Tim Jackson wrote:

Neon John wrote:

and you have it bunded - ie it is in your cellar.

WTF is bunded.

Spill containment.

It's not as though the AGM (absorbent glass mat) batteries can spill,
they're common in UPSs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRLA#Ab..._mat_.28AGM.29

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:10:35 -0800 (PST) someone who may be jim
wrote this:-

Oh yes? There's loads of idiots out there, including govt ministers
and advisers and civil servants, who obviously cannot do the simple
sums & do not think it is a silly idea. And they are right there in
the middle of govt putting up all of our elec bills.

The RO scheme was costing each household £9 a year in 2007. £2.25 a
quarter, somewhat less than the price of a pint of beer.

To this one should add the various energy efficiency schemes, around
£10 per quarter and around £12 for the EU emissions trading scheme.

The estimate was that in 2008 all these measures would increase
bills by £9 per year.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/DomesticEnergyPriceAnalysis.pdf

I'm not a fan of the emissions trading debacle, but I think the rest
is money well spent.

The daft idea has got out that wind energy is 'free' and all you do is
put up a fan, plug it into the mains and lie back whilst the cheques
roll in.

I think that this idea is only a feature of straw man arguments.

It is perhaps inexhaustable, but is it truly renewable? The
expected life of a wind turbine is c.30years. Not very long as
electrical generation infrastructure goes.

What we are beginning to see often happens is that the original wind
farm is repowered after a decade or so and the old wind turbines
re-used elsewhere. The Dancing Ladies of Gigha are an example of
re-used turbines
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/SustainableDevelopment/CaseStudies/DancingLadiesofGigha.

Plus there is a large plug of expensive-energy-consumed concrete under it.

Vestas included the "large" amount of concrete in their studies
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/sustainability/wind-turbines-and-the-environment/life-cycle-assessment-(lca).aspx.
I will be interested in seeing your rebuttals.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 7 Dec 2008 21:22:30 GMT someone who may be "Bob Eager"
wrote this:-

As you are unwilling to discuss what he said.

Incorrect.

Nice try.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:44:58 -0500 someone who may be Neon John
wrote this:-

So the answer is "no", then. Fair enough. End of discussion. It would be
like me trying to debate with a heart surgeon about what type of stint was
best. He'd laugh at my ignorance and I'd be the fool. so it goes here.

Nice try. Your bluster may convince some, but it will not convince
many. Meanwhile I'll stick with discussing the subject.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:52:44 -0500 someone who may be Neon John
wrote this:-

We're not discussing efficiency but capacity in this thread spur. Andy's
statement should have read "35% capacity factor".

On that point I agree with you.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:45:12 GMT someone who may be "BigWallop"
wrote this:-

So I'm confused on what is actually being meant by "Capacity" in this
context.

The report which may be downloaded from
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ResearchProgrammes/TechnologyandPolicyAssessment/TPAIntermittencyReport.aspx
explains the terms.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Owain wrote:
Rod wrote:
Or:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Silo_20Combustion_20Engine

Thank you. That took me to looking up why powered creamer wasn't allowed
in prisons, which lead me to a recipe for prison ice cream
http://shannoninprison.blogspot.com/...ice-cream.html


Isn't the web wonderful

Owain


Absolutely amazing.

Did you notice this link on the halfbakery page I linked to?

http://web.archive.org/web/20031013025738/http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Flour_20Power

Looks to be closest to the flour question.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Dec 8, 4:20*am, Neon John wrote:
...
* It'd be just my luck to have a flue fire or something and the generator
choose that time not to start. *Having the fire hose on the UPS will be very
nice.
John

You might be able to boost water storage capacity with cheap/free used
fiberglass water purifier tanks. For laundry and toilets they don't
need to be pressurized.

Alang wrote:

I think the Germans experimented with energy storage systems in buses
back in the early 1930s, they used a heavy flywheel system which absorbed
energy when breaking and releasing it for accelerating, ideal for a stop
and start vehicle but god knows how they arranged the pulley/ gear train
to achieve the necessary power transfers.
Interesting though!!
Don

Swiss
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ywheel-firsts-
.html

British.

Double deckers buses featuring flywheels were manufactured in the 1930s.
They featured in the "Modern Wonder" magazine.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:03:29 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Alang wrote:

I think the Germans experimented with energy storage systems in buses
back in the early 1930s, they used a heavy flywheel system which absorbed
energy when breaking and releasing it for accelerating, ideal for a stop
and start vehicle but god knows how they arranged the pulley/ gear train
to achieve the necessary power transfers.
Interesting though!!
Don

Swiss
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ywheel-firsts-
.html

British.

Double deckers buses featuring flywheels were manufactured in the 1930s.
They featured in the "Modern Wonder" magazine.

Always thought it was the Swiss. They were the only ones I ever heard
of actually running a service.

Any links to the British buses on line?

