On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:47:45 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/2/2021 1:41 AM, Rick C wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:41:19 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2021 1:41 AM, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:24:07 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> >>>> On 4/30/2021 6:40 PM, Rick C wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think there are a few billion reasons why he probably understands a lot of things better than you.
> >>>>>
> >>>> How quick Rick C turns into John L when the critique is pointed at one
> >>>> of his personal heroes instead of Donald J Trump.
> >>>
> >>> No, not John L, anything but that!!!
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I'm no Musk fan. I Just think your ideas of the auto world are pretty poor, so it's not hard for Musk to be a better thinker.
> >>
> >> I think there's a small amount of truth and a large amount of PR (aka
> >> hot air) coming out of corporate mouthpieces about "green tech."
> >>
> >> They discovered "sustainable technology" is a product you can sell like
> >> any other and they're selling it, to the point that if you want to e.g.
> >> find a firm that's e.g. trashing some wetlands in your neighborhood
> >> going down the list of approved development contracts and looking for
> >> buzzwords like "sustainable growth" or "ecologically responsible" isn't
> >> a bad way to start.
> >
> > I think you spend time looking for something to complain about. Like I said, I'm no Musk fan. I just think the issues you have with buzz words is rather pointless. PR is not just Puerto Rico.
> >
> I'm a leftist, not a liberal. Liberals like to kick back, spend cash,
> and imagine that so long as Tesla sells enough luxury cars to keep their
> stock price poppin', everything's going to work out great.
>
> Lots of people dislike Musk. The right dislikes Musk. They're not wrong
> but they tend to dislike him for all the wrong reasons "WE WILL COUP
> ANYONE WE WANT!"
>
> I don't give money to a mr. we-will-coup-anyone-we-want, I don't buy a
> penny of his stock, I don't care if spending just a penny on it could
> make me a hundred jillion dollars in two years I wouldn't touch it. If
> you think I'm bullshitting on that then you don't know New Englanders
> very well lol

Not sure what the point of your post is. No one really cares about these comments of your personal feelings or your political definitions or labels. I would also point out Musk and Tesla are not equivalent.

Your opinions of Musk are not a statement about Musk, simply a statement about you.

--

Rick C.

-+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sat, 1 May 2021 22:32:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 7:46:48 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 15:17:03 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> >This is a 40kW array, it's fine for low-power charging many cars that
>> >are sitting around at the dealer even in New England wintertime.
>> >
>> ><https://solect.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Herb-Connolly-Chevy-solar-energy-small.jpg>
>
>> 40 KW how many hours per day? How about winter? Does it snow there?
>
>Extra light reflected off snow will certainly be a benefit, as will keeping the
>leakage currents low with reduced temperatures of winter.

Tubular solar cells? That's been tried.

>
>Panels don't have an hourly wage, so the 'hours per day' question is odd; get an
>ephemeris, if you need the answer for a given locale.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 00:50:43 +0100, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net>
wrote:

>On 05/01/21 16:28, Ed Lee wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 10:57:33 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 1 May 2021 02:12:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd<whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Electric cars can keep a Honda generator and a couple of cans of gas
>>>>>> in the trunk, and a picnic lunch and maybe sleeping bags for the
>>>>>> charging stop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too complicated. A cell call to a mobile service with a charger takes three ounces of hardware
>>>>> that you probably already have.
>>>> No doubt the charger service will be all diesel powered.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what a say, 50 mile away service will charge for all that. It
>>>> would probably be cheaper and faster to call a tow truck.
>>> Wow! Someone woke up cranky this morning. Irrational too. I guess it's a morning thing... and an afternoon thing... and an evening thing for Larkin.
>>
>> Well, everybody is half right and half wrong. Yes, you can do it with a diesel charger at level 2, but it would take hours. To do it right, you need a big battery truck with fast charger, which is very expensive to keep and maintain. Auto service like AAA have considered it, but they decided that it's just more cost effective to tow to the nearest charging station.
>
>Or, use a 400Hz airborne power unit, which can have outputs of
>up to 500Kw or more. Lightweight, run on Kerosene and would have
>more than enough capability for fast charging, several vehicles
>at once if need be.

Teslas travel in packs in the mountains here in winter. It makes sense
to have a huge mobile generator to charge a bunch of them stranded
together.

Can be silenced as required as well.
>
>Battery pack would be my least preferred solution, as they
>have limited cycle life and need to be recharged after every
>start...

A semi full of batteries could charge a bunch of immobile Teslas.

What is the collective noun for a cluster of dead Teslas?

