Hot Rock Energy-scientist's denial ?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by BoltsMissing, Aug 20, 2008.

  1. BoltsMissing

    BoltsMissing Active Member

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1715879.htm
    http://www.physorg.com/news113738750.html

    Today there was a news report, I was not actauly listening at exactly what was said, until they asked a scientist's "opinion"... I tuned in, and quickly tuned out cos of the scientist's bull**** "opinion", I refuse to have my inteligence insulted by these bow tie gobble dock beared intelectual baboons !

    Not sure of the scientist's exact words, but was not positive, words to the effect that hot rock steam to spin a turbine that spins a generator instead of burning coal may not be as dependable because there is no way known how to measure how long the hot rocks will last.
    Personaly,that is a rather shallow and short sighted opinion, and, who cares how long it will last, it will still be there in the years 4525 at least.

    Will the Gov paid scientists just GO AWAY, WE PAY THE BILLS and if hot rock reduces coal/uranium mining, therefore reducing the need to pay for coal/uranium produced electriciy, therefore reducing "global warming or "climate change" or whatever the tax incentive flavour of the month for another "new tax of the month" excuse is then so be it, till it DOES run out.

    It does not take a Einstein to work out that hot rocks from the earth will outlast coal etc. It's there ( hot rocks) and always will be there as it always has been there, heat generated by the earth itself, long before coal and uranium was born by the earths evolutionary substances.

    The technology is simple, pump water into the rocks at one end and capture the steam at the other end via a turbine.
    Is this not technological poetry in motion, the very heart of what mankind is seeking to solve when it comes to electrical energy production ?

    They say 10% , how about striving for 90% of all electrical energy demand come from hot rock. It's "free" energy, meaning once the infrastructre is built, the rest is ongoing maintenance and no need to worry anymore about the sky
    The problem is solved.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008

  2. BSA

    BSA Guest

    I agree, we should make the most out of geothermal power, better than windmills everywhere.

    Still there would probably be some do-gooders complaining that geothermal power stations would harm the environment. Some (but not many) of these "enviromentalists" will never be truly be happy until everyone lives some medieval lifestyle where you have to walk for miles to get to a well everyday or have to live in mudhuts with no electricity.

    BSA
     
  3. BoltsMissing

    BoltsMissing Active Member

    Hey ya BSA,
    was on my HT Hot Rock and snapped an original "Hot Rock", it ROCKS !
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  4. BSA

    BSA Guest

    Beautiful car. You just can't beat a morris minor. The chrome air box and rocker cover look great on that car. Am I right in saying thats an original morris minor engine engine, has it been modded for race use or left stock?

    BSA
     
  5. BoltsMissing

    BoltsMissing Active Member

    I don't know anything about it except what you see. Did not ask and simply followed the "unwritten rule" of, Look, but Don't Touch. I am not sure if the rules say anything about taking pics.

    I did however tap the mud guard with my knuckle while no one was looking to hear that sound of the thickness of the metal they used back in those days, yes it sounds like it's built to last, it was real, not a fibre-glass copy.
    I think the motor is stock except for brake power booster, these cars are a touch heavy.
    Took a sniff inside while still had the chance, yes, it smells of "Morris Minor", that cloth type smell, was not over ridden by the new paint work. Not that smell of stale plastic you get these days.
    Humbers had another distinct smell about them to, unlike the Morris, same as Jaguar, particulary E-Type, more leathery. Morris is "cloth", Humber has wood,leather AND some cloth, all in 1.
    But yeah, no plastics, just cloth of that era, metal and oil, no need for car deoderants, makes it cheap to run.
     
  6. loquin

    loquin Active Member

    Back to the 'Hot Rock' issue.

    extracting heat for geothermal will slowly cool off the temps locally, where you're heating the water.

    However, the thermal mass involved, even just considering local conditions, is so huge that it would take millenia for there to be any measurable effect at any given site.

    The earth is continuing to generate heat from the breakdown of radioactive elements in the core. And, that heat is slowly leaking out to the surface.

    Geothermal has other issues which make it not 'free' energy. Primarily having to do with the water - when it comes back up, at close to 1500 degrees F, it has absorbed a lot of minerals from the earth, which have to be dealt with, as the water is corrosive and has mineral precipitation issues as it cools. The water has to be sent into a heat exchanger, which then heats up clean water which is fed to the turbines. The heat exchangers tend to get clogged up with mineral deposits, and even stainless steel will eventually corrode at high temperatures. But, the only real issues surrounding geothermal are engineering issues.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  7. Skyliner70cc

    Skyliner70cc Active Member

    The enviro weenies will find any reason to be against any form of energy production, traditional or alternative. Here are some examples:

    1. Wind power: they kill birds, they create noise, and for the rich elitists, they are an eyesore and should not be in view of million dollar beach mansions in Long Island (kennedy's estates)

    2. Bikes as alternative transportation. San Fransico has to do an enviromental assessment study (it just halted production of bike lanes) because bikes slow down vehicle traffic and this causes a net increase of pollution.

    3. Shale Oil: its mining which is never easy on the environment but sometimes necessary as long as the land is properly restored.

    4. Nuclear power: one of the cleanest energy forms out there! Brought to standstill for 30+ years because of bogus safety issues and storing waste underneath a mountain that is in the middle of nowhere...desert wasteland. If they don't want to use Yucca mountain, that's ok with me and just store it in NJ, they won't notice it.

    5. Ethanol is a good energy source but out beloved gov't got involved and forced it down our throats. Current technology relies on food crops to product this product and gov't mandates for ethanol use did not allow this alternative fuel to evolve and mature into something that could be obtained from non-food crop sources.

    6. Biodiesel. Probably out best hope out there but overly stringent emission regulations has killed the use of biodiesel in today's diesel engines that have EGR valves, catalytic converters, NOX catalytic converters with regeneration, diesel particulate filters, etc...etc...

    7. And most important, why hasn't anybody harnessed all of the hot air as an energy source from all of the BLOWHARDS from both parties in Congress? We could single handedly solve our energy needs by harnessing the flatulence that flows from our politicians lips and eliminate the world's food crisis by putting many of them on a much needed diet.
     
  8. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Don't you have to go pretty deep to get to temps of 1500 deg? I'm no authority on this, but I have a feeling that that would be hundreds of miles down. And I'll bet we are not able to drill that far.

    Now if we're talking about the (relatively few) spots where that kind of heat comes pretty close to the surface, then the idea would seem to have some merit. I understand that Iceland generates a lot of their electricity using hot spring water. But that's one little island. And it doesn't generate all they use. Volcanoes, maybe? But stability would seem to be an issue.

    I doubt if that scientist was being a spoil-sport or stupid. He was probably saying, "There just ain't very much there". And he was probably right.
     
  9. Tinker1980

    Tinker1980 Guest

    Skyliner, too true. Someone will always whine about SOMETHING. I find it funny the people who cry about the evils of animal testing, but still use medicine, ride in airplanes, and otherwise take advantage of the results of animal testing.

    It's also funny to point out to your favorite vegan that farm tractors crush woodchucks in their burrows, combines shred field mice, and farmers shoot deer that get into their corn.

    Me? I like to point out the evils of the popular environmental-obsessive products we have today. As an example, I will give the compact fluorescent light bulbs - that all have 5mg of mercury in them. Yay, mercury.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. sjackson

    sjackson Member

    I think that the problem that a lot of uninformed "environmentalists" have is that they don't understand the concept of "lesser of two evils." Because we're at a point now where we basically have to trade heavy polluting for light polluting. There is no 100% clean or safe solution to anything, at least not until they figure out cold fusion ;)
     
  11. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Active Member

    Everything is choice. Everything is a trade-off. As the song says
    Every technology produces by-products, and waste energy - the physical laws of the universe require it. Mature technologies hopefully reduce them as greatly as possible. New tech often focuses on one aspect, while ignoring others - which results in "solutions" like the Prius, which enlarge any entirely unaddressed set of other problems.
     