Alang wrote:

Any links to the British buses on line?

No idea, I can recall the articles which ran at about the same time as
the articles about trains that could scoop water from a trough in the
middle of the railway track to re-fill without having to stop.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:02:55 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

Neon John wrote:

and you have it bunded - ie it is in your cellar.

WTF is bunded.

Spill containment.

Never heard the term. I love this common language that separates us. :-)

To the OP, noooooo.... My batteries are not bunded. AGM batteries contain no
liquid and are classified by the DOT and FAA (highway and air authorities
respectively) as non-hazardous. Even if they were wet cells, I still would
not berm them (what we call it) and I can't think of an installation where
that's been done. If you've ever seen sulfuric acid and concrete go at each
other, you'd understand why. They don't just cuddle up and have an idle chat
:-)

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
If stupidity hurt then there'd be Aspirin in the salt shakers.

On Dec 7, 3:31 pm, John Nagelson wrote:
Not so great with wind-generated energy is the fact that you need a
battery bank, and batteries are expensive.

So why not store the energy as gravitational potential energy?

E.g. make the generated energy lift a large weight, controlled in such
a way that it falls when you need it to, yielding just the amount of
electrical power you need?

??

Parts would need replacing far less often than batteries.

John

This is already done. We pump water up a hill & recover the enegy by
letting it run back down. (Pump is also a turbine) Called a pumped
storage scheme.
All been thought of forty years ago!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-...droelectricity

Water being cheaper and more amendable than concrete blocks.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:56:06 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:20*am, Neon John wrote:
...
* It'd be just my luck to have a flue fire or something and the generator
choose that time not to start. *Having the fire hose on the UPS will be very
nice.
John

You might be able to boost water storage capacity with cheap/free used
fiberglass water purifier tanks. For laundry and toilets they don't
need to be pressurized.

I've had my eyes open for ANYTHING that would hold water for a couple of years
now. I thought that I was going to get the underground fiberglass gasoline
tank that they dug up in the spring at the gas station but the back-hoe
operator stuck the bucket through it. I got the impression, intentionally. My
well is about 50 ft in elevation above my house so I'd have fairly decent head
just from gravity.

I'd still need a battery or fuel-operated fire pump, though. The nearest fire
department is so far away that they usually arrive just in time to wash away
the cool ashes :-( For now it's an electric start generator with a backup
diesel electric start unit, both of which get exercised often.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
There is much pleasure in useless knowledge. —Bertrand Russell

Neon John wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:56:06 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:20 am, Neon John wrote:
...
It'd be just my luck to have a flue fire or something and the generator
choose that time not to start. Having the fire hose on the UPS will be very
nice.
John
You might be able to boost water storage capacity with cheap/free used
fiberglass water purifier tanks. For laundry and toilets they don't
need to be pressurized.

I've had my eyes open for ANYTHING that would hold water for a couple of years
now. I thought that I was going to get the underground fiberglass gasoline
tank that they dug up in the spring at the gas station but the back-hoe
operator stuck the bucket through it. I got the impression, intentionally. My
well is about 50 ft in elevation above my house so I'd have fairly decent head
just from gravity.

John...

How deep is your well?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 7, 7:55 pm, Neon John wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:07:36 +0000, David Hansen

wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:40:28 -0500 someone who may be Neon John
wrote this:-

People just don't understand the magnitude of the energy problem.

Don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you, "just don't
understand the magnitude of the energy problem."

No form of electricity generation produces electricity continuously
at full output. It is necessary to understand their individual
foibles to understand the issues.

Before we go on, might I ask if you have any utility experience at all? As a
retired nuclear engineer, I like to know about the folks I debate with.



"Different types of generators operate at a range of capacity
factors - during 2004, gas power stations had a capacity factor of
around 60 per cent, nuclear 71 per cent, hydro 37 per cent, pumped
hydro 10 per cent, and coal 62 per cent. Meanwhile, the overall
average capacity factor (or load factor) for the UK electricity
network is around 55 per cent.

What I see is gross incompetence. Especially in the nuclear area. Perhaps
some of your engineers ought to come over here and talk to some of our
engineers. As an example of what CAN be done:

http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/2007_...Production.htm

the juicy part:

"he 104 nuclear plants operating in 31 states also achieved a record-setting
average capacity factor—a measure of on-line availability of power. The 2007
average of 91.8 percent surpassed the 2004 record of 90.1 percent, according
to preliminary figures. Capacity factor is the ratio of electricity actually
produced compared to the theoretical maximum electricity a power plant can
produce operating at full power year-round."

Executive Summary:

US: 92%
YOU: 71%

Sounds like some operators need to go to nuclear Special Ed training. Neon
John's College of Nucklar Knowledge is open for business....

Here's a little tip from inside the industry over here. Capacity factors are
going UP because both because refueling outages are being extended past the
traditional 18 months and because the plants and procedures are getting even
more reliable.

