this is not the way to solve the global growing energy hunger.

    Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However your opinion is not entirely supported by the facts. In regards to your colleague Theo Walters,
    while what he says about the advancement of renewable energy being a small fraction in the increase in demand is true, that is because fossil fuel energy has been very cheap for at least two decades.

    I don't know how old you are, but when I was a child, pollution was practically a non-issue. The first big oil tanker spill ocurred in the 60s. Now the entire world's ocean is coated with a thin film of oil. In many cities the streets are slippery when it rains. Global warming is changing weather and it will cause massive upheaval in the next 20-100 years. Many of the people now living and soon to be born will die in great suffering from the side effects of hydrocarbon chemistry. Cancer, heart disease, respiratory diseases are all directly linked to hydrocarbon pollution. And it is getting worse, rapidly.

    By pointing at a different energy carrier like hydrogen people don't understand the problem. It's nothing else as a carrier and it doesn't generate energy.

    It is you that does not understand the problem. Fossil fuels are also energy carriers or storage. The earth's geological processes have provided us with these hydrocarbons. We don't have to manufacture them, only extract them. As they become more scarce and expensive to extract and as the growing populations of the world's developing countries dramatically increase the demand for energy, the planet faces an extinction catastrophe which may well include the human race. So we are approaching a point where there is no choice but to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

    Nuclear and natural gas can be bridging energy technologies, but by 2025 I would guess, the human race will be choking in its own waste. We are starting on the hydrogen development path now and we can have the problem solved by then. One month of the cost of the war in Iraq and the whole of Europe could have Hydrogen infrastructure. http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_675.shtml
    Same for the USA. There is enough wind power on the planet to take care of all of our energy needs, including generating hydrogen when we require transport fuels. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article331413.ece
    Also, the atmosphere of the earth is surrounded by electrical energy storing layers, which hold immense energies. There are many possibilities for bleeding this energy off to create hydrogen as a carrier.

    H2 is a greenhouse gas. it oxidates steel an migrates through plastic and rubber. A blend of 4%H2 and air makes a highly explosive brew. Not something I like to have aboard.

    Hydrogen in the atmosphere rapidly combines with oxygen to create water. Only oxygen oxidizes. Hydrogen can make steel brittle but it is a much smaller effect than the effect of oxygen on the structure of steel (rust). Gasoline and diesel also migrates through plastics and rubber and even dissolves them.

    A blend of 4%H2 and air makes a highly explosive brew. Not something I like to have aboard.

    I have generated and tested hydrogen. It does not easily mix with air when released but tends to remain a rising bubble of hydrogen which mean that if it catches fire it generally rises too fast to transfer heat unless it is contained. It is much safer than gasoline. So while you are entitled to your opiniuon, I hope for your sake you are wrong. Because I'll be dead by the time the catastrophe hits, but most people under 45 will experience it, that is unless we get off of our butts and do what we have to do.

     
  12. trouty

    trouty Guest

    PC Police shpuld be here anytime soon!

    What worries me most, is when I see otherwise intelligent rational minded people seriously debating issues such as the electric wheel and hydrogen power - in some kind of belief that the answer to our energy needs lurks within…when in fact it clearly doesn't - it lurks without!

    I've posted it here before - and I guess I can post it again, it won't make any difference - coz no ones listening and if they are, they must have their brains tuned out, to not understand - that the solution to the worlds energy crisis, doesn't lie in energy sources we utilise and understand now.

    Sure - wind wave and solar power, hydro power (gravity) will All figure in the future as PAART of the solution - but not the same ratio of part of the solution that OIL fills now.

    Heck, I've even posted WHO are the people BEHIND the world Oil Oligarchy - who keep us all prisoners of dependence upon oil - and what do I get for my trouble?

    Deleted usually, or "Mooderated" or derided - because - there ARE those with a vested interest - in making SURE the truth never gets to see the light of day!

    Sooo - what energy source do I speak of?