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 7:52:44 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 00:50:43 +0100, chris <chris-...@tridac.net>
> wrote:
> >On 05/01/21 16:28, Ed Lee wrote:
> >> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 10:57:33 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 1 May 2021 02:12:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd<whi...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Electric cars can keep a Honda generator and a couple of cans of gas
> >>>>>> in the trunk, and a picnic lunch and maybe sleeping bags for the
> >>>>>> charging stop.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Too complicated. A cell call to a mobile service with a charger takes three ounces of hardware
> >>>>> that you probably already have.
> >>>> No doubt the charger service will be all diesel powered.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder what a say, 50 mile away service will charge for all that. It
> >>>> would probably be cheaper and faster to call a tow truck.
> >>> Wow! Someone woke up cranky this morning. Irrational too. I guess it's a morning thing... and an afternoon thing... and an evening thing for Larkin.
> >>
> >> Well, everybody is half right and half wrong. Yes, you can do it with a diesel charger at level 2, but it would take hours. To do it right, you need a big battery truck with fast charger, which is very expensive to keep and maintain. Auto service like AAA have considered it, but they decided that it's just more cost effective to tow to the nearest charging station.
> >
> >Or, use a 400Hz airborne power unit, which can have outputs of
> >up to 500Kw or more. Lightweight, run on Kerosene and would have
> >more than enough capability for fast charging, several vehicles
> >at once if need be.
> Teslas travel in packs in the mountains here in winter. It makes sense
> to have a huge mobile generator to charge a bunch of them stranded
> together.
> Can be silenced as required as well.
> >
> >Battery pack would be my least preferred solution, as they
> >have limited cycle life and need to be recharged after every
> >start...
> A semi full of batteries could charge a bunch of immobile Teslas.
>
> What is the collective noun for a cluster of dead Teslas?

Edison, he killed Tesla, so to speak.

On 5/2/2021 10:05 AM, Rick C wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:47:45 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 1:41 AM, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:41:19 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2021 1:41 AM, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:24:07 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 6:40 PM, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think there are a few billion reasons why he probably understands a lot of things better than you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How quick Rick C turns into John L when the critique is pointed at one
>>>>>> of his personal heroes instead of Donald J Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, not John L, anything but that!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'm no Musk fan. I Just think your ideas of the auto world are pretty poor, so it's not hard for Musk to be a better thinker.
>>>>
>>>> I think there's a small amount of truth and a large amount of PR (aka
>>>> hot air) coming out of corporate mouthpieces about "green tech."
>>>>
>>>> They discovered "sustainable technology" is a product you can sell like
>>>> any other and they're selling it, to the point that if you want to e.g.
>>>> find a firm that's e.g. trashing some wetlands in your neighborhood
>>>> going down the list of approved development contracts and looking for
>>>> buzzwords like "sustainable growth" or "ecologically responsible" isn't
>>>> a bad way to start.
>>>
>>> I think you spend time looking for something to complain about. Like I said, I'm no Musk fan. I just think the issues you have with buzz words is rather pointless. PR is not just Puerto Rico.
>>>
>> I'm a leftist, not a liberal. Liberals like to kick back, spend cash,
>> and imagine that so long as Tesla sells enough luxury cars to keep their
>> stock price poppin', everything's going to work out great.
>>
>> Lots of people dislike Musk. The right dislikes Musk. They're not wrong
>> but they tend to dislike him for all the wrong reasons "WE WILL COUP
>> ANYONE WE WANT!"
>>
>> I don't give money to a mr. we-will-coup-anyone-we-want, I don't buy a
>> penny of his stock, I don't care if spending just a penny on it could
>> make me a hundred jillion dollars in two years I wouldn't touch it. If
>> you think I'm bullshitting on that then you don't know New Englanders
>> very well lol
>
> Not sure what the point of your post is. No one really cares about these comments of your personal feelings or your political definitions or labels. I would also point out Musk and Tesla are not equivalent.

Posts an OT thread full of his personal feelings, says nobody cares
about your personal feelings. Fuck me, what a type.

> Your opinions of Musk are not a statement about Musk, simply a statement about you.

Oh, indeed...