Since most of the rest of your article is quoted from something and someone
whom I've never heard of and does not represent your knowledge, I'll end this
round of debate at this point.

BTW, we have quite a number of pumped storage plants, among the largest being
Raccoon Mountain near Chattanooga, TN. I happened to have a large involvement
with that plant, from working heavy equipment moving dirt and hauling the
turbine wheels on TVA's private railroad during construction to operations
training before I decided to become an engineer. I've "been there, done that
and have the belt buckle"

http://www.neon-john.com/Nuke/TMI/TMI_buckle.jpg

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email addresshttp://www.neon-john.comhttp://www.johndearmond.com-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell either of your wives.

This arises because the nuclear plants are run as "base load". as
they can't be quickly started and shut down. Ie they run all the
time. In the UK peak loads are met with gas turbines which can be
started up in minutes.
The world's first commercial / nuclear power plant was in the UK. we
know all about nuclear power and are still the world's leading
reprocessor of fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafi..._power_station

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:13:52 -0000, "Donwill" popple @diddle .dot
wrote:


I think the Germans experimented with energy storage systems in buses back
in the early 1930s, they used a heavy flywheel system which absorbed energy
when breaking and releasing it for accelerating, ideal for a stop and start
vehicle

I once saw a BBC Christmas lecture by Prof Eric Laithwaite which
explored the idea.

The biggest issue was safety, the energy stored in the flywheel would
have been tremendous and if a failure occured and the flywheel escaped
it would have carved "A neat slot" through buildings for miles across
the city.

That and Gyroscopic precession. If the flywheel was horizontal the bus
could turn left or right, but if ever one side of the bus ran into a
gutter and the bus tried to rotate the flywheel in the horizontal axis
once again absolutely tremendous forces would impinge on the bearings
/ mountings of the flywheel.

but god knows how they arranged the pulley/ gear train to achieve
the necessary power transfers.

Intuitively I feel sure that could be done magnetically / electrically

Derek



I met Laithwaite around that time and was somewhat caught up in his
obsession with gyros for a while.

The gyro effect in this case is quite easily overcome if you are using
electric transmission, the flywheel assembly can be mounted on gimbals
and the axis remain vertical regardless of the incline. Otherwise the
front wheels will come off the ground when you go downhill!

I don't have a reference, but I remember reading about steam-era
shunting locomotives (used as I recall in quarries), that used flywheel
power storage, recharged periodically from a stationary boiler.

One set-up that intrigued me was a pair of counter-rotating flywheels on
a common axis in an evacuated chamber. I felt it had to be good for
something, but apart from land mines I don't know what.


Tim Jackson

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:05:02 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Neon John wrote:

I've had my eyes open for ANYTHING that would hold water for a couple of years
now. I thought that I was going to get the underground fiberglass gasoline
tank that they dug up in the spring at the gas station but the back-hoe
operator stuck the bucket through it. I got the impression, intentionally. My
well is about 50 ft in elevation above my house so I'd have fairly decent head
just from gravity.

John...

How deep is your well?

that depends. The well was originally drilled to support a small community
of 8 lots. The seller decided that he didn't want to maintain the well in
perpetuity so he gave it to us (we were here first and closest to it) and paid
for wells on the other lots.

It's a 10" casing that is about 250 ft deep. I believe that there is 100 ft
of steel casing. During normal conditions, water is about 50 ft down. During
this drought we're having, the last time I shot it with my laser rangefinder,
the level was down to about 100 ft. Fortunately I have a LOT of cushion. Some
of the surrounding wells, drilled only to first water, have dried up this
summer.

The pump is either a 2 or 2.5hp submersible. I don't recall which power level
I had installed upon the last failure. Needless to say, it feeds my little
cabin all the water I can use :-)

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:14:18 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:


I don't have a reference, but I remember reading about steam-era
shunting locomotives (used as I recall in quarries), that used flywheel
power storage, recharged periodically from a stationary boiler.

I'm somewhat of a railroad buff, and at least in America, I've never heard of
a flywheel powered locomotive. There WERE stored energy locomotives however.
Commonly known as "thermos bottle" locomotives, they were charged with
superheated water from a stationary boiler and subsequently operated for
several hours on the stored heat. They were very popular in powerhouses and
coal yards for obvious reasons (no fire hazard) and in places like steel mills
were they had to operate indoors.

here are some photos of thermos locomotives, on display at the Railroad Museum
of Pennsylvania. I especially like the Pennsylvania Power one which looks
most like a conventional locomotive.

http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Thermos_01.jpg
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Thermos_02.jpg
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Thermos_03.jpg

John

--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. -Marie Curie

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:10:36 +0000, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Alang wrote:

Any links to the British buses on line?

