On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:08:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/29/2022 6:06 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:49:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2022 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2022 3:48 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We just came back from the weekly shopping expedition and
>>>>> part of the
>>>>> way we were on the major highway to the North East of the
>>>>> country with
>>>>> big trucks lumbering by.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit a number of these 18 wheelers, or even 18 wheelers
>>>>> hauling a
>>>>> second trailer were using LNG as fuel, big tanks behind
>>>>> the cab, and I
>>>>> remembered that my wife's younger sister has a LPG fired
>>>>> sedan and
>>>>> pickup truck.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that one of the excuses for electricity is that gas
>>>>> fired
>>>>> generator stations emit very little contaminate gas, and
>>>>> certainly an
>>>>> internal combustion vehicle is cheaper both in initial
>>>>> cost and
>>>>> maintenance, then electric, so why not a big hurrah for
>>>>> gas fired cars
>>>>> rather then electric?
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem is distribution infrastructure - the
>>>> same problem as for hydrogen powered cars.
>>>>
>>>> To fuel very many vehicles using LNG, you'll have to develop
>>>> a scheme to make LNG available in hundreds of thousands of
>>>> places around the country. That's not impossible, but it
>>>> would be an immense undertaking.
>>>>
>>>> Electricity is already available all around the country.
>>>> Essentially everyone has it at home. And putting out
>>>> charging stations for public use is far easier than putting
>>>> out LNG stations.
>>>>
>>> I don't know.
>>> In rural USA, LP distribution is a well developed industry
>>> with suppliers all over the place and trucks refilling tanks
>>> daily, just as local gasoline/diesel fuel distributors visit
>>> gasoline stations regularly.
>>
>> Yes. My mother has two places in the country that have big tanks for the LP. About 8 feet long and 4 foot diameter. Feed the furnace and stove. Hot water heaters are electric. Refill truck comes once a year. I'd guess 5 percent or less of the USA population gets its fuel this way. 95%+ get natural gas from the utility. Which is what Liquid Propane is a substitute for. Can you scale up the LP system in such a way as to provide Liquid Natural Gas? Maybe. Maybe not.
>>
>> But, like with electricity, natural gas is almost universal around the USA. At least in all cities and towns and villages. So maybe like with electric car chargers people are installing in their garages for their electric cars (single phase 220 volt), we could install mini LNG producers in every house. I don't know what is involved with creating LNG from the gas. But maybe it can be done at home. All you would need to do is run the existing natural gas line into the house right now to the garage and hook it up to the portable LNG maker. And set up a few LNG dispensers in the country for people who do not have natural gas in their house. Or make them have a LNG and LP tank at home and get deliveries.
>>
>> But LNG has a chicken and egg problem. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg. With lots (millions) of LNG cars instantaneously produced and driven, then every gas station in the USA would immediately run out and hire a company to install a huge 10,000 gallon tank in the ground and have a pump installed. Overnight.
>>
>> LNG is maybe similar to the way gasoline cars first started. I suspect the first cars on the roads carried a spare can or two of gas because there was no place to refill if they went for a drive. And it ended up using more fuel than planned. But eventually lots of gas retailers popped up. And cars to warrant having lots of sellers. Do we want to repeat that history?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Here, our petroleum products come down from Canada whereas
>>> in Chicago they run up from Oklahoma and Louisiana. Each
>>> system has refineries (Superior WI and Whiting IN),
>>> subsidiary gasoline/diesel/heating oil pipelines to
>>> distribution centers but the last mile is by tanker truck.
>>>
>>> I would imagine LNG, as LP, will extend similarly, just a
>>> scaled up version of the oil system, i.e., not a pipeline to
>>> every corner retail outlet. I could be wrong; there may be
>>> factors of which I am unaware.
>>>
>>> Yes, electricity is available nearly everywhere, for some
>>> values of 'electricity'. People with machine tools or other
>>> large electric motor equipment are painfully aware that
>>> there are two 220V formats, not available everywhere, and
>>> 3-phase is also nowhere near universal. Utilities charge
>>> astronomical fees to extend higher-rated lines by request,
>>> in the case of my favorite auto engine builder $70,000 to
>>> bring 3-phase less than 1000 feet. Prepaid only. He bought a
>>> different motor and controller for his Bridgeport. I changed
>>> the motor and controller for my big compressor system when
>>> we moved for the same reason. For 'rapid charge' auto
>>> systems, similar location restrictions are likely I would
>>> assume.
>>
>> In the woodworking world people get around the three phase electricity problem for bigger motors or variable speed motors by installing a phase converter. A few thousand dollars. Or use a VFD Variable Frequency Drive if you need variable speed or just need to create three phase power for one machine. Much cheaper than having a direct line from the utility company. But if you are a big user, factory, then you have to pay the utility because there are limits to the amount of power a phase converter can produce. And cheaper than having a VFD on every three phase motor.
>>
>
>My point regarding 3-phase is that all our current energy
>systems have foibles and anomalies. LP gas is piped to
>distribution centers and compressed there for truck
>delivery. No reason LPG could not parallel that format,
>which is very much like the gasoline distribution system.

I'm not sure what your term "LP" actually refers to but I think it was
what was called "LPG" as in "Liquefied Petroleum Gas" when I was
working in the trade. Basically a gas that liquefies under relatively
low pressure at normal temperatures. Usually largely "Propane" but can
contain other gasses.

Here it is used primarily as a cooking fuel - "gas stoves in the
kitchen" and comes in smallish steel tanks.

I'm not sure what started the "fad" (if you would) but it seems that
while LPG fueled autos are certainly "not that common" they are common
enough that you new see "filling Stations" with big signs "LPG" if you
drive any distance.

For some reason I don't see heavy trucks obviously using LPG but
rather from the tanks, see https://tinyurl.com/ycktebwb it seems to be
LNG (liquefied Natural Gas) which actually has a lower heat value then
the common cooking gas.

These large trucks - 40' flat bed hauling a 40' trailer are more and
more common - don't stop at the usual "gas station" so I've never seen
then being refueled.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 02:54:17 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2022 9:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Economic_efficiency>
>>> "Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface
>>> and conversion losses, energy recovery of 70-80% or more can be
>>> achieved."

>> That's better than I would have guessed.

>And it blows the shit out of round trip electricity -> hydrogen ->
>electricity conversion rates.

