Oil's energy contribution has declined by about 12% since 1999. The world's economies have also declined by about 12%. (Using conventional metrics, which are time delayed determinations, this will only be seen in hind sight). The massive destruction of asset values now occurring testifies to it happening.
Peak is well behind us, world economies have peaked and will continue to decline.
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 243 Location: the Village
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:09 am Post subject: solid state Tesla coil book
Saw this linked at the google ad's here, detailed info. link
item number, in case that link is personalised to my account only - Item number: 4500020447 _________________ the frogurt is also cursed
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:42 am Post subject: World-wide wiring
Yeah,
We could have "rolling light-ups" as the world turns.
I have wondered about government's attitude towards small scale (home or farmstead) generating systems - hard to tax. You would think that they would still tolerate them, now that demand often equals capacity (or exceeds - when rolling blackouts occur). I guess they can tax whatever gets on the grid. If there is global grid interconnection through the Bering Strait, there would be some long transmission lines through Siberia and northern Canada and Alaska.
That would be some mega-project, with all kinds of international meddling, eh. _________________ Don't Worry, Be Happy
(B. McFerrin)
listen:
http://ubl.artistdirect.com/store/artist/album/0,,238303,00.html
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:55 pm Post subject:
Yo, Bastard (I like the way that sounds:-)
I vaguely recall reading about a proposal of this type from the early history of the commercial power grid. Perhaps it was Edison, though it sounds more like Tesla, though Tesla was more into "wireless distribution" using some kind of capacitive resonance between earth and sky (in my opinion a formula for major ecological side effects).
In its modern iteration, this *would* require superconducting transmission lines on the main trunk feeders. That's not an insurmountable problem, though the issue of lower-cost downleads remains (the component that connects the superconducting line to the standard conductors in a local area's grid). (A few years ago my group evaluated someone with a claim to an improved downlead; the results were inconclusive at best.)
The Bering Strait is a logical place to make the connection. Interestingly enough, there is also a lot of wind capacity in that part of the world; I have direct knowledge of about 4 gigawatts of easily buildable wind capacity (that's equivalent to four decent nuclear reactors) in Canada near Alaska. This would undoubtedly be an enormously costly venture, but on the other hand it would open up vast areas for human habitation that are not currently inhabited. That's a major development opportunity on one hand, but also requires other resources in those areas, notably water and agricultural capacity.
This would also require serious international agreements. For example the lines will be passing through a number of countries, some of which aren't on friendly terms. Would country A use their access to the trunk line as a way of extorting diplomatic concessions from country B...? Or would this be a force for international stability in the same manner as trade between countries with democratic governance and capitalist economies?
If nothing else it would be interesting to do a very rough estimate of the costs. I have in my files somewhere, a set of industry standard numbers for the cost of erecting conventional transmission line. Somewhere there is probably a similar set of figures for erecting superconducting line. And then also, in some areas, additional steps would have to be taken to make the system earthquake-resilient. Some of the line might better be undergrounded, for resistance to the elements.
And last but not least, it would have to be secured against the risk of terrorism, which at minimum means a video monitoring system all along the way, and a viable patrol force stationed every so often along the grid (perhaps the seeds of new towns that could sprout up and use the electricity productively?), with helicopters for rapid response in the event an intrusion was detected.
As a purely emotional matter, the idea of Big Engineering projects appeals to me aesthetically. The world united to build the grid; a new resurgence of civil engineering and construction to serve an important goal; the idea of more efficient utilization of sunlight and wind in particular; the idea of locating reactors near uranium mines, and other generating capacity near their own sources of fuel; all of these are inspiring in a general way.
On the other hand, for the same cost, other design concepts might be more efficient. For example, pumped water storage, where e.g. wind power is used to pump water uphill, that turns a generator on the downhill flow: this has the potential to equalize the output of large wind installations, and store photovoltaic power for nighttime use. So there's a certain amount of cost comparison needed here. In any case the idea is intriguing.