On Sun, 02 May 2021 15:05:14 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

>On Sat, 1 May 2021 09:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:27 AM UTC-4, chris wrote:
>>> On 05/01/21 15:57, Rick C wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 10:14:55 AM UTC-4, chris wrote:
>>> >> No problem going electric and would probably run one now if it wasn't
>>> >> for the expense, but we are being consistently lied to by campaigners
>>> >> and politicians w/regard to how easy and quick it will be.
>>> >>
>>> >> It will be expensive, disruptive and take decades to get together.
>>> >> Promises that it can be completed by 2030, or even 2035 are pure
>>> >> fantasy, but I guess it's good to get started.
>>> >
>>> > Yet you have nothing factual to say to refute any statements... statements I'm not aware of. Doesn't matter what voices you are hearing. Seems like the ones in your head are speaking pretty loudly about how hard driving EVs will be. Good thing those voices are wrong.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Interesting program on TV recently, "The Dark cost of Green Energy"
>>> >> basically saying that it just shifts the pollution to other parts of
>>> >> the world. How rare earth elements will disrupt the global power
>>> >> balance towards conflict and war. Not sure I accept all of it, but
>>> >> there are limits to such resources, just as there are with fossil
>>> >> fuels.
>>> >
>>> > That is typical FUD. It does pollute some to build anything. It pollutes to type this message. The added pollution from building EVs is not significantly different from building ICE. If there are specific problems created from the development of new sources of various minerals for batteries and EV motors, then we can address those issues. No need to wave arms overhead and cry "disruption, war...".
>>> >
>>> > The good news is while fossil fuels must be exploited in proportion to the amount we consume energy, the materials to build EVs are a much smaller quantity required to build the vehicles. The ownership cost of an ICE has approximately equal costs for the vehicle and the fuel. EVs are a bit more expensive to buy, but save a lot on energy. Overall the pollution impacts are similar, a bit more on the car, a lot less on the energy.
>>> >
>>> I guess anyone who has been sold the idea that electric vehicles are the
>>> true faith and have paid for it, could do nothing but support the idea,
>>> but colour me skeptic. No free lunch either, and eevs will have a
>>> similar impact on the environment and ice overall. If not let's see the
>>> data...
>>
>>I didn't realize the issue of EVs was a religious matter for you.
>
>There seems to be a quite a few religious zealots for various
>religions, such as Tesla, electric vehicles in general, renewable
>sources or various aspects of climate change,

A lot of people are members of the Church Of Cheap.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 07:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 7:52:44 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2021 00:50:43 +0100, chris <chris-...@tridac.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On 05/01/21 16:28, Ed Lee wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 8:07:37 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 10:57:33 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 1 May 2021 02:12:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd<whi...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Electric cars can keep a Honda generator and a couple of cans of gas
>> >>>>>> in the trunk, and a picnic lunch and maybe sleeping bags for the
>> >>>>>> charging stop.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Too complicated. A cell call to a mobile service with a charger takes three ounces of hardware
>> >>>>> that you probably already have.
>> >>>> No doubt the charger service will be all diesel powered.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I wonder what a say, 50 mile away service will charge for all that. It
>> >>>> would probably be cheaper and faster to call a tow truck.
>> >>> Wow! Someone woke up cranky this morning. Irrational too. I guess it's a morning thing... and an afternoon thing... and an evening thing for Larkin.
>> >>
>> >> Well, everybody is half right and half wrong. Yes, you can do it with a diesel charger at level 2, but it would take hours. To do it right, you need a big battery truck with fast charger, which is very expensive to keep and maintain. Auto service like AAA have considered it, but they decided that it's just more cost effective to tow to the nearest charging station.
>> >
>> >Or, use a 400Hz airborne power unit, which can have outputs of
>> >up to 500Kw or more. Lightweight, run on Kerosene and would have
>> >more than enough capability for fast charging, several vehicles
>> >at once if need be.
>> Teslas travel in packs in the mountains here in winter. It makes sense
>> to have a huge mobile generator to charge a bunch of them stranded
>> together.
>> Can be silenced as required as well.
>> >
>> >Battery pack would be my least preferred solution, as they
>> >have limited cycle life and need to be recharged after every
>> >start...
>> A semi full of batteries could charge a bunch of immobile Teslas.
>>
>> What is the collective noun for a cluster of dead Teslas?
>
>Edison, he killed Tesla, so to speak.

I like that.

"There's another edison just up the road."

"Lithium" would work too. A lithium of dead Teslas.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 09:42:54 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> ...
> American enthusiasts buying Teslas will have zero effect on the
> climate. China and India and Africa want cars and tractors and
> electric lights and cold beer and clean running water, and they are
> going to get them from fossil fuels.
....
Undoubtedly fossil-fuels will be part of the mix but solar power is revolutionizing progress in Africa and India.
They are both rich in solar energy.

Photovoltaics are ideal for microgrids to provide lighting, power for charging cell-phones and powering cellular base stations and can do this without huge expenditure on infrastructure.