CAES (compressed air energy storage) has some possibilities. The big
benefit is that it's not restricted to pumping sites with convenient
elevation and storage topography. One tempting possibility is to
power automobiles directly with compressed air and avoid the
conversions to and from electric power:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=compressed+air+vehicles&tbm=isch>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=compressed+air+bicycle&tbm=isch>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage>
"The theoretical efficiency of adiabatic storage approaches 100% with
perfect insulation, but in practice, round trip efficiency is expected
to be 70%"

<https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes>
See graph at Fig 3. Table 2 claims an efficiency of 85%.
I don't believe the 85%.

<https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes/>
"The power-to-power efficiency is approx. 42% without and 55% with
waste heat utilization..."
"Much higher efficiencies of up to 70% can be achieved if the heat of
compression is recovered and used to reheat the compressed air during
turbine operations because there is no longer any need to burn extra
natural gas to warm the decompressed air."

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 02:54:17 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2022 9:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Economic_efficiency>
>>>> "Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface
>>>> and conversion losses, energy recovery of 70-80% or more can be
>>>> achieved."
>
>>> That's better than I would have guessed.
>
>> And it blows the shit out of round trip electricity -> hydrogen ->
>> electricity conversion rates.
>
> CAES (compressed air energy storage) has some possibilities. The big
> benefit is that it's not restricted to pumping sites with convenient
> elevation and storage topography. One tempting possibility is to
> power automobiles directly with compressed air and avoid the
> conversions to and from electric power:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=compressed+air+vehicles&tbm=isch>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=compressed+air+bicycle&tbm=isch>
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage>
> "The theoretical efficiency of adiabatic storage approaches 100% with
> perfect insulation, but in practice, round trip efficiency is expected
> to be 70%"
>
> <https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes>
> See graph at Fig 3. Table 2 claims an efficiency of 85%.
> I don't believe the 85%.
>
> <https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes/>
> "The power-to-power efficiency is approx. 42% without and 55% with
> waste heat utilization..."
> "Much higher efficiencies of up to 70% can be achieved if the heat of
> compression is recovered and used to reheat the compressed air during
> turbine operations because there is no longer any need to burn extra
> natural gas to warm the decompressed air."
>

There is also energy storage via a crane and giant concrete blocks. Stack
the blocks in a tall pile when you have excess electricity, than
disassemble the pile and put all the blocks at ground level, thus releasing
the potential energy of the raised blocks. 80-90% efficiency.

https://www.wired.com/story/energy-vault-gravity-storage/amp

https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/inventions/inventions-04-00064/article_deploy/inventions-04-00064.pdf?version=1572508820

On 4/29/2022 10:49 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:08:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/2022 6:06 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:49:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2022 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/2022 3:48 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We just came back from the weekly shopping expedition and
>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>> way we were on the major highway to the North East of the
>>>>>> country with
>>>>>> big trucks lumbering by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quit a number of these 18 wheelers, or even 18 wheelers
>>>>>> hauling a
>>>>>> second trailer were using LNG as fuel, big tanks behind
>>>>>> the cab, and I
>>>>>> remembered that my wife's younger sister has a LPG fired
>>>>>> sedan and
>>>>>> pickup truck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that one of the excuses for electricity is that gas
>>>>>> fired
>>>>>> generator stations emit very little contaminate gas, and
>>>>>> certainly an
>>>>>> internal combustion vehicle is cheaper both in initial
>>>>>> cost and
>>>>>> maintenance, then electric, so why not a big hurrah for
>>>>>> gas fired cars
>>>>>> rather then electric?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem is distribution infrastructure - the
>>>>> same problem as for hydrogen powered cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> To fuel very many vehicles using LNG, you'll have to develop
>>>>> a scheme to make LNG available in hundreds of thousands of
>>>>> places around the country. That's not impossible, but it
>>>>> would be an immense undertaking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Electricity is already available all around the country.
>>>>> Essentially everyone has it at home. And putting out
>>>>> charging stations for public use is far easier than putting
>>>>> out LNG stations.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>> In rural USA, LP distribution is a well developed industry
>>>> with suppliers all over the place and trucks refilling tanks
>>>> daily, just as local gasoline/diesel fuel distributors visit
>>>> gasoline stations regularly.
>>>
>>> Yes. My mother has two places in the country that have big tanks for the LP. About 8 feet long and 4 foot diameter. Feed the furnace and stove. Hot water heaters are electric. Refill truck comes once a year. I'd guess 5 percent or less of the USA population gets its fuel this way. 95%+ get natural gas from the utility. Which is what Liquid Propane is a substitute for. Can you scale up the LP system in such a way as to provide Liquid Natural Gas? Maybe. Maybe not.
>>>
>>> But, like with electricity, natural gas is almost universal around the USA. At least in all cities and towns and villages. So maybe like with electric car chargers people are installing in their garages for their electric cars (single phase 220 volt), we could install mini LNG producers in every house. I don't know what is involved with creating LNG from the gas. But maybe it can be done at home. All you would need to do is run the existing natural gas line into the house right now to the garage and hook it up to the portable LNG maker. And set up a few LNG dispensers in the country for people who do not have natural gas in their house. Or make them have a LNG and LP tank at home and get deliveries.
>>>
>>> But LNG has a chicken and egg problem. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg. With lots (millions) of LNG cars instantaneously produced and driven, then every gas station in the USA would immediately run out and hire a company to install a huge 10,000 gallon tank in the ground and have a pump installed. Overnight.
>>>
>>> LNG is maybe similar to the way gasoline cars first started. I suspect the first cars on the roads carried a spare can or two of gas because there was no place to refill if they went for a drive. And it ended up using more fuel than planned. But eventually lots of gas retailers popped up. And cars to warrant having lots of sellers. Do we want to repeat that history?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here, our petroleum products come down from Canada whereas
>>>> in Chicago they run up from Oklahoma and Louisiana. Each
>>>> system has refineries (Superior WI and Whiting IN),
>>>> subsidiary gasoline/diesel/heating oil pipelines to
>>>> distribution centers but the last mile is by tanker truck.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine LNG, as LP, will extend similarly, just a
>>>> scaled up version of the oil system, i.e., not a pipeline to
>>>> every corner retail outlet. I could be wrong; there may be
>>>> factors of which I am unaware.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, electricity is available nearly everywhere, for some
>>>> values of 'electricity'. People with machine tools or other
>>>> large electric motor equipment are painfully aware that
>>>> there are two 220V formats, not available everywhere, and
>>>> 3-phase is also nowhere near universal. Utilities charge
>>>> astronomical fees to extend higher-rated lines by request,
>>>> in the case of my favorite auto engine builder $70,000 to
>>>> bring 3-phase less than 1000 feet. Prepaid only. He bought a
>>>> different motor and controller for his Bridgeport. I changed
>>>> the motor and controller for my big compressor system when
>>>> we moved for the same reason. For 'rapid charge' auto
>>>> systems, similar location restrictions are likely I would
>>>> assume.
>>>
>>> In the woodworking world people get around the three phase electricity problem for bigger motors or variable speed motors by installing a phase converter. A few thousand dollars. Or use a VFD Variable Frequency Drive if you need variable speed or just need to create three phase power for one machine. Much cheaper than having a direct line from the utility company. But if you are a big user, factory, then you have to pay the utility because there are limits to the amount of power a phase converter can produce. And cheaper than having a VFD on every three phase motor.
>>>
>>
>> My point regarding 3-phase is that all our current energy
>> systems have foibles and anomalies. LP gas is piped to
>> distribution centers and compressed there for truck
>> delivery. No reason LPG could not parallel that format,
>> which is very much like the gasoline distribution system.
>
> I'm not sure what your term "LP" actually refers to but I think it was
> what was called "LPG" as in "Liquefied Petroleum Gas" when I was
> working in the trade. Basically a gas that liquefies under relatively
> low pressure at normal temperatures. Usually largely "Propane" but can
> contain other gasses.
>
> Here it is used primarily as a cooking fuel - "gas stoves in the
> kitchen" and comes in smallish steel tanks.
>
> I'm not sure what started the "fad" (if you would) but it seems that
> while LPG fueled autos are certainly "not that common" they are common
> enough that you new see "filling Stations" with big signs "LPG" if you
> drive any distance.
>
> For some reason I don't see heavy trucks obviously using LPG but
> rather from the tanks, see https://tinyurl.com/ycktebwb it seems to be
> LNG (liquefied Natural Gas) which actually has a lower heat value then
> the common cooking gas.
>
> These large trucks - 40' flat bed hauling a 40' trailer are more and
> more common - don't stop at the usual "gas station" so I've never seen
> then being refueled.
>