No idea, I can recall the articles which ran at about the same time as
the articles about trains that could scoop water from a trough in the
middle of the railway track to re-fill without having to stop.

if I can find them, I have some photos of steam locomotives doing the water
scoop thing. My father took these pictures right after WWII. He was also a
train buff. These are all shot on large-format Kodachrome film and those are
gorgeous.

I'm still amazed at the innovations in these early engineers came up with.in
one photo, the locomotive must've been doing 30 miles an hour, and water shot
out the sides at least 50 feet in the air. I bet that was something to see in
person.

John

--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Save the whales, collect the whole set!

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:10:36 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Alang wrote:

Any links to the British buses on line?

No idea, I can recall the articles which ran at about the same time as
the articles about trains that could scoop water from a trough in the
middle of the railway track to re-fill without having to stop.

They were mainline trains. The new A10 built near here has that
facility but can't use it because there are no water containers left
in the tracks. They had to increase the water capacity on the loco.
Limits its range
http://www.a1steam.com/

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:09:00 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Rod wrote:

But what mechanism have you got that would raise that four tonnes 100
metres straight up?

I haven't got one, I was just pointing out the scale of the problem

And all that for a measly 1 kWh.

Exactly.

The only place I've seen this work is in an LED standard lamp - you
manually lift a mildly heavy weight from floor to 5' off the ground, then
it falls slowly while running a generator (through a gearbox) for a
couple of hours.

If you're seriously looking at this sort of thing you need to get your
whole house consumption down from 1kW average (what ours is while
occupied, TV on etc.) to a few hundred watts at most.

Neon John wrote:
We're not discussing efficiency but capacity in this thread spur. Andy's
statement should have read "35% capacity factor".

Thank you blushes

Oddly enough I don't care about the efficiency of conversion. We have
lots of wind, and waste just as much on tress, houses and mountains. I
do care about the *cost* of conversion though.

snip

From your description, Andy, it sounds like the UK thing is more a
publicity stunt than a serious attempt to generate power.

They're serious. That's a lot of dosh. err moolah in US? It's one of
the best places too, shallow water and near major power consumers.

Andy

BigWallop wrote:
Capacity is just another way of saying "May Produce" when it comes to
renewable energy design. To work out exactly what the capacity of a wind
generator farm is, depends mostly on whatever you compare it with. The
whole plant may have the capacity to supply electrical power to a small
city, but it won't supply a whole region with many cities. So what capacity
does it really have? It has the capacity to generate electrical power, but
to what extent?

If you mean that the position of the site to capture the most prevalent wind
conditions to the fullest, then you may get a capacity of all the turbines
to capture around 50% of the wind from the site. It depends on the reaction
of the turbines to turn the wind they have captured into a potential energy
source.

So I'm confused on what is actually being meant by "Capacity" in this
context.

Most wind farm sites in the UK can give figures from 62 to 79% Capacity for
possible wind conversion into potential energy. Anything less than a
capacity to turn 62% of the potential wind source into a potentially usable
power supply is not going be anywhere near efficient enough to supply the
grid with anything usable.


Efficiency of conversion (and for that matter, average load factor)
really aren't the issue for large scale wind farms. Denmark's running
at about 20% wind, and that causes trouble - you have to be able to cope
with the odd windless day. If we had a wind-based system that was 99%
reliable in terms of supplying the base load (not the interruptible
stuff - the aluminium smelters and so on can just shut down when the
wind doesn't blow) would you be happy? Remember that this would mean 24
hour power cuts 3 times a year. *I'd* be getting a backup system if it
did that, and imagine what 20 million private backup systems in the UK
would cost. (more for the US. And all similar to Neon John's. But
without being able to use scrap parts, 'cos we're all fighting over
those. And the price of lead shoots up. And lead pollution rises...)

p.s. Coal lovers - REMEMBER ABERFAN!

Andy

Neon John wrote:

Never heard the term. I love this common language that separates us. :-)


bund (n)

1. An embankment or dike, especially in India.
2. A street running along a harbor or waterway, especially in the Far East.

ETYMOLOGY: Hindi band, from Persian, from Middle Persian, from Avestan
*banda-, from Old Iranian.

berm (n)

1a. A narrow ledge or shelf, as along the top or bottom of a slope.
b. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, & West Virginia The shoulder of a road.
c. A raised bank or path, especially the bank of a canal opposite the
towpath.

2. A terrace formed by wave action along the backshore of a beach.

3. A mound or bank of earth, used especially as a barrier or to provide
insulation.

4. A ledge between the parapet and the moat in a fortification.

ETYMOLOGY: French berme, from Dutch berm, from Middle Dutch bærm, berme.

(source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.)

So - we use Hindi, and you use French. What was that about a common
language?

Andy

Neon John wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:14:18 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:


I don't have a reference, but I remember reading about steam-era
shunting locomotives (used as I recall in quarries), that used flywheel
power storage, recharged periodically from a stationary boiler.