Even a few Watt-hours per day from a solar panel and small battery can provide lighting to allow children and women to be better educated at a far lower cost than using kerosene that can require significant effort to obtain when the nearest supply may be miles away.

Solar power in India (Photovoltaic and thermal) has a significantly higher growth rate than power from coal and expected to exceed coal within the next decade or two.

kw

On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 07:52:44 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
....
> Teslas travel in packs in the mountains here in winter. It makes sense
> to have a huge mobile generator to charge a bunch of them stranded
> together.

Stranding as a result of a discharged battery is a non-issue.

The software on the car constantly monitors the power usage, current charge level, predicted energy usage to get to the destination, the weather and charging station availability on the route. If there will not be sufficient margin due to unplanned usage it recommends the user about mitigations (such as recommended speed or heating/AC usage).

I know of quite a few people who have travelled to the Tahoe area in Teslas without any problem. Many have commented that the all-wheel drive versions do especially well.

You frequently comment on the low utilization of the charging station in Truckee - I can't see why I would use it as charging would not normally needed near the top of a climb. There is a great deal of regeneration on the downhill section.

Most people charge at the destination - even if it is only a 120V extension cord from their cabin.

On a trip to Reno from the Bay Area the charging recommended by the software would be at Loomis with no other charging to reach Reno.

....

kw

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 10:02:29 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 07:52:44 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> ...
> > Teslas travel in packs in the mountains here in winter. It makes sense
> > to have a huge mobile generator to charge a bunch of them stranded
> > together.
> Stranding as a result of a discharged battery is a non-issue.
>
> The software on the car constantly monitors the power usage, current charge level, predicted energy usage to get to the destination, the weather and charging station availability on the route. If there will not be sufficient margin due to unplanned usage it recommends the user about mitigations (such as recommended speed or heating/AC usage).
>
> I know of quite a few people who have travelled to the Tahoe area in Teslas without any problem. Many have commented that the all-wheel drive versions do especially well.
>
> You frequently comment on the low utilization of the charging station in Truckee - I can't see why I would use it as charging would not normally needed near the top of a climb. There is a great deal of regeneration on the downhill section.
>
> Most people charge at the destination - even if it is only a 120V extension cord from their cabin.
>
> On a trip to Reno from the Bay Area the charging recommended by the software would be at Loomis with no other charging to reach Reno.

NO NO NO, FREE FREE FREE fast charging at Donner Summit Rest Area. CalTran will make obsolete the other charging (money) chargers.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 11:31:55 +0300, upsidedown wrote:

> On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power
>>storage.
>>
>>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-
compressed-air-storage/
>>
>>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
>
> What is the end to end efficiency ?
>
> When you compress air, it will heat up. If you have good thermal
> insulation, you could store very hot gas for a while and when released,
> it is about the temperature of ambient air.
>
> However, compressors usually have coolers at intermediate stages to
> limit the compressed air temperature and allowing a large mass of air to
> be stored. If you have productive use for this released heat, fine,
> but if you have to release it into the environment, it is lost, reducing
> system efficiency.

That was my question too. Unless you include additional complexity to
recover the heat lost to the environment during the compression stage
back into the expanding air during its release (to drive a turbine
genset) to mitigate this energy loss, it strikes me as a really shit way
to store energy (even with such mitigation).

Also, again unless this high pressure air is stored in dozens to
hundreds of separate pressure vessels, this has the makings of an
extremely hazardous explosive energy release event in waiting.

I know that all high energy capacity storage systems present such
hazards (dam failure in pumped storage hydro schemes and so on) but
storing energy in the form of an extremely high pressure gas (air in this
case) strikes me as being the least palatable of containment failure
risks.

Mention of hydro pumped storage reminds me that, IIRC, it has about an
85% round trip efficiency (not too far from what can be obtained from a
lead acid battery under ideal conditions). However, unlike even the most
optimised lead acid battery energy storage schemes, the number of charge/
discharge cycles is in the tens of thousands and rising.

The problem with hydro pumped storage being the limited number of
suitable sites, most of which have already been spoken for. Even if
compressed gas energy storage can only manage 75 to 80 percent, it does
offer more choice of suitable sites but I do wonder what the actual round
trip efficiency figures are for such schemes. Can compressed gas energy
storage even approach 70% in this regard?

After checking out wikipedia (something I aught to have done to begin
with), it seems my guessed at 'best figure' for CAES was uncannily spot
on with figures dropping to 50% and even as low as 25%.