I was unclear on that difference thank you. Liquified gas
would have higher energy density which matters for vehicles;
not so much for a stove or furnace.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:54:28 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ralph@invalid.com> wrote:

(...)
>There is also energy storage via a crane and giant concrete blocks. Stack
>the blocks in a tall pile when you have excess electricity, than
>disassemble the pile and put all the blocks at ground level, thus releasing
>the potential energy of the raised blocks. 80-90% efficiency.
>
>https://www.wired.com/story/energy-vault-gravity-storage/amp
>
>https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/inventions/inventions-04-00064/article_deploy/inventions-04-00064.pdf?version=1572508820

Yes, there's gravity energy storage. Like all such ideas, it has been
tried before. Sisyphus would likely have been the first:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=sisyphus&tbm=isch>

<https://www.energyvault.com>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCawtiU4o1o> (12:05)

According to the 2nd URL in Table 1 (Pg 3), the round trip efficiency
for GPM (gravity power module) is 75 to 80%. The problem is that
unless the tower or mine shaft is very high or very deep, the output
power from the device will be intermittent as limited by rate of
descent. That implies it needs either multiple falling masses with
overlapping outputs as in the tower in the Wired article, or
intermediate storage (batteries) to deliver constant output power. I
suspect that the electric utilities would take a dim view of attaching
an electric generator to their grid that power that is far more
intermittent than solar and wind. Perhaps add a (lossy?) governor to
stabilize the output to 50/60Hz.

The Wired photo of the tower in Switzerland offers some clues. I
noticed the lack of stabilizing guy wires on the tower. That means
that the system requires symmetrical opposing falling masses to
prevent the tower from leaning in one direction, buckling, or
otherwise breaking. The rate of descent also has to be balanced
between opposing masses. I suspect it could be done, at least on
paper, but also suspect that balancing two 30 ton concrete blocks 110
meters (361 ft) in the air, is not a trivial exercise. Of course,
that assume still air, which might be achievable at ground level, but
would be the exception, rather than the rule, at 75 meters elevation.
That's one reason why wind turbine towers are seeking ever increasing
tower heights. Notice the logarithmic increase in wind speed on the
graphs:
<https://wind-data.ch/tools/profile.php?lng=en>
Energy changes with the cube of the wind speed, so slight changes in
the wind speed will produce rather large lateral forces on the
concrete blocks.

In the video, the animation of the Swiss system shows wind turbines in
the background. A site that's suitable for wind power is not going to
also work for block lifting gravity power. There's not much to
prevent the concrete blocks from turning into malformed turbines in a
strong wind. I have a vision of large concrete blocks, on the end of
suspended cables, swinging in the wind.

The system described in the Vimeo video is probably more practical:
"Energy Vault Resiliency Center"
<https://www.energyvault.com> (2:01)
The building will probably create enough turbulence to adversely
affect the nearby wind turbines.

The system where a large mass is dropped down an abandoned mine shaft
also has possibilities. However, with an enclosed air space, air
resistance and energy loss in the air released to the atmosphere ahead
of the descending mass, are going to be problems. I suppose it might
work in a vacuum.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/29/2022 10:48 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:36:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/2022 9:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:44:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/2022 6:03 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 12:30 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might want to put a caveat next to “and hydro”. If your reservoir is
>>>>>>> big enough, storing hydroelectricity for months and even years is no
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's true, and sometimes they pump water back up into the
>>>>>> reservoir at night so they can use it again the next day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is a one in a mountain in wales, it’s generally used for peak loads, ie
>>>>> such as when every one is likely to have a cup of tea at half time, and
>>>>> then it pumps the water back up at night when it’s cheap etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I believe some big battery farms are being built ie to store and
>>>>> even out wind/solar etc.
>>>
>>>> I'm curious about the efficiency of such storage schemes. I don't doubt
>>>> the net benefit of using off-peak loads for storage. But I'm curious
>>>> about the percentage of the stored energy that's recoverable.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity>
>>> "The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%-80%, with
>>> some sources claiming up to 87%."
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Economic_efficiency>
>>> "Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface
>>> and conversion losses, energy recovery of 70-80% or more can be
>>> achieved."
>
>> That's better than I would have guessed.
>
> Guessing the overall efficiency is fairly simple. I lifted some
> typical small system efficiencies from:
> <https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/hydropower/hydropower-learning-centre/how-much-power-could-i-generate-from-a-hydro-turbine/>
> 85% turbine efficiency
> 95% drive efficiency
> 93% motor/generator efficiency
> Therefore, the overall efficiency would be:
> 0.85 x 0.95 x 0.93 = 0.75 = 75%
> Add in water evaporation losses, fluid flow friction heating, losses
> from injested debris, on site electrical transmission losses, and
> power sucked from the system to run the valves, computers, lighting,
> etc, I would guess about 95% or:
> 0.75 * 0.95 = 0.71 = 71%
> As I understand it, large systems are more efficient than the small
> systems, so these results are likely to be on the low side.