I'm somewhat of a railroad buff, and at least in America, I've never heard of
a flywheel powered locomotive. There WERE stored energy locomotives however.
Commonly known as "thermos bottle" locomotives, they were charged with
superheated water from a stationary boiler and subsequently operated for
several hours on the stored heat. They were very popular in powerhouses and
coal yards for obvious reasons (no fire hazard) and in places like steel mills
were they had to operate indoors.

here are some photos of thermos locomotives, on display at the Railroad Museum
of Pennsylvania. I especially like the Pennsylvania Power one which looks
most like a conventional locomotive.

http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Thermos_01.jpg
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Thermos_02.jpg
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Thermos_03.jpg

John

--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. -Marie Curie


Yeah, these were nothing like that. And I wouldn't mistake a steam
engine for a flywheel. I remember thinking about the level-ground
problem at the time and wondering what happened if one derailed. (Like
a washing machine with a heavy coat in it I imagined.) I also remember
the story was accompanied by a B&W photo. They looked rather like
little diesel shunters, fully enclosed and rectangular, and I think
forward control. I wish I could remember where I read it, but it was
long ago.

Tim

Andy Champ wrote:
Remember that this would mean 24
hour power cuts 3 times a year.

There's a brand spanking new 65MW wind farm that I can see every time I
go out of my house, and it's been goldbricking for most of the last week
during the cold snap we just had.

I know the moors where it is built, I used to walk up there a lot and
I've never known it not to be windy. There is a little hillock out in
the middle about the height of the hubs, and even on the nicest summer
day it was an effort to remain standing when you got to the top.


Tim Jackson

On Dec 8, 1:57*pm, Neon John wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:56:06 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins wrote:...

I'd still need a battery or fuel-operated fire pump, though. *The nearest fire
department is so far away that they usually arrive just in time to wash away
the cool ashes :-( *For now it's an electric start generator with a backup
diesel electric start unit, both of which get exercised often. *

John

If the extra tank is clean enough to risk possible backflow, you could
connect it to your system through a check valve so it would always be
full at max pressure. A second tank mounted upside down would hold the
air if you don't have a shop compressor. I used a faucet for the
outdoor compressed air tap so I can pressurize my solar water heater
tank if necessary.

I have a collection of old pressurized water fire extinguishers for
fires in the woods etc. One or two can put a small fire out before my
cell phone finishes powering up to call 911. I only needed them once
so far, when the old guy across the street collapsed while cutting up
wrecked cars and his torch set a fire in the dry grass. I wished I had
one when his son's wood stove started a fire in the wall. (They don't
have power or water). I grabbed his kids Coke bottle, put my thumb
over the top, inverted and shook it, and sprayed the fire up in the
wall above the flue opening. Good trick to remember. The kid still
hasn't forgiven me.

jw

"Neon John" wrote in message
...

A neon-john junk-box special. :-) There is an old APS 2kW (I think, the
nameplate is long gone) computer UPS that is over 15 years old. That runs
most of my "vital bus" which consists of lighting, a refrigerator and my
computers. The rest of the system is a series of cheap inverters that power
either individual loads like freezers or clusters of loads that are likely to
be operated at the same time. I'm currently saving my nickels to get a 3.5kw
ChiCom special, 24 volt input inverter for my wellpump. My 2.5kw inverter
just barely won't start the pump. It tries but the over current trips before
the pump is fully up to speed. It would probably start the pump if I let it
start unloaded of pressure.

You could use a sprinkler valve, with a check valve between it and the tank, to
unload the pump. Or, a spring check valve with the spring replaced with a
lighter spring to hold the valve open (instead of closed). As pressure builds,
it closes.

Neon John wrote:

Especially in the winter when I can roll my chest freezers
outside. I mounted them on wheels for that purpose.

What brand/model chest freezers you have?

Neon John wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:10:35 -0800 (PST), jim
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 19:29, Neon John wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:46:37 -0800 (PST), jim

�I got
the 20 AGMs as a matched but used set as scrap from an AVS electric bus
battery pack.

and you have it bunded - ie it is in your cellar.

Acids eat through concrete, its not very effective bunding.


BTW, I have a book here dating from the 20s that instructs one on building
"pasteless batteries" using a process a bit more sophisticated but similar to
that guy's. this one involves several plates, separated by cedar wood spacers
and formed into battery plates by hooking an Edison lamp in series with the
110 volt DC lighting service. the Edison lamps were what? 4 watts or
something like that? Forming took several weeks according to the book.

why charge it that way when you can charge it by putting it in
service. Charging from dc mains via a lamp is also unsafe & grossly
inefficient.

Why use multiple flat plates when you can use sheet and bend it round.
Think.


NT

On Dec 8, 6:10*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Alang wrote:
Any links to the British buses on line?

*No idea, I can recall the articles which ran at about the same time as
the articles about trains that could scoop water from a trough in the
middle of the railway track to re-fill without having to stop.

