Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: rfi - Current "Leading Edge" Power Supply Innovations

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    2,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    207
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    105 Posts

    Default

    True, the power station is as much a heat engine as a car engine, but it has the advantage of being an external combustion engine and so much more flexible on fuel.

    The ICE still costs about 4 times the cost per mile; one criterion I left out of power supply desirables was


    • Cost

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashiekh View Post
    http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/l...and-your-plug/

    Claims much lower losses in transmission



    No, for two reason; firstly that the heat is received by the Earth if the solar cell is there or not, secondly, and perhaps more importantly, our waste heat does not significantly contribute to global warming. Global warming is due to the more efficient trapping of the Sun's heat by greenhouse gasses; one place where we really do not want to improve efficiency ;-)
    Yeah, no.
    Heat that is trapped on the earth is retained heat, regardless of the reason.
    If the heat is reflected out...from white sand in a desert, it goes back into space....if it is trapped in a solar farm in that same desert...well, then you have solar gain....contributing to global warming.

    There are papers and studies...It is just not PC....so everyone ignores it.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    2,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    207
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    105 Posts

    Default

    Absolutely, and heat trapped by greenhouse gasses is the dominant factor.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Default

    It is one factor.
    It is the single factor that gets the most press...

    It may indeed be the dominant factor, but the irony is how little people really understand, or care to understand the complexity of the entire system.

    My entire life, the US spent Trillions of dollars to reduce particulate pollution.

    recent studies suggest that global warming was in fact retarded by particulate pollution in the upper atmosphere, that since the industrial revolution, global warming would have been much more quicker, and much more pronounced, if not for this reflective protection of pollution.

    https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-p...global-warming

    Again, not the type of research that makes it to the mass propaganda media.


    Irony of Irony.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Default

    But, yes, we digress.

    I'll let others say if any groundbreaking tech is coming down the pike for PSU.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    2,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    207
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    105 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mdk777 View Post
    But, yes, we digress.
    It's a cool digression, but I don't want to get into an argument. However

    Quote Originally Posted by mdk777 View Post
    Diminishing returns is exactly what I see....to the point of absurdity.
    it could be argued that last few percent may not save much but could lead to supplies that need no fan.
    Last edited by ashiekh; 4 Weeks Ago at 01:12 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    68
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Nuclear was once seen as the answer to future energy needs. Politics and irrational fears aside, unless I'm missing something, safe nuclear technologies still seem to be the best choice. That is, barring unforeseen breakthroughs which are always possible. And this, being true for "the grid", disconnected sites - even small devices if nuclear batteries hold any kind of promise.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    2,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    207
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    105 Posts

    Default

    Nuclear fusion based on helium-3 mined from the moon seems a distinct possibility.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    68
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I really hope so. Fusion might somehow be the answer sometime in the far future. I hope there are some radical breakthroughs but from what I've read, reactors are still enormously expensive, complex and barely work. Apparently, H3 reactors would need to be even bigger and no one has even built a working prototype yet. Fusion is probably going to be nothing more than an interesting and expensive Euro-science project to keep really smart people busy - maybe forever. I hope not...but fusion seems pretty insane in terms of cost, complexity and lack of practical application. We'll probably have an atmosphere like Venus by the time it can be deployed commercially. On the other hand, better, safer nuclear is ready now, but it's such a dirty word ...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    68
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I think it's a valid argument that holistic, true costs are often disregarded when considering "green" or alternative energy sources in comparison to traditional ones. The reason for that isn't entirely nefarious since measuring the true cost of anything can be either exceptionally difficult or often impossible. We'll eventually deplete fossil fuels regardless, though apparently not as quickly as once believed due to innovations in extraction and the discovery of additional reserves.

    I understand that critics have backed off from criticizing fossil fuels so simplistically since the impact of other sources has come to light in more recent times. The amount of methane in the upper crust is considered a real and potentially catastrophic issue if it gets released too quickly, for instance, and global agriculture apparently has a substantial impact as well that may not have once been realized.

    Modern internal combustion engines are indeed apparently quite efficient in converting the energy potential of gasoline, which is supposedly a fuel right up there with or maybe even higher than hydrogen depending upon how things are measured.

    Still, when you take all emotion, politics and nonsense out of the equation and look at things from as purely a scientific perspective as possible, nuclear just makes sense for anything but the very far future time frame (again, barring potentially unforeseen breakthroughs or innovations ... or someone cracking the matrix ... or aliens ... ).
    Last edited by 99wjtx; 4 Weeks Ago at 05:07 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •