Edmund Storms wrote:
Just for your information Jed,
my Forester, which is AWD, gets 25 mpg at 7000 ft in the city and over 28
mpg at 70 mph.
That's still not as good on the highway as my '95 Volvo station wagon,
which is a great hulking vehicle capable of carrying more stuff than most
SUVs. Actua
Last week my 10-year-old Volvo station wagon needed an expensive valve
job. It turned out it cost 4000 bucks! Anyway, I thought about getting a
new car and I spec'ed them out. My car gets ~20 mpg city and 30 mpg
highway. I was disgusted to find that the new station wagons get 18 mpg
city and 2
At 4:02 PM 3/7/5, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>I like the big picture approach, but this analysis is too oversimplified.
>The cost of making millions of wind turbines or thousands of nuclear
>reactors cannot be estimated as a straight-line proj
I like the big picture approach, but this analysis is too
oversimplified. The cost of making millions of wind turbines or thousands
of nuclear reactors cannot be estimated as a straight-line projection of
today's costs. Mass production on that scale would reduce the unit cost
by a huge margin --
At 9:24 AM 3/6/5, Steven Krivit wrote:
>Horace,
>
>You may be care to send this to Gustav GROB email: info at uniseo.org. He
>may have an interest, as well as an influence to see something productive
>happen with your ideas.
>
>Steve
I appreciate the notion, but I barely have time to read vortex
Horace,
You may be care to send this to Gustav GROB email: info at uniseo.org. He
may have an interest, as well as an influence to see something productive
happen with your ideas.
Steve
I wrote: "However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the
air. The smell of money is there."
I meant to write: "However, emerging capitalists should have their noses in
the air. The smell of money is there."
However, a little noise probably couldn't hurt if that's all it is.
Rega
I wrote: "However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the
air. The smell of money is there."
I wrote: "However, emerging capitalists should have their noses in the air.
The smell of money is there."
Regards,
Horace Heffner
At 4:22 PM 3/6/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>
>The costs started off in dollars and got multiplied by 10^9, so
>they are be in billions, not trillions of dollars per quad/yr
>generation capacity.
Yes, thanks. I corrected in response to Michael Foster's remarks.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
At 10:39 PM 3/5/5, Michael Foster wrote:
>I assume you mean American "trillion", i.e., 10^12. In any case, long
>term conversion of energy sources needs to be analyzed this way. This
>is very enlightening.
Thanks for the correction. I shouldn't post when I'm so short of time.
Regards,
Hora
The following is an attempt to put into perspective the problem of
obtaining the world's energy needs by carbon free renewable means.
Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W
Gas turbine 0.5
Wind 2.0
Solar tower 2.5
Nuclear 6.0
One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expen
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:23:50
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
>Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W
>
>Gas turbine 0.5
>Wind 2.0
>Solar tower 2.5
>Nuclear 6.0
>
>One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the
>above va
--- On Sat 03/05, Horace Heffner < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> It appears the job of converting to renewable energy can be accomplished
> starting now, especially where long trades are not required. The capital
> cost will ultimately be on the order of 90,000 trillion dollars, but
> invested o
Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W
Gas turbine 0.5
Wind 2.0
Solar tower 2.5
Nuclear 6.0
One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the
above values by 33.43 we can thus obtain energy plant cost in $ per MBtu/yr
assuming a plant life of o
14 matches
Mail list logo
