The combination might even make more sense for a residential solution, with Robin's idea of recycling waste heat from compression, amounting to pumping heat from the environment into the house (Guy Negre thread). With the additional advantage that the compressed air car, lawnmower etc could be refilled in minutes from the compressed air tanks in the garage.
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:12 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: ITER Budget Slashed > If we can believe the Parkins paper, what would be the use of a $15/W > electricity plant? Even when > corrected for the plant factor difference, photovoltaic would be half the > installation cost > ($2/W*0.8/0.2 = $8/W), not to mention running costs! > > Inexpensive Nanosolar type photovoltaic + large scale compressed air energy > storage drawing energy > from the environment, couldn't this be the winning combination? > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Standing Bear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: ITER Budget Slashed > > >> On Friday 11 January 2008 09:35, Michel Jullian wrote: >>> It has been suggested on another list that they were convinced by the 2006 >> posthumous Science >>> article by William Parkins mirrored by NET here: >>> >>> "[Hot] Fusion Power: Will It Ever Come?" >>> http://www.newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/2006/SCIENCE-FusionPower.htm >>> >>> Quote: "Scaling of the construction costs from the Bechtel estimates >> suggests a total plant cost on >>> the order of $15 billion, or $15,000/kWe of plant rating. At a plant factor >> of 0.8 and total annual >>> charges of 17% against the capital investment, these capital charges alone >> would contribute 36 cents >>> to the cost of generating each kilowatt hour. This is far outside the >> competitive price range." >>> >>> $15/W is indeed a lot compared to the ~$2/W of a coal powered plant, or >> better now a Nanosolar PV >>> plant ($2/W too, admittedly with a lower plant factor (~0.2?) than coal due >> to insolation not being >>> constant, but with arguably much lower operating costs!) >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:12 PM >>> Subject: [Vo]:ITER Budget Slashed >>> >>> >>> > By 93.3%: >>> > >>> > http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/557301.aspx >>> > >>> > Is Congress coming to their senses? >>> > >>> > Terry >>> > >> Not to worry too much. Failure of vision by Congress will be replaced by >> funding from China and others, and possibly the reorganiztion of the project >> to include the United States out of the affair altogether. A rather >> ignominious end to >> US involvement. Somebody...a group of somebodies...are comparing apples >> and oranges, again. This is new project and costs are going to be quite >> high, especially on something that this species has never accomplished >> before in this period of its literate self awareness. To compare its >> supposed >> economics with anything at all not to mention a coal fired boiler is >> preposterous and smacks of an institution looking to bail and willing to use >> any excuse. It also smells like bankruptcy, something an institution would >> do >> when it privately knows it is insolvent but does not want that fact known >> outside its inner circle. >> This project is historic. It is not a silicon valley startup inventing a >> faster thumb drive or a new way of concealing corporate mal-ware in one; and >> finding out that the neighbors can do it 'cheaper'. The failure of the >> Americans will not be the end of it. It will only mean that the project will >> be built without American help, interference, or control; and its benefits >> will be to those with the vision to persevere in it. >> The eventual cost of this short-sightedness will be at first be economic, >> as new 'intellectually licenced' plants will spread over the world outside >> of the United States and start to lift the rest of the world to the >> leadership >> role that we are now abdicating. Second will be political and possibly >> territorial, as the United States becomes a third world nation sinking first >> into poverty and then into loss of territory. History has not been kind to >> those who pass on the torch of leadership. We gained our leadership >> by realizing that energy production leadership translated to leadership >> in factory production as muscles were replaced by machines run by >> abundant energy. Fusion energy is to chemical energy as chemical >> energy was to muscle energy. Fusion will work. The French know this. >> Eighty percent of their nation is run on atomics, and this fact is seen >> by others, giving the lie to detractors who endlessly prattle to pandering >> barrators about 'waste'. So it will be with fusion. This plant built in >> France over US objections....do we detect sour grapes here.... will be >> the model. >> When I was at university, an old professor instilled a lesson in a >> half forgotten class about 'activation energy'. A low energy process >> could be initiated by a relatively lower energy of activation, as in a >> spark initiating the firing of compressed gas in a cylinder. A high >> energy process will require more energy. Fusion requires more energy. >> Large fusion will require a lot more, but then society will get more in >> return. Meanwhile a small project, Focus-Fusion, languishes with low >> funding in a South American country yet soldiers on. They too could be >> successful with the dense plasma focus, and I pray they are. Burning >> dead dinosaurs and petrified ground litter and petrified fish guts will >> only last so long. >> Maybe that is why so many civilizations are episodic. >> >> Standing Bear >> > >