One can only suppose that in the case of intermittent renewables, even a
simple (hence lower cost) 25% efficient CAES is better than nothing.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage>

--
Johnny B Good

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:48:44 PM UTC-4, Johnny B Good wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 11:31:55 +0300, upsidedown wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> > <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power
> >>storage.
> >>
> >>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-
> compressed-air-storage/
> >>
> >>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
> >
> > What is the end to end efficiency ?
> >
> > When you compress air, it will heat up. If you have good thermal
> > insulation, you could store very hot gas for a while and when released,
> > it is about the temperature of ambient air.
> >
> > However, compressors usually have coolers at intermediate stages to
> > limit the compressed air temperature and allowing a large mass of air to
> > be stored. If you have productive use for this released heat, fine,
> > but if you have to release it into the environment, it is lost, reducing
> > system efficiency.
> That was my question too. Unless you include additional complexity to
> recover the heat lost to the environment during the compression stage
> back into the expanding air during its release (to drive a turbine
> genset) to mitigate this energy loss, it strikes me as a really shit way
> to store energy (even with such mitigation).

So do are they using heat recovery?

> Also, again unless this high pressure air is stored in dozens to
> hundreds of separate pressure vessels, this has the makings of an
> extremely hazardous explosive energy release event in waiting.

You mean like a large tank of petroleum or a big store of ammonium nitrate? What was the name? Oh yeah, West Fertilizer Co.

https://youtu.be/jzDC3iKbTzY?t=85

Or how about just plain petroleum?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2kCwNKEFBY

> I know that all high energy capacity storage systems present such
> hazards (dam failure in pumped storage hydro schemes and so on) but
> storing energy in the form of an extremely high pressure gas (air in this
> case) strikes me as being the least palatable of containment failure
> risks.

Why would that be?

> Mention of hydro pumped storage reminds me that, IIRC, it has about an
> 85% round trip efficiency (not too far from what can be obtained from a
> lead acid battery under ideal conditions). However, unlike even the most
> optimised lead acid battery energy storage schemes, the number of charge/
> discharge cycles is in the tens of thousands and rising.
>
> The problem with hydro pumped storage being the limited number of
> suitable sites, most of which have already been spoken for. Even if
> compressed gas energy storage can only manage 75 to 80 percent, it does
> offer more choice of suitable sites but I do wonder what the actual round
> trip efficiency figures are for such schemes. Can compressed gas energy
> storage even approach 70% in this regard?

Yea, not much point in even discussing hydro unless someone plans to drill to storage sites since it otherwise is geographically limited.

> After checking out wikipedia (something I aught to have done to begin
> with), it seems my guessed at 'best figure' for CAES was uncannily spot
> on with figures dropping to 50% and even as low as 25%.
>
> One can only suppose that in the case of intermittent renewables, even a
> simple (hence lower cost) 25% efficient CAES is better than nothing.

So what is the efficiency of this facility?

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage>
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage>

--

Rick C.

-+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:33:51 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:48:44 PM UTC-4, Johnny B Good wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 May 2021 11:31:55 +0300, upsidedown wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> > > <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power
> > >>storage.
> > >>
> > >>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-
> > compressed-air-storage/
> > >>
> > >>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
> > >
> > > What is the end to end efficiency ?
> > >
> > > When you compress air, it will heat up. If you have good thermal
> > > insulation, you could store very hot gas for a while and when released,
> > > it is about the temperature of ambient air.
> > >
> > > However, compressors usually have coolers at intermediate stages to
> > > limit the compressed air temperature and allowing a large mass of air to
> > > be stored. If you have productive use for this released heat, fine,
> > > but if you have to release it into the environment, it is lost, reducing
> > > system efficiency.
> > That was my question too. Unless you include additional complexity to
> > recover the heat lost to the environment during the compression stage
> > back into the expanding air during its release (to drive a turbine
> > genset) to mitigate this energy loss, it strikes me as a really shit way
> > to store energy (even with such mitigation).
> So do are they using heat recovery?
> > Also, again unless this high pressure air is stored in dozens to
> > hundreds of separate pressure vessels, this has the makings of an
> > extremely hazardous explosive energy release event in waiting.
> You mean like a large tank of petroleum or a big store of ammonium nitrate? What was the name? Oh yeah, West Fertilizer Co.
>
> https://youtu.be/jzDC3iKbTzY?t=85
>
> Or how about just plain petroleum?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2kCwNKEFBY

The much touted hydrogen economy is even worse. Hydrogen forms explosive mixtures with air over a very wide range of concentrations.