    Mass & Time.

    Both forces of energy.

    Do we utilise Mass for energy?

    Sure we do - we split the atom (the building blocks of mass) and we get Nuclear energy - enough to blow up the whole darned world for goodness sakes!

    Do we utilise Time for it's energy component?

    No - and why not?

    Coz no one can figure out - how to get free energy from their wristwatch or wall clock! :rollseyes:

    How can anyone get energy from Time - that’s just plain stoopid talk - because if I don't understand it - then it cant be true….can it?

    So - all of you here - typing away with energy (electricty_ generated by nuclear power stations fully understand the splitting of the atom???

    Didn't think so - yet we all accept it and use it as if we did.

    BUT at the same time - we Poo Poo - the notion - that their can be ANY useable energy compressed/trapped within the time domain!!!

    Why - because we don't understand time!

    If we did - we'd be time lords - like Dr Who!!!! If we did - we'd be Immortal! (Sheesh - isn't that the ONE thing God promises - if we will only believe - immortality?)

    So - what is Time - and how much energy is there trapped or compressed within it? (I hear you asking!).

    OK - here's the answer.

    There are 9 x 10 ^16 kilojoules of available energy - within every second of what we perceive as Time!

    How much is that I hear you asking?

    Well - it's about the same amount as there is - within Mass - (ie nuclear energy ergo - enough to blow up the whole dammned world!).

    So - whats time?

    If it clearly ain't the wristwatch and wall clock tickin away on the wall - then what the heck is it?

    I can tell you what it aint!

    It ain't day length (Sunset to Sunup and the next sunset - or 24 hours…

    That my friends, is Gravity.

    Yes - our measurement of the earth's revolutions about it's own axis is a measurement of Gravity…because it's the earth's spin about it's own axis is clearly not time - it is a force of gravity. Your clocks and wrist watches measure gravity not TIME

    People wonder why we haven't cracked time yet, and when we haven't even understood the difference between time and gravity is it any wonder we haven't cracked it yet? More rolling of eyes!

    HOW FAST IS THE EARTH SPINNING AROUND ITS AXIS?

    The Earth is spinning around its axis. At the equator, the Earth's surface moves 40,000 kilometers in 24 hours. That is a speed of about 1040 miles/hr (1670 km/hr or 0.5 km/sec). This is calculated by dividing the circumference of the Earth at the equator (about 24,900 miles or 40,070 km) by the number of hours in a day (24). As you move toward either pole, this speed decreases to almost zero (since the circumference of the spinning circle at the extreme latitudes approaches zero).

    So - What IS Time?

    Time people - is what your CALENDAR measures!

    It measures Earth's passage through space, in an elliptical orbit about the sun over the course of 356 days (earth spins about it's own axis….or periods of what we call 24 hours!).

    And Earth's passage through space…is a potential energy source!

    Why - because the Earth has Mass!

    How much mass?

    How is the mass of the Earth determined? Newton, Galileo, Henry Cavendish, and Eratosthenes contributed to this amazing calculation.

     This calculation is done using Newton's Law of Gravity, which formulates the attractive force (gravitational force) that two masses exert on each other:

    F=GmM/r2

    In Newton's equation, F is the gravitational force, G is a constant of proportionality, M and m are the two masses exerting the forces, and r is the distance between the two objects.
     G was calculated by Henry Cavendish in 1798, and was determined to be 6.67 x 10-11 m3/(kg sec2).
     Also needed is Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, where F is the force applied to an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is its acceleration due to the force.
     Galileo determined that the acceleration due to the force of gravity of Earth was a constant equal to 9.8 m/sec2 near the surface of the Earth.
     Lastly, you need to know the radius of the Earth; this was first calculated by the Greek Eratosthenes thousands of years ago (by comparing shadows in wells during the summer solstice about 230 B.C.).
    CALCULATING THE MASS OF THE EARTH

    1. F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth).

    2. GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) Now solve for M, the mass of the Earth.

    3. M = ar2/G, where a=9.8m/sec2, r=6.4 x 10 6m, and G=6.67 x 10-11m3/(kg sec2).

    4. M = 9.8 x (6.7 x 106)2/6.7 x 10-11 = 6.0 x 1024 kg


    Sooo how fast is this MASS (Earth) travelling?