I think a big thing you're omitting is the friction flow losses. Sending
a fluid through a pipe always imposes a loss of energy. There's the
fairly simple to understand friction between the fluid and the walls of
hte pipe. There's also a loss of energy when a pipe flows into a large
body of water, since the fluid's kinetic energy must be lost.

Admittedly, I don't have any idea of the magnitude of those losses.
Given dimensions, flow rates etc. I could try an estimate, but I prefer
not to play with that stuff since I retired.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2022 6:03 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2022 12:30 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You might want to put a caveat next to “and hydro”. If your reservoir is
>>>> big enough, storing hydroelectricity for months and even years is no
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's true, and sometimes they pump water back up into the
>>> reservoir at night so they can use it again the next day.
>>>
>> Is a one in a mountain in wales, it’s generally used for peak loads, ie
>> such as when every one is likely to have a cup of tea at half time, and
>> then it pumps the water back up at night when it’s cheap etc.
>>
>> Though I believe some big battery farms are being built ie to store and
>> even out wind/solar etc.
>
> I'm curious about the efficiency of such storage schemes. I don't doubt
> the net benefit of using off-peak loads for storage. But I'm curious
> about the percentage of the stored energy that's recoverable.

The Welsh one is getting on for 40 years old
<https://www.electricmountain.co.uk/Dinorwig-Power-Station>

And purpose is that, peak loads, and then pump it back when electricity is
cheap, essentially relying on the fact that coal etc powered stations have
to be run 24/7 but there purpose is essentially for peak.

I’d guess that this might change as (if) power stations can either be
ramped up quickly and low/off.
>
> Way, way back when GM's first experimental electric car was made public
> (the terribly named "Impact"), I saw one on display at Disney World. I
> asked the eager young engineer manning the booth about that question of
> charge-discharge efficiency. He stopped short and said "Wow. I don't
> know the answer. Nobody's ever asked that before."
>
> (About the name: Jay Leno said "That's a terrible name! Why did they
> name it the 'Impact'?? Was 'Flaming Ball of Death' taken??")
>
Roger Merriman.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 7:11:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 5:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:05:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/27/2022 10:26 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> The lies about electric vehicles simply have hidden the fact that they actually contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than modern internal combustion machines.
> >>
> >> Ah, good! Yet another topic on which Tom Kunich knows much more than,
> >> and disagrees with, every competent scientist and engineer working in
> >> that field!
> >
> > (:-)
> > Years and years ago I read an article about electric cars. It
> > specified the smallest electric car that would be acceptable as
> > something about the size of a Volkswagen Bug with a range of about 60
> > miles.
> >
> > The article went on to discuss battery technology, as known then, amps
> > and volts, and a number of other features, but the last sentence in
> > the article stated that: "And at 5 o'clock when everyone in Los
> > Angeles comes home from work and plugs their car into the charger
> > there isn't sufficient electricity being generated in California to
> > charge them."
> >
> So nothing's changed.
47% of California's power is still generated by fossil fuels and almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels. Transmission of electricity over long distances can lose 97% of the energy. But electric cars are more efficient. Just ask Joe Biden. And whatever he say is parroted word for word by the Slime Stream Media and repeated as absolute fact by the sock puppets here.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:04:31 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 21:10:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/27/2022 5:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:05:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/27/2022 10:26 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> The lies about electric vehicles simply have hidden the fact that
> >>>>> they actually contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than modern
> >>>>> internal combustion machines.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah, good! Yet another topic on which Tom Kunich knows much more than,
> >>>> and disagrees with, every competent scientist and engineer working in
> >>>> that field!
> >>>
> >>> (:-)
> >>> Years and years ago I read an article about electric cars. It
> >>> specified the smallest electric car that would be acceptable as
> >>> something about the size of a Volkswagen Bug with a range of about 60
> >>> miles.
> >>>
> >>> The article went on to discuss battery technology, as known then, amps
> >>> and volts, and a number of other features, but the last sentence in
> >>> the article stated that: "And at 5 o'clock when everyone in Los
> >>> Angeles comes home from work and plugs their car into the charger
> >>> there isn't sufficient electricity being generated in California to
> >>> charge them."
> >>>
> >>
> >> So nothing's changed.
> >
> > I don't know. Has it? SMA tells us that the best time to charge is 12
> > a.m. to 7 a.m. I'm a long time gone from AM/PM but isn't that from
> > about midnight till early morning? I'm usually asleep at that time.
> It’s not like you have to turn a crank to charge an electric car. You can
> tell the car when to charge and it can do it while you sleep. Eventually,
> the car and the local power system may actually negotiate charging.

Ralph, what you say CAN be done but at what expense to an installed grid? How much more are you willing to pay for a smart energy system?

On 4/30/2022 8:51 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> According to the 2nd URL in Table 1 (Pg 3), the round trip efficiency
> for GPM (gravity power module) is 75 to 80%. The problem is that
> unless the tower or mine shaft is very high or very deep, the output
> power from the device will be intermittent as limited by rate of
> descent.

Still, the storage costs, via pumping, are almost certainly lower than
storage batteries. Also, you can use wind power to generate the
electricity needed by the pumps since at night, when demand is low, that
wind energy would otherwise not be used.

We'll likely see a lot more long-distance transmission lines in the
future, from areas with excess wind, solar, and hydro power to areas
that need more power.