> > I know that all high energy capacity storage systems present such
> > hazards (dam failure in pumped storage hydro schemes and so on) but
> > storing energy in the form of an extremely high pressure gas (air in this
> > case) strikes me as being the least palatable of containment failure
> > risks.
>
> Why would that be?

He hasn't thought about about hydrogen leakage which could create a very large fuel-air bomb.
> > Mention of hydro pumped storage reminds me that, IIRC, it has about an
> > 85% round trip efficiency (not too far from what can be obtained from a
> > lead acid battery under ideal conditions). However, unlike even the most
> > optimised lead acid battery energy storage schemes, the number of charge/
> > discharge cycles is in the tens of thousands and rising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

is touted as offering 12,000 to 14,000 cycles, and it is a relatively undeveloped technology, if uniquely suited to grid storage.

> > The problem with hydro pumped storage being the limited number of
> > suitable sites, most of which have already been spoken for. Even if
> > compressed gas energy storage can only manage 75 to 80 percent, it does
> > offer more choice of suitable sites but I do wonder what the actual round
> > trip efficiency figures are for such schemes. Can compressed gas energy
> > storage even approach 70% in this regard?
>
> Yea, not much point in even discussing hydro unless someone plans to drill to storage sites since it otherwise is geographically limited.

High voltage transmission links can reduce that geographical limitation quite a bit. Australia's Snowy 2 pumped hydroelectric scheme is to be built 330km from Melbourne and 490 km for Sydney. The two cities between them have a population of 10.4 million, 41% of Australia's total population.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:19:57 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:33:51 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:48:44 PM UTC-4, Johnny B Good wrote:
> > > On Sun, 02 May 2021 11:31:55 +0300, upsidedown wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> > > > <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power
> > > >>storage.
> > > >>
> > > >>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-
> > > compressed-air-storage/
> > > >>
> > > >>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
> > > >
> > > > What is the end to end efficiency ?
> > > >
> > > > When you compress air, it will heat up. If you have good thermal
> > > > insulation, you could store very hot gas for a while and when released,
> > > > it is about the temperature of ambient air.
> > > >
> > > > However, compressors usually have coolers at intermediate stages to
> > > > limit the compressed air temperature and allowing a large mass of air to
> > > > be stored. If you have productive use for this released heat, fine,
> > > > but if you have to release it into the environment, it is lost, reducing
> > > > system efficiency.
> > > That was my question too. Unless you include additional complexity to
> > > recover the heat lost to the environment during the compression stage
> > > back into the expanding air during its release (to drive a turbine
> > > genset) to mitigate this energy loss, it strikes me as a really shit way
> > > to store energy (even with such mitigation).
> > So do are they using heat recovery?
> > > Also, again unless this high pressure air is stored in dozens to
> > > hundreds of separate pressure vessels, this has the makings of an
> > > extremely hazardous explosive energy release event in waiting.
> > You mean like a large tank of petroleum or a big store of ammonium nitrate? What was the name? Oh yeah, West Fertilizer Co.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/jzDC3iKbTzY?t=85
> >
> > Or how about just plain petroleum?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2kCwNKEFBY
> The much touted hydrogen economy is even worse. Hydrogen forms explosive mixtures with air over a very wide range of concentrations.
> > > I know that all high energy capacity storage systems present such
> > > hazards (dam failure in pumped storage hydro schemes and so on) but
> > > storing energy in the form of an extremely high pressure gas (air in this
> > > case) strikes me as being the least palatable of containment failure
> > > risks.
> >
> > Why would that be?
> He hasn't thought about about hydrogen leakage which could create a very large fuel-air bomb.
> > > Mention of hydro pumped storage reminds me that, IIRC, it has about an
> > > 85% round trip efficiency (not too far from what can be obtained from a
> > > lead acid battery under ideal conditions). However, unlike even the most
> > > optimised lead acid battery energy storage schemes, the number of charge/
> > > discharge cycles is in the tens of thousands and rising.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
>
> is touted as offering 12,000 to 14,000 cycles, and it is a relatively undeveloped technology, if uniquely suited to grid storage.
> > > The problem with hydro pumped storage being the limited number of
> > > suitable sites, most of which have already been spoken for. Even if
> > > compressed gas energy storage can only manage 75 to 80 percent, it does
> > > offer more choice of suitable sites but I do wonder what the actual round
> > > trip efficiency figures are for such schemes. Can compressed gas energy
> > > storage even approach 70% in this regard?
> >
> > Yea, not much point in even discussing hydro unless someone plans to drill to storage sites since it otherwise is geographically limited.
> High voltage transmission links can reduce that geographical limitation quite a bit. Australia's Snowy 2 pumped hydroelectric scheme is to be built 330km from Melbourne and 490 km for Sydney. The two cities between them have a population of 10.4 million, 41% of Australia's total population.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

EVs will never come into their own UNTIL they start PAYING for the roads they drive on.

