[Tfug] OT: Battery Powered Transportation: Converting Thermal to Electrical Energy

[Charles R. Kiss]

Okay, I revised the calculation using other parameters and it's just as  
bad.

Please check my math!

Charles


On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:57:21 -0400, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com>  
wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
>> I think you're right about the 365; looks like I'll have to
>> rework the article... but I won't be so freindly this time
>> -no more "super-nuclear plants", and no more 10% !!! 
>> HOw's that???
>
> *I* would argue the extreme case first:  i.e., how much
> electricity you would need IN TODAY'S TERMS to replace what
> we currently use.  *Then*, I would start hand-waving and
> making "generous reductions" in the estimates (i.e.,
> "let's assume HALF -- or whatever -- of the energy needs
> are used by vehicles that can't be replaced with electric
> alternatives (ocean liners, battle ships, etc.  :> ).  So,
> we need to come up with 14.5 blahblahs instead of 29 blahblahs.
> Now let's assume electrical drivetrains are X% more efficient
> than they are today (note that your article doesn't address
> the relative efficiencies of electric motors vs. internal
> combustion engines... IIRC, the electric motor is one of
> the most efficient "machines" man has created -- ?).  Etc."
> And, finsih off by comparing your power plant projections
> to the current total number of plants in operation in the
> entire country TODAY.  Recalling that these existing plants will
> still need to continue to exist to address other energy needs
> so you are looking at N *new* plants just to handle the
> vehicular load, etc.
>
> As an afterthought, make sure you discount any electricity
> already being used to address transportation needs from that
> 29 figure (I can't recall what the actual number from electric
> was... can't imagine it is very much!)
>
>> Looks like I was using a yearly BTU value and comparing it
>> to daily nuclear power plant output ! Good call.
>>
>> I knew something was wrong but couldn't find it. 
>> THANKS!
>
> As I say, I think the approach (electric vehicles) is still flawed
> if the goal is to try to replace existing consumption.  Need
> to change the equation so we are thinking more in terms of
> more efficient *use* of transportation instead of just more
> efficient *means* of transportation!
>
>> Here's a link for US nuclear plants production:  
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/diablo.html
>
> BTW, don't forget to adjust the PDF (if that's what you
> eventually end up "publishing/distributing") to include
> appropriate authorship/copyright indications.
>
> Good luck!
>
> --don
>
>
>



-- 


This message and any attachments may contain information that is  
privileged or confidential, and is intended solely for the addressee.  If  
you recieved this message in error, please notify the sender by reply  
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.  Thank you.