Water scoops and troughs are a lot older than that, first used in the
1860s by the LNWR.

MBQ

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:13:52 -0000, "Donwill" popple @diddle .dot
wrote:


I think the Germans experimented with energy storage systems in buses back
in the early 1930s, they used a heavy flywheel system which absorbed energy
when breaking and releasing it for accelerating, ideal for a stop and start
vehicle

I once saw a BBC Christmas lecture by Prof Eric Laithwaite which
explored the idea.

The biggest issue was safety, the energy stored in the flywheel would
have been tremendous and if a failure occured and the flywheel escaped
it would have carved "A neat slot" through buildings for miles across
the city.

That and Gyroscopic precession. If the flywheel was horizontal the bus
could turn left or right, but if ever one side of the bus ran into a
gutter and the bus tried to rotate the flywheel in the horizontal axis
once again absolutely tremendous forces would impinge on the bearings
/ mountings of the flywheel.

but god knows how they arranged the pulley/ gear train to achieve
the necessary power transfers.

Intuitively I feel sure that could be done magnetically / electrically

Derek

Next years F1 cars are using a system of this sort I think.

Neon John wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:56:06 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:20 am, Neon John wrote:
...
It'd be just my luck to have a flue fire or something and the generator
choose that time not to start. Having the fire hose on the UPS will be very
nice.
John
You might be able to boost water storage capacity with cheap/free used
fiberglass water purifier tanks. For laundry and toilets they don't
need to be pressurized.

I've had my eyes open for ANYTHING that would hold water for a couple of years
now.

Look at a swimming pool.

They hold water.

Simple reinforced concrete shell.

Neon John wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:31:41 -0800 (PST), John Nagelson
wrote:

Not so great with wind-generated energy is the fact that you need a
battery bank, and batteries are expensive.

So why not store the energy as gravitational potential energ

Ahhhh, another liberal arts major :-) OK, smart-assed mode off.

E.g. make the generated energy lift a large weight, controlled in such
a way that it falls when you need it to, yielding just the amount of
electrical power you need?

there are two answers to this question:

A) we already are. It's called hydroelectric power. More specifically pumped
storage power. Unfortunately it takes a whole lot of water to make a little
bit of electricity. Research TVA's Raccoon Mountain pumped storage facility
to see just how much water has to be pumped how high to store just a partial
day's worth of output of the nearby Sequoyah nuclear plant.


I calculated it would take something the size of lake windermere, raised
1000ft, to backup just ten percent of the countries total energy needs
for one day.

Multiply that by 20 to fully back up an entire countryside filled with
windmills every kilometer, to supply that countries total energy needs
RELIABLY.


Basically build a 1000ft wall round london, and fill it up.

Not a bad idea, but expensive.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:31:41 -0800 (PST), John Nagelson wrote:

So why not store the energy as gravitational potential energy?

If you have the space pumped storage might get you a bit of energy but
you'd probably get 50% back.


about 70% at Dinorweg.

Probably best just to dump any electricity you have no immediate need for
into a heat store/bank via emersion heaters, once the store is up to
temperature sell the excess to the grid.

If heat is what you want.

Low grade heat - electricity is the worst efficiency of anyhting.

Neon John wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:16:29 +0000, Peter Scott
wrote:


How about opening a fitness centre and connecting all the machines to
generators, you could also charge the users to generate electricity for you,
However, I don't know what the pay back period on your capital would be? or
even how many people you would need to generate an useful amount of power.?
Don
I believe that an athlete running flat out generates about 300 watt.
Can't do that for long either. That was the problem with man-powered
flight. It was keeping up enough power to overcome the drag for long enough.

So someone running at say 15 kph on a non-powered treadmill for an hour
would generate no more than 0.3kWh of energy. Even if conversion was
100% that's only about 3p worth of electricity.

good analysis, Peter.

this whole thread illustrates the problem we nukes face. People just don't
understand the magnitude of the energy problem. A nuclear plant isn't that
large - many factories are larger. It can't make that much power, can it?

Well, as a matter of fact, it can. A typical unit generates 1,000 megawatts.
A few less, a few more and many are being uprated during outage and retrofit
but 1000 is a good number. Day in, day out, 24/7 for 18 months or more at a
time between refuelings.

Now consider Hoover Dam

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html

It's nameplate rating is 2,080 megawatts but with a hydro plant, that's
deceptive. It can make that much power only when a specified amount of water
is available. It usually isn't. I couldn't conveniently find the AVERAGE
yearly output of Hoover dam but even if we assume that it can make its
nameplate rating all year long, that's equivalent to roughly one single two
unit nuclear plant.

There's only one Hoover dam. We can plop down nukes pretty much wherever we
want 'em.