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 3:43:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:19:57 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:33:51 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:48:44 PM UTC-4, Johnny B Good wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 02 May 2021 11:31:55 +0300, upsidedown wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
> EVs will never come into their own UNTIL they start PAYING for the roads they drive on.

Flyguy is a complete idiot. He may have a tolerably sensible idea - when electric vehicles get popular enough to be worth taxing, politicians may well slap a tax on all vehicles per mile driven, ostensibly to help pay for road maintenance in the same way that fuel tax is supposed to - but he hasn't found the right words to express that idea if that was the idea he wanted to articulate. Since it is a tolerably sensible idea, it probably wasn't.

The electric vehicles won't pay the tax - the people who own them and drive them will - and electric vehicles don't have an "own" to come into. They are property.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 02 May 2021 01:00:45 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power storage.
>>
>>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-compressed-air-storage/
>>
>>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
>
>$1.5 billion USD. And, I guess the costs will go up with inflation.

Costs will go up more if they actually build it.

>:-)

The electric vehicle rebate fund is about empty here now, and our
beloved governor doesn't want to renew it. That would whack e-car
sales. Some people are asking why government is paying rich people to
buy expensive ugly cars.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 01:00:45 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power storage.
>>
>>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-compressed-air-storage/
>>
>>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
>
>$1.5 billion USD. And, I guess the costs will go up with inflation.
>:-)

Inflation:

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/and-the-federal-reserve-is-trying-to-convince-us-that-inflation-isnt-a-problem

The US PPP loans made a little sense: pay companies to stay in
business and keep employees working.

The new policies - pay people to not work and to consume, and increase
business taxes - will have the opposite effect, unemployment and
inflation.

NASDAQ is up 60% in the last year. That's not real money.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Monday, 3 May 2021 at 07:29:51 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
....
> The electric vehicle rebate fund is about empty here now, and our
> beloved governor doesn't want to renew it. That would whack e-car
> sales. Some people are asking why government is paying rich people to
> buy expensive ugly cars.
....

Rich people don't get the rebates. There has been an income cap for the last couple of years.

The most popular EVs, Tesla and Chevy Bolt, don't get a Federal tax credit either as they finished a couple of years ago for those manufacturers

So the governor's decision to not renew the CVRP should not affect sales of those cars anyway.

KW

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:22:37 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology..com wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 01:00:45 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> ><gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power storage.
> >>
> >>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-compressed-air-storage/
> >>
> >>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
> >
> >$1.5 billion USD. And, I guess the costs will go up with inflation.
> >:-)
>
>
> Inflation:
>
> http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/and-the-federal-reserve-is-trying-to-convince-us-that-inflation-isnt-a-problem

John Larkin is too stupid to realise that you can always cherry-pick prices that have gone up, and when a year ago the world was in Covid-19 panic you onlyu have to cherry pick the date..

The spectacular rise in the oil price over the year reflects the fact that it was spectaculary low a year ago, on April 30, 2020 at $21.04 per barrel..

It now back up to more or less where it used to be.

> The US PPP loans made a little sense: pay companies to stay in business and keep employees working.

It doesn't make much sense to John Larkin - people with more sense saw it as a way of avoiding a feature of the Great Depression where normally viable companies were shutdown and dismantled, and it took ages to put them back together again after the depression was finally dealt with.

Australia did it when Covid19 lock-downs hit the economy. Once they'd done their job the Australian economy revived very rapidly.

The US was too worried about the economic effects of effective lock-downs to go that far, so their Covid-19 epidemic has been much worse than Australia's 1778 Covid-19 deaths per million so far, versus 35 per million in Australia, and it's economy is in rather worse shape in consequence.

> The new policies - pay people to not work and to consume, and increase business taxes - will have the opposite effect, unemployment and inflation.

They haven't in Australia, and - if they are done right, by people who understand what they are doing - they never should.

Keynesian economics isn't complicated, but it's complicated enough that John Larkin and James Arthur seem incapable of understanding it.

> NASDAQ is up 60% in the last year. That's not real money.

It would be if you'd bought when it was low, which nobody much did (which is why it was low).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "ke...@kjwdesigns.com"
> <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 10:55:26 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>...
>>> >
>>> Running many miles of megawatt feeds to rural stations could get
>>> expensive.
>>
>>Tesla is using solar to avoid this.
>>
>>https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/
>>
>>kw
>
> Without power lines, the rural stations will need solar panals and
> batteries. That will get interesting in winter.
>
> Do the math.

