-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> mounted the barricade and roared out: > From: Terry Blanton > > > About 92% [transmission and distribution eff] > > Yes but looked at another way that is 8% loss which is on top of the > thermal efficiency of the plant, correct? IOW a coal plant operating at > 40% thermal efficiency would suffer another 8% loss, compared to the > original energy content of the coal. A coal plant cannot be turned off > at night, so there are additional losses there. Plus the pollution. Which is exactly why there are immediate gains for a world-wide energy grid: there are no 'off-peak' hours, there. It's always 'High Noon' _somewhere_ on the planet. > Since we can burn hydrogen anywhere- and the pollution is nil, and > since the efficiency of conversion is the same or higher - then it > could possibly make lots of cent$$$ especially in the more northern > parts of the country to pipe hydrogen, made from wind energy, to a > small neighborhood "substation" sized unit, make your electricity > there, at 40% efficiency and up - in a converted diesel - and use the > waste heat for almost free hot water and home heating. There really must be more work done on harnessing degraded energy. Even to the extent of making the more and more ubiquitous 'urban heat island' an extinct entity of the past. > Even small diesels running on hydrogen can reach over 40% thermal > efficiency, do not suffer the transmission and distribution losses, can > be shut off when not needed, and can provide very hot water to a local > setting. Hot water represents up to 25% of the average family's energy > use - not to mention winter-time heating. > > http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/03/17/h2bvplus-bmw-hydrogen-engine/ > > That kind of co-generation comparison makes wind->H2 look more > competitive, especially in certain geographical areas, no? Surely there must be a simple teknology in the pipeline which will allow the storage of large amounts of electrical power on-site at any power generation site. I think 8% loss in transmission (whatever the loss in generation/storing/retrieving) is acceptable, if not optimal. Certainly the power utilities and governments think so too. Of course, you want to keep working on lowering that number. And using a HVDC backbone -- superconducting or otherwise -- should IMO (whatever that's worth) likely be part of that equation. Of course, the likes of CF -- or any other wondrous new tabletop tek -- would radically change that equation... (Wait. did I say "radical"..??? Oh no..!! MiB..!! Black helicopters.!! Gaaaaaa..!!!! ;) - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn+GSYACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GOFwCg4wuAphbylsqbovreHjF1XdUz RPgAoJeALalzDRMdhDvy+rV0Ym2dxl3n =Ox3e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
