At 4:58 PM 10/22/4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> be achieved using >> >very low frequencies, like 1 Hz or less. Unlike pure DC, >> this approach >> > >I weight of a transformer goes down with the frequency. That's why they use >high frequencies on aircraft. At one hertz transformers would have to be 60 >times larger. Motors would have to be 60 times larger. Not a practicable >idea.
A motor being 60 times larger is not necessarily a problem. It depends on the details of the economics. Like I said, the idea applies to long line bulk delivery, like the steady baselilne power delivery from nuclear plants. Steel is cheap. Copper is cheap. The cost of a couple 1 Hz motors driving 60 Hz generators at the end of the line is not going to make a 2000 mile transmission line infeasible. It seems to me the problem needing the most attention is underground cable cost, finding a cheap effective means of insulating with low capacitive losses. This has been achieved in the past using insulating gasses. DC circumvents this problem entirely, but requires a semiconductor power conversion at the terminal end. For reliability purposes such facilities have to be redundant too. It is not so clear to me the comparative economics of a couple 1 Hz motors vs a silicon solution. I would expect at some point the silicon solution would be cheaper. I would also expect a low Hz transmission line to be easily convertable to a DC line without major loss of capital investment in the line. The exciting question to me is: is it economically and politically possible to implement something today, without waiting for complex technology development or new science, by simply engineering the problem? I think the answer is yes. I think it is possible to locate large energy sources in a few locations and distribute the power without blighting the country with towers and power lines and eminent domain lawsuits and issues, and environmental problems. With sufficient government emphasis, it could be achieved in a decade. I would also note that delivering power in electric form is essential to the economy. Hydrogen pipelines, like gas pipelines, carry some major risks. Since their engineering and implementation would be fairly new, and hydrogen is more difficult to manage, I would assume hydrogen risks to be higher than those for natural gas, both in tranmission and delivery. Affordable fuel cell vehicles are pobably at least a decade away. The economics of a 10 MW or 100 MW fuel cell vs a 10 MW or 100 MW 1 Hz motor-generator would be interesting to develop. It has often bothered me that, though hydrogen is a good ulitmate solution, a natural gas solution might be the best that can be delivered in the time needed. I takes very little time to convert vehicles to natural gas. If one has a plentiful source of hydrogen then it doesn't take much to make that hydrogen into natural gas and get energy from the process too. All interesting issues I think. The problem is getting the ball rolling. There is no irresistable force to move the immovable ball. Maybe all it takes is a means to assure those in the US in the energy business that (a) they won't be economically damaged by the changes and (b) there is an opportunity to make a lot of money. Everybody in the US should benefit if the cost of energy drops dramatically and reliance on foreign sources is eliminated. The economy should benefit enormously. It might even benefit the economic during the activity to make it happen. The problem of government is spreading and managing the economic load to make it happen. Ten years is very ambitious, but considering we just threw 20 years away, why worry about doing something in just another 10 years? SOMETHING needs to be done now. It is preferable to do something now that can adapt to expected future technological developments, rather than to continue waiting on pie in the sky. Renwable development and new energy science is desirable, and I put forth a detailed plane for that. However, a 20 to 40 year timeline is not good enough. More needs to be accomplished sooner. We need a comprehensive four pronged energy war plan: (1) available known resources, (2) conservation, (3) renewables, and (4) new energy science. However, we can't wait for a comprehensive plan to be debated ad infinitem. There needs to be an immediate way to get mobilized while getting new recruits into basic training. It's time for government to focus heavily on energy in addition to terror, and I suspect that is well recognized. The link between the two is indisputable. That's all my opinion anyway. Regards, Horace Heffner