  12. duivendyk

    duivendyk Guest

    Just what are the unaddressed problems created by hybrids like the Prius?.While it is true that solutions to problems can create unforseen& novel problems,the relevant question to ask is wether or not the newly created problems are easier to deal with than the existing ones.I can give an interesting example where "better" technology had very unpleasant side effects,at least in the Los Angeles basin.
    In the early fifties the automobile manufacturers started to replace their low compression sidevalve engines,with higher compression OHV engines.These had higher specific output and were also more efficient,what could be better?.Unfortunately raising the compression also increased the combustion temperature substantially and dramatically increased the production of smog producing nitrogen oxides.So the "improvement ?" in engine efficiency,created more problems than it solved,at least in LA.Only fuel injection, EGR and expensive catalytic convertors have licked the pollution problem brought on by these engine improvements.
     
  13. Tinker1980

    Tinker1980 Guest

    The biggest problem I see, is the battery. When the battery goes flat on a conventional car, it's $50 or so to get a new one, every 5-8 years depending on how good a battery you purchase. It's a simple lead-acid battery, lots of places sell them.

    Your Prius has a trunkful (If I remember right, the battery is between the backseat and trunk, they aren't easy to get to) of NiMH cells. For giggles someday, call or visit your toyota dealer and ask about the price of those babies. They will not give a direct answer, they will say they should last "The life of the car", which is more or less saying the life of the car is dictated by the battery. They really cost around $6k to purchase, NOT replace them. It's an ordeal to replace them, so expect another $1k to total $7k for the whole job from your toyota dealer to keep a car that is maybe 10 years old on the road.

    It is, when you think about it, bad for the environment to have a car become useless and undriveable after 10 years. You've expended energy, produced pollution, in a set amount for each vehicle you build. If your car is not to last 10 years before heading to the boneyard, then you'll be making more pollution and using more energy, because you have to make more vehicles. Of course, you will make more money that way.

    No, you may not drive your Prius or Insight for more than 5 years - but SOMEONE will. When you trade it in, it will be sold again. As long as it runs, it will be driven by somebody. Until it gets to the point where it needs more than it's blue-book value in batteries to keep it running.

    So, you pay $21,500 for a car, to drive it maybe a decade before the batteries stop holding a charge. Then you spend several thousand dollars on batteries, keeping in mind that your fuel mileage will decrease as the cells age.

    And this car is supposed to save you money.

    Ok, I'll get back to the topic. Sorry. Down off the soapbox about the "feel-good" cars.

    I'd love to see more geothermal plants myself. I just wonder how many can be made, and will they be enough? Another thing I'd like to see, instead of wasting material and land with PV solar cells, why don't we use mirrors, fresnel lenses, and stirling engines? Stirling engines run off temperature differential, enough heat of any kind will run it!

    -Mark
     
  14. BoltsMissing

    BoltsMissing Active Member

  15. duivendyk

    duivendyk Guest

    You are anticipating problems based on your prejudices, who knows how long batteries will last?.Battery technology is advancing at a rapid pace,and it is anybody's guess what a replacement will cost 10 years down the road, I would venture to guess that it will be a lot less,a batteries are not that hard to replace,it's the weight,the hookups are pretty simple.I don't buy your notion that it will be very expensive to replace one.Summing up your arguments are quite unconvincing.Hybrids really shine in city&suburban traffic,which is where most of the driving takes place.Wether it makes economic sense to buy one depends a lot on the price of HC's in the future.
    I am not certain that the hybrids are the best overall solution to automotive propulsion.The direct injection turbocharged diesels as found in Europe may well turn out to be more attractive.I drove a VW 1.9L diesel Golf around Europe last year and really liked it.I got 45 mpg overall (mixed city/long distance).It was fun to drive ,with plenty of get up&go.Honda is coming out with something similar soon, I think.These cars are simpler and well prove to be less expensive to operate than the hybrids and have comparable fuel economy and perfomance.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2008
  16. Zev0