It's become extremely efficient to transmit electricity via HVDC with
losses at about 3.5% per 1000 km. Even Texas, with it's separate grid,
can make good use of HVDC since it doesn't have to be synchronized with
the 60 Hz on its own grid.

A couple of years ago, there was a clue on Jeopardy regarding
long-distance transmission lines for electricity and whoever wrote the
clue was unfamiliar with how electricity is transmitted over long
distances. The losses for AC transmission are roughly 2x (6.7% per
1000km). You have to be transmitting a lot of electricity to make up for
the expense of doing AC to DC then DC to AC conversion, but it's pretty
common nevertheless.

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:28:02 PM UTC-5, elizabet...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 7:11:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 4/27/2022 5:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:05:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 4/27/2022 10:26 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>> The lies about electric vehicles simply have hidden the fact that they actually contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than modern internal combustion machines.
> > >>
> > >> Ah, good! Yet another topic on which Tom Kunich knows much more than,
> > >> and disagrees with, every competent scientist and engineer working in
> > >> that field!
> > >
> > > (:-)
> > > Years and years ago I read an article about electric cars. It
> > > specified the smallest electric car that would be acceptable as
> > > something about the size of a Volkswagen Bug with a range of about 60
> > > miles.
> > >
> > > The article went on to discuss battery technology, as known then, amps
> > > and volts, and a number of other features, but the last sentence in
> > > the article stated that: "And at 5 o'clock when everyone in Los
> > > Angeles comes home from work and plugs their car into the charger
> > > there isn't sufficient electricity being generated in California to
> > > charge them."
> > >
> > So nothing's changed.
> 47% of California's power is still generated by fossil fuels and almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels. Transmission of electricity over long distances can lose 97% of the energy. But electric cars are more efficient. Just ask Joe Biden. And whatever he say is parroted word for word by the Slime Stream Media and repeated as absolute fact by the sock puppets here.

I wrote this three days ago. You apparently do not read the contents of threads.

russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Apr 29, 2022, 12:33:34 AM (3 days ago)
to
Gosh Tommy. It would be nice if you weren't such an inveterate liar.

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA
"California is second only to Texas in the combined total electricity generation from all renewable resources and leads the nation in generation from solar, geothermal, and biomass energy."
"Renewable resources, including hydropower and small-scale (less than 1-megawatt), customer-sited solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, supplied nearly half of California's total in-state electricity generation despite a decline in hydroelectric generation caused by drought."
"Natural gas-fired power plants provided more than two-fifths of the state's total net generation and about half of California's utility-scale generation. Nuclear power's share of in-state generation was less than one-tenth, down from nearly one-fifth in 2011."
"California has the nation's second-largest conventional hydroelectric generating capacity after the state of Washington, and the state is consistently among the nation's top four hydropower producers."
"However, nonhydroelectric renewable generation, especially solar and wind energy, offset declines in the state's hydroelectric and nuclear generation.. In 2021, nonhydroelectric renewable resources provided 34% of the state's utility-scale net generation."

Tommy boy, HALF HALF HALF of your state's electricity came from RENEWABLE resources.

Whoever you are, you do not seem to understand that if 47% of electricity is from fossil fuels, then the other HALF must be from renewables. California seems to be doing something very good. Getting HALF its electricity from renewable sources. Yeah. A large portion of that renewables is from hydroelectric power. Dams.

As for your claim "almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels". Yes that is probably true. Afterall, PEAK DEMAND, happens when electricity usage is at its peak. Highest. So you need electricity immediately. Fossil fuels, such as natural gas, not coal, can generate electricity immediately when needed.. Coal is a good baseload fuel for electric generators because it takes awhile to get the fire going and it burns slow and steady for a long time. But with natural gas, its instant fire and instant steam and instant electricity. So fossil fuels such as natural gas are good for peak demand. Your quote is just basic, obvious logic. About as prophetic as its dark at night or its warm in summer.

As for your statement "Transmission of electricity over long distances can lose 97% of the energy." Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Read this for some facts.
https://faq-ans.com/en/Q%26A/page=ceb506e08cc4183482eff72097a93ee0

Also, use your brain and think. If transmitting electricity over distance was so wasteful, then it is obvious you would have to have an electric power plant near every town in the country/world. All people living in rural, farm areas, would not be able to get any electricity because all the electricity would be lost before they got any. Or they would have to have their own personal generator. Everyone living more than a couple miles away from a power plant could not have electricity if your lies were true. They could not get electricity. Think before writing such stupid things. Think, think, think.

On Mon, 2 May 2022 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>As for your claim "almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels". Yes that is probably true. Afterall, PEAK DEMAND, happens when electricity usage is at its peak. Highest. So you need electricity immediately. Fossil fuels, such as natural gas, not coal, can generate electricity immediately when needed. Coal is a good baseload fuel for electric generators because it takes awhile to get the fire going and it burns slow and steady for a long time. But with natural gas, its instant fire and instant steam and instant electricity. So fossil fuels such as natural gas are good for peak demand. Your quote is just basic, obvious logic. About as prophetic as its dark at night or its warm in summer.

Yup. Also, CAISO (which includes California) imports power from out
of the area at night and exports power to out of the area during the
day. See the Imports Trend graph at:
<http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-imports-trend>
Looks like we currently import more than we export.

For the current LMP (locational marginal price) see:
<http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/prices.html>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 2 May 2022 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Ann Kunich
<elizabethannie.47@gmail.com> wrote:

Ummm... Tom, it's not fixed. Open your browser and go thee unto:
<http://www.google.com>
Near the upper right hand corner of the web browser window, you'll see
either Ann's photo, or some kind of icon with her initials. Left
click on the photo or icon. A menu should appear. Left click
"Sign-Out". She should now be signed out of Google. Left click on
"Sign-In". This time, login as cyclintom@gmail.com and not as
elizabethannie.47@gmail.com.

Note: Tech support after midnight will be billed at double daytime
rates.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

So tommy has "an intuitive grasp of concepts of differential and integral calculus and the ability to express these concepts in the form of software and firmware products.", but he can't figure out how to log out of google.

"Tom does science." - just another RBT troll

On 5/3/2022 12:33 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As for your claim "almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels". Yes that is probably true. Afterall, PEAK DEMAND, happens when electricity usage is at its peak. Highest. So you need electricity immediately. Fossil fuels, such as natural gas, not coal, can generate electricity immediately when needed. Coal is a good baseload fuel for electric generators because it takes awhile to get the fire going and it burns slow and steady for a long time. But with natural gas, its instant fire and instant steam and instant electricity. So fossil fuels such as natural gas are good for peak demand. Your quote is just basic, obvious logic. About as prophetic as its dark at night or its warm in summer.
>
> Yup. Also, CAISO (which includes California) imports power from out
> of the area at night and exports power to out of the area during the
> day. See the Imports Trend graph at:
> <http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-imports-trend>
> Looks like we currently import more than we export.

"California's electricity imports include hydroelectric power from the
Pacific Northwest, largely across high-voltage transmission lines
running from Oregon to the Los Angeles area."

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, elizabet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 47% of California's power is still generated by fossil fuels and
> almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states
> to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels.

And?

> Transmission of electricity over long distances can lose 97% of the energy.

lol...sure. That's why AC and DC high tensions lines run hundreds of miles. The Pacific DC Intertie runs from The Celilo Converter Station in Rice Oregon for 846 miles to The Sylmar Converter Station in LA. I'm sure they planned for 97% loss along the way (lol). FWIW, high voltage transmission lines are closer to 95% _efficient_ https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

but hey, tommy does science! Right Andre? Of course we _aren't_ to believe the information published the the EIA which is based on research and statistics. Instead we are to take tommy's word for it because, well, tommy said so.

> But electric cars are more efficient.

Now this is interesting. At first our favorite RBT jester is talking bout transmission line losses, but then jumps to electric car efficiency. I'm curious as to the deranged thought process that somehow linked power grid transmission losses to electric car efficiency. And yes sparky, you _are_ linking them. The word 'but' is a conjunction. I'll let your pet sphincter licker explain the proper usage of conjunctions to you, which hopefully will include advice that a sentence shouldn't be started with a conjunction. That's just bad grammar.

> Just ask Joe Biden.

And Elon Musk. Oh, that's right. Elon Musk knows that electric cars are a scam and is just capitalizing on all us stoopid libruls.

> And whatever he say is parroted word for word by the Slime Stream Media and repeated as absolute fact

Verbatim, Factual reporting is a good thing. I want the media to report _exactly_ what a politician says. That you don't is very telling.

> by the sock puppets here.

So now we can add "sock puppet" to the list of things that tommy speaks of, yet is completely clueless about.

On 5/2/2022 9:58 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

>> 47% of California's power is still generated by fossil fuels and almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels. Transmission of electricity over long distances can lose 97% of the energy. But electric cars are more efficient. Just ask Joe Biden. And whatever he say is parroted word for word by the Slime Stream Media and repeated as absolute fact by the sock puppets here.
>
>
> I wrote this three days ago. You apparently do not read the contents of threads.

Tom is wrong of course™.

Losses in long-distance high-voltage transmission lines aew very low.

<https://www.theburningofrome.com/contributing/why-does-hvdc-have-less-losses/>

"What are the different losses in HVDC system?

Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission
losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.5%)
lines at the same voltage."

The HVDC line from Oregon to Los Angeles is about 1280 km so the losses
would be 1.280*3.5%=4.48% loss.

I wonder which fake news web site he came up with 97% losses from.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:58:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 9:58 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> 47% of California's power is still generated by fossil fuels and almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels. Transmission of electricity over long distances can lose 97% of the energy. But electric cars are more efficient. Just ask Joe Biden. And whatever he say is parroted word for word by the Slime Stream Media and repeated as absolute fact by the sock puppets here.
> >
> >
> > I wrote this three days ago. You apparently do not read the contents of threads.
> Tom is wrong of course™.

Of course he isn't! Andre said "tommy does science" so tommy _has_ to be right no matter what those goofy industry standard websites like https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 have to say!

>
> Losses in long-distance high-voltage transmission lines aew very low.
>
> <https://www.theburningofrome.com/contributing/why-does-hvdc-have-less-losses/>
>
> "What are the different losses in HVDC system?
>
> Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission
> losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.5%)
> lines at the same voltage."
>
> The HVDC line from Oregon to Los Angeles is about 1280 km so the losses
> would be 1.280*3.5%=4.48% loss.
>
> I wonder which fake news web site he came up with 97% losses from.

Probably the same website where he read that PWM is used to test cables, and 'light lines' is a common term for fiber optics.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 05:26:31 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/3/2022 12:33 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As for your claim "almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels". Yes that is probably true. Afterall, PEAK DEMAND, happens when electricity usage is at its peak. Highest. So you need electricity immediately. Fossil fuels, such as natural gas, not coal, can generate electricity immediately when needed. Coal is a good baseload fuel for electric generators because it takes awhile to get the fire going and it burns slow and steady for a long time. But with natural gas, its instant fire and instant steam and instant electricity. So fossil fuels such as natural gas are good for peak demand. Your quote is just basic, obvious logic. About as prophetic as its dark at night or its warm in summer.
>>
>> Yup. Also, CAISO (which includes California) imports power from out
>> of the area at night and exports power to out of the area during the
>> day. See the Imports Trend graph at:
>> <http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-imports-trend>
>> Looks like we currently import more than we export.
>
>"California's electricity imports include hydroelectric power from the
>Pacific Northwest, largely across high-voltage transmission lines
>running from Oregon to the Los Angeles area."

Yep. The buying and selling of energy on the US left coast is handled
by WEIM (Western Energy Imbalance Market) and administered by CAISO:
<https://www.westerneim.com/Pages/About/default.aspx>
<https://www.westerneim.com/Style%20Library/caiso/images/EIM-map-horizontal.jpg>
When one talks about "California" importing and exporting energy, they
usually mean CAISO, which does NOT include every part of California.
<https://www.westerneim.com/Documents/WEIM-2-Billion-in-Benefits-Fact-Sheet.pdf>
"The WEIM extends California ISO services to entities that are not
full participating transmission owners in the ISO grid. Through the
wholesale energy market, the ISO provides other states in the western
region access to the WEIM with its state-of-the-art, real-time grid
management system."

As I vaguely recall, most of the power California purchased in 2001
after Enron created an artificial power shortage, was purchased from
BC Hydro in Canada:
<https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/canada-interconnected.pdf>

"Electricity exports from B.C. to California are increasing" (2017)
<https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2017/market-snapshot-electricity-exports-from-b-c-california-are-increasing.html>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:35:35 +0000, funkmasterxx@hotmail.com (zen
cycle) wrote:

>So tommy has "an intuitive grasp of concepts of differential and integral calculus and the ability to express these concepts in the form of software and firmware products.", but he can't figure out how to log out of google.
>
>"Tom does science." - just another RBT troll

Oh, be nice. Tom ran into a common problem which is not very obvious
unless you know how everything works. The problem is that there is
one user login/password for the operating system (local, Microsoft or
Apple) and another for the various commonly used information services
(Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and such). There might also be some kind of
2FA authentication service involved. Each account could have a
different login name and password pair. Some of these logins are
persistent, which means the user doesn't need to bother with providing
a login/password pair every time they turn on the computer.

For reading Usenet news using Google Groups, Tom would need to know
that his Google Groups name is controlled by his Google login. He
could easily be using his machine for months, reboot it many times and
never need to login to Google Groups. That is, until someone else
logs into his machine and resets the persistent login by simply
logging in as someone else. When this happens, it's fairly easy to
forget the change, to remember the original login/password, to
distinguish whether one needs to also re-login to the operating
system, Google, any of the services, or some convoluted combination.
It can be a mess. It's not unusual for me to get a call from a
customer claiming that their machine is possessed by a ghost because
it thinks they are someone else. Of course, switching accounts can be
rather non-obvious.

Also, I may have made 2 mistakes. It was well past midnight when I
posted my suggested instructions and I was not thinking very clearly.
My first mistake was that I assumed that Tom was using Windoze. My
2nd was that I misread the time that the article was originally posted
and miscalculated the GMT to PDT conversion. Tom may have already
fixed the problem but I didn't notice. Tom has his problems, but he
might have actually fixed the problem before I posted my suggested
fix.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 2:49:58 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 4/29/2022 3:48 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> We just came back from the weekly shopping expedition and
> >> part of the
> >> way we were on the major highway to the North East of the
> >> country with
> >> big trucks lumbering by.
> >>
> >> Quit a number of these 18 wheelers, or even 18 wheelers
> >> hauling a
> >> second trailer were using LNG as fuel, big tanks behind
> >> the cab, and I
> >> remembered that my wife's younger sister has a LPG fired
> >> sedan and
> >> pickup truck.
> >>
> >> Given that one of the excuses for electricity is that gas
> >> fired
> >> generator stations emit very little contaminate gas, and
> >> certainly an
> >> internal combustion vehicle is cheaper both in initial
> >> cost and
> >> maintenance, then electric, so why not a big hurrah for
> >> gas fired cars
> >> rather then electric?
> >
> > I think the problem is distribution infrastructure - the
> > same problem as for hydrogen powered cars.
> >
> > To fuel very many vehicles using LNG, you'll have to develop
> > a scheme to make LNG available in hundreds of thousands of
> > places around the country. That's not impossible, but it
> > would be an immense undertaking.
> >
> > Electricity is already available all around the country.
> > Essentially everyone has it at home. And putting out
> > charging stations for public use is far easier than putting
> > out LNG stations.
> >
> I don't know.
> In rural USA, LP distribution is a well developed industry
> with suppliers all over the place and trucks refilling tanks
> daily, just as local gasoline/diesel fuel distributors visit
> gasoline stations regularly.
>
> Here, our petroleum products come down from Canada whereas
> in Chicago they run up from Oklahoma and Louisiana. Each
> system has refineries (Superior WI and Whiting IN),
> subsidiary gasoline/diesel/heating oil pipelines to
> distribution centers but the last mile is by tanker truck.
>
> I would imagine LNG, as LP, will extend similarly, just a
> scaled up version of the oil system, i.e., not a pipeline to
> every corner retail outlet. I could be wrong; there may be
> factors of which I am unaware.
>
> Yes, electricity is available nearly everywhere, for some
> values of 'electricity'. People with machine tools or other
> large electric motor equipment are painfully aware that
> there are two 220V formats, not available everywhere, and
> 3-phase is also nowhere near universal. Utilities charge
> astronomical fees to extend higher-rated lines by request,
> in the case of my favorite auto engine builder $70,000 to
> bring 3-phase less than 1000 feet. Prepaid only. He bought a
> different motor and controller for his Bridgeport. I changed
> the motor and controller for my big compressor system when
> we moved for the same reason. For 'rapid charge' auto
> systems, similar location restrictions are likely I would
> assume.
LNG isn't a good idea to power vehicles with. Aside from fact that it burns at a 50% lower fuel air ratio, it is difficult to monitor. The fuel itself is far more dangerous than gasoline and every "gas" station would have to be rebuilt to handle high pressure fuel. While they are telling you that LNG is one of the most common forms of energy, the base is already being strained by replacing coal and oil with natural gas.

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 11:49:26 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 4/28/2022 6:03 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 4/28/2022 12:30 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You might want to put a caveat next to “and hydro”. If your reservoir is
> >>>> big enough, storing hydroelectricity for months and even years is no
> >>>> problem.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's true, and sometimes they pump water back up into the
> >>> reservoir at night so they can use it again the next day.
> >>>
> >> Is a one in a mountain in wales, it’s generally used for peak loads, ie
> >> such as when every one is likely to have a cup of tea at half time, and
> >> then it pumps the water back up at night when it’s cheap etc.
> >>
> >> Though I believe some big battery farms are being built ie to store and
> >> even out wind/solar etc.
> >
> > I'm curious about the efficiency of such storage schemes. I don't doubt
> > the net benefit of using off-peak loads for storage. But I'm curious
> > about the percentage of the stored energy that's recoverable.
> The Welsh one is getting on for 40 years old
> <https://www.electricmountain.co.uk/Dinorwig-Power-Station>
>
> And purpose is that, peak loads, and then pump it back when electricity is
> cheap, essentially relying on the fact that coal etc powered stations have
> to be run 24/7 but there purpose is essentially for peak.
>
> I’d guess that this might change as (if) power stations can either be
> ramped up quickly and low/off.
> >
> > Way, way back when GM's first experimental electric car was made public
> > (the terribly named "Impact"), I saw one on display at Disney World. I
> > asked the eager young engineer manning the booth about that question of
> > charge-discharge efficiency. He stopped short and said "Wow. I don't
> > know the answer. Nobody's ever asked that before."
> >
> > (About the name: Jay Leno said "That's a terrible name! Why did they
> > name it the 'Impact'?? Was 'Flaming Ball of Death' taken??")
> >
> Roger Merriman.
There isn't enough information to calculate the efficiency and energy lost by that system and they aren't forthcoming with it. Sounds to me like they are a bit embarrassed by the amount of losses there are.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:35:35 +0000, funkma...@hotmail.com (zen
> cycle) wrote:
>
> >So tommy has "an intuitive grasp of concepts of differential and integral calculus and the ability to express these concepts in the form of software and firmware products.", but he can't figure out how to log out of google..
> >
> >"Tom does science." - just another RBT troll
> Oh, be nice.