Solar --> charger --> battery --> charger --> battery sounds like the
magic bullet everyone has been looking for.

On Tue, 4 May 2021 23:27:48 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "ke...@kjwdesigns.com"
>> <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 10:55:26 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>...
>>>> >
>>>> Running many miles of megawatt feeds to rural stations could get
>>>> expensive.
>>>
>>>Tesla is using solar to avoid this.
>>>
>>>https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/
>>>
>>>kw
>>
>> Without power lines, the rural stations will need solar panals and
>> batteries. That will get interesting in winter.
>>
>> Do the math.
>
>Solar --> charger --> battery --> charger --> battery sounds like the
>magic bullet everyone has been looking for.

The costs and compound efficiency will be issues. As will availability
in cold dark weather.

EVs need more charging when it's cold too.

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:29:51 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 01:00:45 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> ><gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Just read that California is getting 1 GW/10 GWh of compressed air power storage.
> >>
> >>https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/30/california-to-host-1-gw-of-compressed-air-storage/
> >>
> >>That will help with the wind and solar availability.
> >
> >$1.5 billion USD. And, I guess the costs will go up with inflation.
> Costs will go up more if they actually build it.
>
> >:-)
>
> The electric vehicle rebate fund is about empty here now, and our
> beloved governor doesn't want to renew it. That would whack e-car
> sales. Some people are asking why government is paying rich people to
> buy expensive ugly cars.

The federal government rebates have ended for the two largest EV companies. EVs have been proven and are on the way to becoming mainstream. If the feds continue the EV rebates for the remaining companies, fine. But I can't see a reason to add anything to the pot. I think California is the last state to need a rebate program. I believe a huge proportion of the EVs in the US are already in CA. Sales are booming there, so why would rebates even be needed? People like the rebates, but that's not why people buy EVs. If that were true, Tesla would have closed it's doors instead of building a new factory or two every year.

--

Rick C.

-+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2021 23:27:48 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
> <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>
> >John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "ke...@kjwdesigns.com"
> >> <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 10:55:26 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>> >
> >>>> Running many miles of megawatt feeds to rural stations could get
> >>>> expensive.
> >>>
> >>>Tesla is using solar to avoid this.
> >>>
> >>>https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/
> >>>
> >>>kw
> >>
> >> Without power lines, the rural stations will need solar panals and
> >> batteries. That will get interesting in winter.
> >>
> >> Do the math.
> >
> >Solar --> charger --> battery --> charger --> battery sounds like the
> >magic bullet everyone has been looking for.
> The costs and compound efficiency will be issues. As will availability
> in cold dark weather.
>
> EVs need more charging when it's cold too.

I guess it's a good thing that EVs can charge at night from those nuclear plants that they can't throttle back effectively.

--

Rick C.

-+-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2021 23:27:48 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
> <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>
>>John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "ke...@kjwdesigns.com"
>>> <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 10:55:26 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>> >
>>>>> Running many miles of megawatt feeds to rural stations could get
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>
>>>>Tesla is using solar to avoid this.
>>>>
>>>>https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/
>>>>
>>>>kw
>>>
>>> Without power lines, the rural stations will need solar panals and
>>> batteries. That will get interesting in winter.
>>>
>>> Do the math.
>>
>>Solar --> charger --> battery --> charger --> battery sounds like the
>>magic bullet everyone has been looking for.
>
> The costs and compound efficiency will be issues. As will availability
> in cold dark weather.
>
> EVs need more charging when it's cold too.

not true. global warming cancels that out.

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 May 2021 23:27:48 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
>> <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "ke...@kjwdesigns.com"
>> >> <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 10:55:26 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>>...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> Running many miles of megawatt feeds to rural stations could get
>> >>>> expensive.
>> >>>
>> >>>Tesla is using solar to avoid this.
>> >>>
>> >>>https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/
>> >>>
>> >>>kw
>> >>
>> >> Without power lines, the rural stations will need solar panals and
>> >> batteries. That will get interesting in winter.
>> >>
>> >> Do the math.
>> >
>> >Solar --> charger --> battery --> charger --> battery sounds like the
>> >magic bullet everyone has been looking for.
>> The costs and compound efficiency will be issues. As will availability
>> in cold dark weather.
>>
>> EVs need more charging when it's cold too.
>
> I guess it's a good thing that EVs can charge at night from those nuclear plants that they can't throttle back effectively.

like fukushima?