Since this is alt.energy.home-power, let's look at one of the more often
mentioned alternatives - wind power. A typical utility wind turbine has a
nameplate rating of from 1 to 5 megawatts. That means that with everything
optimum - wind blowing at the design speed, etc, it would take from 200 to
1000 such turbines to equal ONE NUCLEAR UNIT. Remember that most plants have
two units in the US and at least one (Browns Ferry) has three.


Newer windmills are better than that. But the so are newer nuclear sets.
I make it about 1000 windmills = one nuclear station. To be RELIABLE
(see below)

According to the utility trade magazines I get, the availability factor for
wind farms is lousy - typically around 50%. That is, the farm is making, on
average, only half its nameplate rating. The causes are a combination of
(mostly) not enough wind and (partially) low equipment reliability. Lowest
bidder and all that.

The load average of large European windmills is 30%. Thats average.
Sadly the means to worst case on any given set of days, is far far worse.

Without storage or backup I estimated that a functional wind solution
requires between a 6 and 10 times overcapacity of windmills and wire
interconnects over a very large geographical area.

I.e at lest 6-10 times more wire - copper and/or aluminium - than a nice
steady nuclear station.
Windmills may be efficient in terms of cost of the actual energy, but in
every other sense..use of land area, use of materials - they are a
fecking nightmare once you look at the OVERALL picture. Not just 'how
much it costs to generate electricity from this windmill ASSUMING IT IS
ALWAYS WANTED, ALL OF IT, AND SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING TO MAKE IT WHEN I
CANT'.


You are in the nuke indistry.. calculate for me how many watts per
square meter of land a nuclear set produces ?

The very BEST 'renewable' energy is a solar furnace in a desert, at
maybe 15W/sq meter of land. Everything else is in the 0.1-5W/sq meter
sort of area.


The UK runs on about 10% of the energy that actually falls on the land
surface of it..mutatis mutandis, that means that around 20% of the total
land area of Britain would need to be covered in 'renewable power'
stations to generate the current needs of the population. And whilst we
might be able to do on maybe half what we burn now, we cant do on 10% of it.

The sheer construction size of the renewable solutions exceeds the
amount of houses roads railway factories and airports that currently
exist by a comfortable margin. And with all this power being relatively
unreliable, you need a massive grid to balance it.
The ultimate conclusion of the renewable energy lobby would be a country
looking like a giant industrial landscape, with windmills, solar panels,
and electricity pylons criss-crossing it at 100% density, and the whole
coast surrounded by flapping windmills covering all the coastal waters.

whereas 100 nuclear power stations each the size of a medium factory
dotted round the country would do a far far cheaper job with far far
less environmental impact.












The money wasted on wind and solar "alternatives" amount to little more than a
sad joke to us nukes. And to tax- and rate-payers who have a clue.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources -Albert Einstein

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:40:28 -0500 someone who may be Neon John
wrote this:-

People just don't understand the magnitude of the energy problem.

Don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you, "just don't
understand the magnitude of the energy problem."

No form of electricity generation produces electricity continuously
at full output. It is necessary to understand their individual
foibles to understand the issues.

"Different types of generators operate at a range of capacity
factors - during 2004, gas power stations had a capacity factor of
around 60 per cent, nuclear 71 per cent,

CANDIU reactors, and most modern reactors are around 90-95%. Because
they are reliable, and cheap, they are used for baseband.

hydro 37 per cent, pumped
hydro 10 per cent, and coal 62 per cent. Meanwhile, the overall
average capacity factor (or load factor) for the UK electricity
network is around 55 per cent.

"Clearly this does not mean that the UK electricity network only
operates for 55 per cent of the time, and that the remaining 45 per
cent of the time no electricity is generated! What this figure means
is that all the generators connected to the network produce in a
year a little over one-half of their theoretical maximum output.

"Why does this occur? The main reasons are that electricity
generators must be switched off for planned maintenance, that
mechanical failure forces generators to be switched off at times,
but also that generators will only be run if there if there is a
demand for the electricity they are producing.

"As a result, it is not possible for any generator to achieve a 100
per cent capacity factor - to do so would mean a perfect operational
record, without a single hour of down-time due to maintenance or
mechanical failure, and an electricity demand level that never
varied. This has never been achieved on the UK (or any other)
electricity network."

no, but 90% has been achieved with nuclear reactors.



http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/opinion/energy/response_1_confusion_over_wind_capacity.htm
and it was written by someone who knows a little about electrical
systems.

Pumped storage systems were and are expensive to build. They were
built because when nuclear stations conk out, because of their size,
they leave a large hole in the electricity supply. Because they are
very slow to react, other nuclear stations cannot cover this hole.
Because of the magnitude of the hole, coal fired plants cannot cover
it in the short term. What is needed is something which will start
almost instantly and cover the hole for long enough for coal fired
plants to be wound up. That is a hydro plant. By making it a pumped
storage plant the excess electricity produced by nuclear plants can
be absorbed overnight and it can have a far higher power output than
a "simple" hydro plant would have for an equivalent volume of water.