    Zev0 Member

    Did you hear asbout Flextreme: on a small battery pack, the main electric engine of this revolutionary four door sedan will power the car for a full 55kms/80miles at normal speeds...without a charge. Hybrid cars of the future, it will have a 1.3 turbo diesel annex power plant to recharge the batteries only, not to power the wheels at all (turbo diesel has long been considered as Green in Europe for it is LESS pollutant than gasoline).
    It is an Opel. and only releases 40gr CO2...oPEL IS....GM!
    SAF is another automaker that has introduced Flexifuel to 12 European countries in 2001. It lowers emission 70%....75% ethanol and 15% gas...or both for these mixed fuel engines from 1.8 to 3.0 liters, 125 to 300 hp...SAF drove one non stop on "superethanol" 3200 kms (2000 miles) from Norway to Paris using existing gas station infrastructure. SAF won major French awards and gold medals for its commitment to clean air. SAF is the second part of the name Ford Sciete Anonyme Francaise, that is to say Ford France. Ford S Max was French' 2007 car of the year.
    As long as Americans will have the wealth to waste in filling up gas guzzler, even American Automakers will focus on selling them the humongus piece of junk they drive. If we want a change, let the price of gas to go up...and tell US automakers to sell us here what they sell in Europe....tell European and Japanese automaker to sell us here what they sell at home instead of beefed up, inflated and wasteful models.
    The US customer IS the problem. Just going to fuel efficient car would clean our air a lot and right now, without xtra effort, money, promises and commitment.
     
  17. duivendyk

    duivendyk Guest

    Volvo is working on a similar electric drive only vehicle,with the drive motors/brakes integrated with the wheels and a turbodiesel driving the motor/battery combination,providing high peak power from battery& motors for spurts of accelleration for starting and passing plus regenerative braking,while running the diesel for average power needs and battery recharging.All this is not rocket science with present day computer control technology.The US is lagging in this field.Only by keeping gas prices high and putting more resources into product development will this country catch up.NECESSITY is the mother of invention, not CAFE standards.
     
  18. BoltsMissing

    BoltsMissing Active Member

    Well then, ya have one of those Sterling Engines, hook up a dynamo/generator to re-charge the battery.

    Now, let's look at anoher angle,
    Hot-Rocks + Sterling Engine + Gerator + Re-chargable battery + "light Bulb"
    "light bulb" can be anything, like a fridge for example.

    Or, for those of you that take a written word litteraly,

    Hot-Rocks + Sterling Engine + Gerator + "light Bulb"
    "light bulb" can be anything, like a fridge for example.

    OR,
    Sterling Engine + "heat source" from another appliance, ( exhaust manifold )
    generator + lights...

    OH, BUT, we are not a scientist, we are not "qualified" to say these things.
    It will cost the earth, it's not possible, it's too simple.
     
  19. sparky

    sparky Active Member

    Have you never heard of a bicycle?
     
  20. Tinker1980

    Tinker1980 Guest

    No, I am anticipating problems based on a decade of experience with large batteries, admittedly much larger than the ones used in the Prius or any other hybrid. Its possible that the batteries will cost less 10 years down the road - but it would help if a 3rd party (Deka? Exide? Rayovac?) sold them instead of toyota. Does toyota have a patent on that particular battery, or the connector? If they do, then a 3rd party won't be able to sell them until the patent is up, or unless they buy rights to them. And YES, its very possible to have to pay a lot if you have to buy from the dealer 10 years later. Go price a door handle, mirror, door latch, or any of the miscellaneous clips and snaps found on a 10 year old (or 20 year old) vehicle. Door handles and such can be $100+ from the dealer, that's why I think a few hundred pounds of NiMH cells is still going to cost $6k in the future - and yes, they do cost $6k now.

    On the subject of diesel - I'd LOVE to see more diesel cars on the road, and I think it's going to start to happen around 2010. GM, Honda, Toyota, and even Mahindara are going to bring diesels to the US market. Ford is retooling SUV factories for small European market cars, so they may be bringing them also. I want to see a VW lupo myself - 94 MPG diesel.

    The only "Prejudice" I might feel toward a hybrid car is this: Why is it, we can sell a car with a complex control system, electric motor, atkinson cycle engine, and all the controls for that engine for $21,500, but you CAN'T buy one that is total electric? It seems like toyota is saying "Sure - we could make an electric car. But we want you to burn gas."

    -Mark
     
Loading...