    HOW FAST IS THE EARTH MOVING?


    You can't measure the speed of an object by itself, it has to be measured relative to something else (this was one of Einstein's realizations).

    If we ask the question, "How fast the Earth is moving?" we have to specify that we want the speed with respect to another object. Motion cannot be measured without a reference point. We can ask how fast the earth is moving with respect to its own axis, the Sun, the Milky Way Galaxy, or our Local Group of galaxies.


    The Earth spins around its axis as it orbits the Sun. Our entire Solar System slowly orbits around the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy belongs to the Local Group of galaxies, where it is also moving.



    HOW FAST IS THE EARTH REVOLVING AROUND THE SUN?

    The Earth orbits, on average, 93 million miles (149,600,000 km) from the Sun. This distance is defined as one Astronomical Unit (AU). The Earth revolves around the Sun at a speed of about 18.5 miles/sec (30 km/sec).

    Sooooo

    If I'm not mistaken…We have a Mass of 6 x 10^24 kg's Travelling at a speed of 18.5 Miles Per second!

    Anyone care to calculate the potential kinetic energy of that Mutha?

    Well here's something else to think about!

    Albert Einstein gave us:-

    E = MC^2

    Where E = Energy
    M = Mass
    C^2 is a "constant" (I use the word loosely) Known as the speed of light, 9But the speed of light is demonstrably Anything but constant…more on that later!)

    And a fella named Bearden (www.cheniere.org) gave us this gem:-

    E = Delta T C^2

    Where again
    E = Energy
    Delta T = Change in Time
    And again C^2 is the Speed of light constant.

    Now - for the Brilliant bit…this is the Bit I discovered!

    It is possible to resolve Einsteins and Beardens above Two theorems to tell us something we previously didn't know about Mass and Time!

    Ergo!

    If E = MC^2

    &

    If also E = Delta T C^2

    Then it necessarily follows that:-

    MC^2 = Delta T C^2

    If we divide both sides by the constant speed of light

    MC^2/C^2 = Delta T C^2/C^2

    Anyone knows that something divided by itself = 1

    So in effect…

    The speed of light constants are removed from the equation by being divided out and we are left with - a new theorem (That would be the 'trouty' Theorem) showing the actual relationship between the amount of energy within mass and the amount of energy within Time..

    It would read:-

    M = Delta T

    Mass Equals Change in Time.

    And - we know what Time really is - don't we?

    Yes - Earth's passage thru space in an elliptical orbit about the sun!

    And we Know what Mass is don't we? (Because we can split it's atoms and release the energy trapped within Mass).

    Sooo

    If we KNOW - that theres as MUCH free energy…Trapped within the Earths Mass times it's speed thru Space, as there is Trapped with each Atom which makes up the entire earth (ie.e nuclear energy - enough to blow up the entire darned earth)…

    Can someone PLEASE tell me…

    Why we are debating electric wheels and Hydrogen power?

    I mean - hello people. I've just given you the solution to the worlds oil crisis, the solution to defeating the ruling world oil oligarchy who keep us enslaved to their energy source - OIL!

    And guess what?

    I didn't charge you 5 Bucks a Gallon for that free advice (energy) either!

    And you know what?

    I reckon most of you will all still be here in 12 months time debating the same issue, while ignoring totally the solution I've just given you!

    Why?

    Because your happy being the slaves of the world oil oligarchy!

    Your happy to send your Kids off to foreign lands to kill innocent arab women & kids in an oil war for your ruling world oil oligarchy masters Gee Dubya and his ilk.

    Frankly - I think you deserve the eventual fate that awaits you all.

    There are non so blind as those who refuse to see.

    Cheers!
     
  13. Sander Rave
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 204
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 59
    Location: Amsterdam; The Netherlands

    Sander Rave Senior Member

    Ok Trouty, sell me the stuff at 5 bucks. I'm your first customer if you can deliver.

    Dear Jonathan,

    India and China both ordered 300 nuclear facilities each. What do you think they are going to do with it, produce hydrogen? No. I tell you why: It's highly un economic to do so. You need 64% more energy well-to-wheel compared to gasoline. These are poor countries making a bypass.

    80% of the energy consumption comes from us, the wealthy west.
    we are some 850 mln. people, growing to 1 bln. China and India are counting 2 bln, growing to 3. Energy consumption whise they come from the stone ages and our wealth is their goal at least.

    Let's start helping these people doing the things they do the best they can and not make the mistakes we made before. This is a project already started... So how can we start with common sense and common technology?

    Wind energy is good, you can build parks for up to 10% of your needs. Right now they are 3 times more expensive as a conventional power plant, but that'll change. More than this will frustrate your economy, if you can't store it, ask Denmak.
    Bio fuels can help: you both produce fuel and cattle-fodder from the left overs. Carbon dioxide is recycled, it's a start. Funds are raised to develop a hydrogen economy, and I ask myself why?

    Hydrogen is not collectable and only a by-product in chemical industries
    energy loses in production of hydrogen out of carbon-hydrogens are 20-30%
    energy loses in production of hydrogen with electrolysis are 20-30%

    The energy density of hydrogen compressed at 200bar is only 6% of petrol.
    liquid hydrogen at -235 degrees celcius (that is rather cold) is 27%

    Compared to Methane consists of 63%,
    Methanol and ethanol respectively 50 and 67%

    to make it a little exotic
    bio(soj) oil methyl esthers rise above 100% of petrol
    Again the question: Why hydrogen?

    If you tell me to store energy of sustainable energy sources, I ask you why hydrogen again.

    Hydrogen is worse than many different alternatives as I pointed out.

    It's a headache to store
    It's voluminous (so expensive) for transportation
    It takes a lot of energy to produce it from different sources (hence: you loose energy)
    I just don't see the gain for our environment. The sooner people start investing money in real sollutions and not in some sci-fi wet dream the better, in my opinion.

    Sander
     
  14. yipster
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 3,486
    Likes: 97, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 1148
    Location: netherlands

    yipster designer

    H becouse its the first, simplest and biggest element and if we aint fooled ( witch i think we are ) its high time we get serious with mother nature :rolleyes:
     

  15. JonathanCole
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 446
    Likes: 10, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 58
    Location: Hawaii

    JonathanCole imagineer

    Hydrogen storage will not be done by the means you are discussing, but by storing it in nanoporous materials under low pressure and high volumes. I have already shown links to the scientific work now being done to accomplish these things. Hydrogen creating electricity via fuel cells is more efficient than any combustion process and that is why it is a good choice for mobile platforms.

    In the end direct electrical generation systems and storage are likely to be very important. I have worked on super capacitor technology which can store energy at densities approaching lithium ion batteries, is made from cheap materials and lasts virtually forever. An electron tank may ultimately replace the gas tank. Another advantage of supercapacitors is that energy transfer through a tank circuit is virtually without loss. Also capacitors can deliver energy at a rate much higher than any other known electrical storage technology. All of these technologies including alternative biofuels, nuclear, solar, wind and combination of these will provide the solution in the near to mid term.

    Trouty's solutions are a bit further out, no pun intended. I know many of the energy researchers that Trouty is always tallking about, and while I am confident that there is a lot to their efforts, I don't believe that a conspiracy is preventing them from pushing the world through a quantum technological leap. The devil is in the details and you have to understand every aspect of a technology to discover what makes it practical or impractical for embedding in human culture and systems.
     
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.