How much energy would be required to provide liquid nitrogen/hydrogen/helium to keep the conductors in superconducting state/km/day? Of course, this would have to take into account the need for a liquid nitrogen/hydrogen/helium plant at intervals of, say, every 50 km or so. I think we should have to be looking at helium, so that metals can be used. The high-temperature superconductors are more ceramic in nature and I fear that they would not be sufficiently ductile for long-distance transmission lines (effect of earth tremors etc.) _________________ Devil
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 1938 Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:37 am Post subject: Tesla Coil
I love my Tesla coil. There are more cool things I can do with it than any other toy I own. The Van der Graaf generator does come in at a close second though! _________________ --------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
--------------------------------
(-------< Temet Nosce >-------)
____________________________
Current transmission line technology is an expensive, inefficient way to move power from the supplier to the customer. Instead of huge centralized generators, it makes more sense to have smaller ones strategically located around population areas. Line loss can be quite large over long distances, up to 50% or so. These losses occur due to the conversion of electricity to heat and electromagnetic energy. A small amount of loss occurs even in the most efficiently engineered systems. Consumers get short-circuited because they pay for both the deficiencies of the system and the cost of building lines, which can run as high as $600,000 per mile for a large-capacity line, excluding the substations. It would be best to decentralize energy production to point of use, or end use applicability. Direct solar for heating water and providing lighting, while âsteady supplyâ electricity would come from local power production for running motors and electronic equipment. In the near future, we may end up with our own on-site generator that runs on whatever our imagination can come up with. White-lightning, maybe? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
One thing I hadn't considered when I started this thread,that several people have brought up,is the cost of transmitting power over long distances.
You're all correct,lineloss would make this a pointless venture.From what I've read,the Japanese have made some incredable breakthroughs in the past decade with superconductor technologies,unfortunately the materials are expensive as hell to produce _________________ "Switzerland is small and neutral.We need to be more like Germany,ambitious and misunderstood!" Futurama
"As for the dieoff of 5E+09 people - not a problem, so long as I'm not one of them." Jack
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:33 am Post subject: Re: Tesla Coil
EnviroEngr wrote:
I love my Tesla coil. There are more cool things I can do with it than any other toy I own. The Van der Graaf generator does come in at a close second though!
It isn't strictly a toy, but I've used a plasma cutter a few times - I think it would place alongside a medium-size Tesla coil. No competition with the big (> 1' arcs) ones though, not to mention the real monsters capable of 10+ foot arcs!
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 243 Location: the Village
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:32 pm Post subject: re:
What "major ecological side-effects"? Worse than now, if so how?
It does sound kinda dodgy at first, but if you consider the alternative that we now use - wires embedded inside the earth plus pylons etc etc - how could it possibly be any worse? _________________ the frogurt is also cursed
Joined: Jul 18, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject:
Here you are devil:
link
Cliff's notes:
Conventional cable losses: 258 MVA cable - 26.3 W/m
Superconducting: 685 MVA cable - 1 W/m (electrical loss), 1-5 W/m (thermal losses)
COP of crycooler: 0.04 - 0.05
Total energy requirements for HTS cable: 40 W/m - 150 W/m
Huge energy losses at ends of HTS cable, where it connects to ambient temperature infrastructure - longer HTS cables are more efficient. HTS cable can carry 3-4x the power for the same size. Can upgrade existing underground powergrids without digging new tunnels. Less need for high-voltage transmission, can reduce number of transformers.
Thanks, these numbers confirm what I suspected, you need 40 to 150 W/m to save 26 W/m. I think we can forget this idea, don't you? _________________ Devil
Joined: Jul 18, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:00 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Thanks, these numbers confirm what I suspected, you need 40 to 150 W/m to save 26 W/m. I think we can forget this idea, don't you?
I wouldn't be quite so hasty. Note that the HTS cable carries 3x the power of the conventional cable, while wasting only 2x - 5x the amount of the conventional cable. So MVA for MVA the HTS may be more efficient.
HTS cables also have lower impedance and reactance, so have better performance. Theoretically there is a benefit to grid stability - and you could potentially get rid of a few shunt reactors. Certainly it's not a technology that is viable other than experimentally, or as a quick fix for boosting underground power grids, but it might hold promise for a few years time: 2nd gen HTS wire shouldn't need such low temps, and there is potentially room for improvement of the cryocoolers.
Current transmission line technology is an expensive, inefficient way to move power from the supplier to the customer. Instead of huge centralized generators, it makes more sense to have smaller ones strategically located around population areas. Line loss can be quite large over long distances, up to 50% or so. These losses occur due to the conversion of electricity to heat and electromagnetic energy.
You may want to look at MarkR's pdf from rand, the 138kV line is a relatively small transmission line, for serious transmission the nominal voltages would be 345, 765, or a dc link. For a typical 138 kV line length of 100 miles at PEAK loading, the line is still about 95% efficient!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