How gracious of you (and I state that with the utmost sincerity), considering he regularly denigrates you for his perception of your intellect and some notion that you have a physical handicap.

Tom ran into a common problem which is not very obvious
> unless you know how everything works.

Therein lies the problem - he claims to have intimate knowledge of high tech, but it doesn't dawn on him that he and his wife use the same computer so she might still be logged in? For a _simple_ user, I agree it's not intuitive. This belies his overall technical abilities.

> The problem is that there is
> one user login/password for the operating system (local, Microsoft or
> Apple) and another for the various commonly used information services
> (Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and such). There might also be some kind of
> 2FA authentication service involved.

2FA is disabled by default in google. You have to dig a couple of layers down in the security settings and they don't call it "two factor authentication", rather "2-step verification". Again, this is incredibly basic stuff, well within the grasp of any reasonably competent user.
> Each account could have a
> different login name and password pair. Some of these logins are
> persistent, which means the user doesn't need to bother with providing
> a login/password pair every time they turn on the computer.
>
> For reading Usenet news using Google Groups, Tom would need to know
> that his Google Groups name is controlled by his Google login. He
> could easily be using his machine for months, reboot it many times and
> never need to login to Google Groups. That is, until someone else
> logs into his machine and resets the persistent login by simply
> logging in as someone else. When this happens, it's fairly easy to
> forget the change, to remember the original login/password, to
> distinguish whether one needs to also re-login to the operating
> system, Google, any of the services, or some convoluted combination.

More proof that he isn't killfiling anyone.

> It can be a mess. It's not unusual for me to get a call from a
> customer claiming that their machine is possessed by a ghost because
> it thinks they are someone else. Of course, switching accounts can be
> rather non-obvious.

And your customers call you because they realize they don't have the background and/or expertise to solve these problems. I have two google accounts that I use for various purposes. I have on more than a few occasions posted here in this group under my other account by accident (very recently in fact). I prefer not to use the other account for posting in here and other social tools (facebook, strava, training peaks, etc...), as it's the one that I use for professional and personal finances. It helps keep that account clean, free of spam, and way less cluttered. Sometimes I open the hotmail account and between spam and the various groups I belong to I have nearly 100 messages overnight.

>
> Also, I may have made 2 mistakes. It was well past midnight when I
> posted my suggested instructions and I was not thinking very clearly.
> My first mistake was that I assumed that Tom was using Windoze. My
> 2nd was that I misread the time that the article was originally posted
> and miscalculated the GMT to PDT conversion. Tom may have already
> fixed the problem but I didn't notice. Tom has his problems, but he
> might have actually fixed the problem before I posted my suggested
> fix.
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:44:50 AM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Ann Kunich
> <elizabet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ummm... Tom, it's not fixed. Open your browser and go thee unto:
> <http://www.google.com>
> Near the upper right hand corner of the web browser window, you'll see
> either Ann's photo, or some kind of icon with her initials. Left
> click on the photo or icon. A menu should appear. Left click
> "Sign-Out". She should now be signed out of Google. Left click on
> "Sign-In". This time, login as cycl...@gmail.com and not as
> elizabet...@gmail.com.
>
> Note: Tech support after midnight will be billed at double daytime
> rates.
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Thanks Jeff. I knew something was wrong about this post but did not put it all together. Tommy boy is using his wife's (ex-wife, new wife, 3rd wife, 2nd divorced wife, wife-in-law, etc. whatever happened in Reno) account to view all of the critical posts he claims to have banished/deleted so he does not have to read his detractors. Apparently Tommy boy wants to respond to his critics with more made up lies and nonsense and unrelated garbage. And claim the "high ground" of ignoring his critics. Typical Tommy.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:26:33 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> On 5/3/2022 12:33 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 May 2022 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As for your claim "almost 100% of the electricity they purchase from surrounding states to balance peak demand is from fossil fuels". Yes that is probably true. Afterall, PEAK DEMAND, happens when electricity usage is at its peak. Highest. So you need electricity immediately. Fossil fuels, such as natural gas, not coal, can generate electricity immediately when needed.. Coal is a good baseload fuel for electric generators because it takes awhile to get the fire going and it burns slow and steady for a long time. But with natural gas, its instant fire and instant steam and instant electricity. So fossil fuels such as natural gas are good for peak demand. Your quote is just basic, obvious logic. About as prophetic as its dark at night or its warm in summer.
> >
> > Yup. Also, CAISO (which includes California) imports power from out
> > of the area at night and exports power to out of the area during the
> > day. See the Imports Trend graph at:
> > <http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-imports-trend>
> > Looks like we currently import more than we export.
> "California's electricity imports include hydroelectric power from the
> Pacific Northwest, largely across high-voltage transmission lines
> running from Oregon to the Los Angeles area."

Doesn't Los Angeles get electricity from Hoover dam too?

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
How is the firm energy generated at Hoover Dam allocated?

Arizona - 18.9527 percent
Nevada - 23.3706 percent
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - 28.5393 percent
Burbank, CA - 0.5876 percent
Glendale, CA - 1.5874 percent
Pasadena, CA - 1.3629 percent
Los Angeles, CA - 15.4229 percent
Southern California Edison Co. - 5.5377 percent
Azusa, CA - 0.1104 percent
Anaheim, CA - 1.1487 percent
Banning, CA - 0.0442 percent
Colton, CA - 0.0884 percent
Riverside, CA - 0.8615 percent
Vernon, CA - 0.6185 percent
Boulder City, NV - 1.7672 percent