Complete ********. Dinorwig was not built to back up nuclear power
stations. It was built to even out the peak to mean of daily load.

It i somewhat cheaper given its geography, than an equivalent sized gas
turbine installation.


A good example of such a plant is Dinorwig, which can produce as
much electricity as a nuclear power station within seconds, using
just four of its six units http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm. In
order to perform this trick the turbines must be spinning in air,
synchronised with the external system. When doing this they either
take a little electricity from the external system, or they take a
little of the output of another turbine. From a standing start it
may take as long as a minute to produce full output, though I guess
45 seconds is more typical.

Neon John wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:07:36 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:40:28 -0500 someone who may be Neon John
wrote this:-

People just don't understand the magnitude of the energy problem.
Don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you, "just don't
understand the magnitude of the energy problem."

No form of electricity generation produces electricity continuously
at full output. It is necessary to understand their individual
foibles to understand the issues.

Before we go on, might I ask if you have any utility experience at all? As a
retired nuclear engineer, I like to know about the folks I debate with.
\

'Dynamo Dave' is a complete asshole, a born again greenpeace ideologist.
He really believes that windmills are mankinds salvation. He is unable
to do basic arithmetic.


"Different types of generators operate at a range of capacity
factors - during 2004, gas power stations had a capacity factor of
around 60 per cent, nuclear 71 per cent, hydro 37 per cent, pumped
hydro 10 per cent, and coal 62 per cent. Meanwhile, the overall
average capacity factor (or load factor) for the UK electricity
network is around 55 per cent.

What I see is gross incompetence. Especially in the nuclear area. Perhaps
some of your engineers ought to come over here and talk to some of our
engineers. As an example of what CAN be done:

http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/2007_...Production.htm

the juicy part:

"he 104 nuclear plants operating in 31 states also achieved a record-setting
average capacity factor—a measure of on-line availability of power. The 2007
average of 91.8 percent surpassed the 2004 record of 90.1 percent, according
to preliminary figures. Capacity factor is the ratio of electricity actually
produced compared to the theoretical maximum electricity a power plant can
produce operating at full power year-round."

Executive Summary:

US: 92%
YOU: 71%

Sounds like some operators need to go to nuclear Special Ed training. Neon
John's College of Nucklar Knowledge is open for business....


No, what is going on here John, is that Green**** deliberately take all
their figures on nuclear power from the fag end of Britain's oldest
nuclear power stations,which were originally designed as research
reactors, and as breeders of weapons grade plutonium, that are now a
couple of decades past the time they were ever expected to last.

Thy are almost literally falling apart, but they still generate
something like 20% of the coutries electricity relaibly.


Here's a little tip from inside the industry over here. Capacity factors are
going UP because both because refueling outages are being extended past the
traditional 18 months and because the plants and procedures are getting even
more reliable.

Since most of the rest of your article is quoted from something and someone
whom I've never heard of and does not represent your knowledge, I'll end this
round of debate at this point.

BTW, we have quite a number of pumped storage plants, among the largest being
Raccoon Mountain near Chattanooga, TN. I happened to have a large involvement
with that plant, from working heavy equipment moving dirt and hauling the
turbine wheels on TVA's private railroad during construction to operations
training before I decided to become an engineer. I've "been there, done that
and have the belt buckle"

http://www.neon-john.com/Nuke/TMI/TMI_buckle.jpg


Well it's nice to know that the USA hasn't completely abandoned nuclear
power John.

Can i direct you to a very interesting site

www.withouthotair.com

You need to be able to count beyond ten without taking your socks of,
which is why Dynamo Dave doesn't understand it.


John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell either of your wives.

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:55:31 -0500 someone who may be Neon John
wrote this:-

Before we go on, might I ask if you have any utility experience at all? As a
retired nuclear engineer, I like to know about the folks I debate with.

You may ask. However, debating people rather than the subject under
discussion is a well known tactic to deflect discussion away from
the subject under discussion to something else.

What I see is gross incompetence. Especially in the nuclear area. Perhaps
some of your engineers ought to come over here and talk to some of our
engineers.

Yawn. Over-competence and use of figures which don't refer to the
same thing have been known to generate more heat than light. I have
neither the time or the inclination to follow in that direction.


inded. You know all about THAT don't you.

Take some bad data off the net, tout it as truth, and then pretend you
are too lofty to do the sums that prove its ********.


Since most of the rest of your article is quoted from something and someone
whom I've never heard of and does not represent your knowledge, I'll end this
round of debate at this point.

Readers may note that after the bit on capacity factors, which you
responded to, the rest of my posting was about pumped storage
schemes and was written by myself. This is the bit you were unable
or unwilling to discuss.

Yawn. Over-competence and use of figures which don't refer to the
same thing have been known to generate more heat than light. I have
neither the time or the inclination to follow in that direction.