Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369293 > unrolled thread

Re: Technology's role in a climate solution

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 14:16 +0000
    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:42 +0000
      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 00:50 +0000
        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:45 +0100
          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:56 +0100
          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:58 +0000
            Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:02 +0100
              Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:09 +0000
                Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 19:47 +0100
                  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:38 +0000
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:58 +0000
                  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:52 +0000
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 20:07 +0000
                      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:28 +0000
                        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:32 +0000
                          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 22:20 +0000
                            Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:02 +0000
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 21:59 +0100
                      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:26 +0000
                  Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:05 -0500
                    Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:40 +0000
                      Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 18:01 -0500
                        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:29 +0000
                          Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 20:20 -0500
                            Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 01:49 +0000
                              Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 22:35 -0500
                                Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 04:39 +0000
              Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:10 -0500
        Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 17:30 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#369293 — Re: Technology's role in a climate solution

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:08:09 +0000 użytkownik jimp napisał:

> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/15 2:17 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Technology's role in a climate solution
>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 
>>    For civilization to continue sustainably, human beings must shift
>>    from fossil fuels to solar energy?despite the technical problems.
> 
> Utter nonsense. There are hundreds of years of natural gas around, which 
> might be enough time to get fusion working. 

Unequivocally wrong. Natural gases and oil are, right after the water, the 
most abundant resource on planet Earth.

> Solar energy isn't going to > power ships, airplanes, trucks,
> construction equipment or large farm  machinery. And you completely
> overlook current nuclear technology. You are a babbling Chicken Little.

You are batshit crazy. Only in rotten poor capitalist countries around the 
world would believe such that.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#369330

In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> wrote:
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:08:09 +0000 użytkownik jimp napisał:
> 
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/6/15 2:17 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Technology's role in a climate solution
>>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 
>>>    For civilization to continue sustainably, human beings must shift
>>>    from fossil fuels to solar energy?despite the technical problems.
>> 
>> Utter nonsense. There are hundreds of years of natural gas around, which 
>> might be enough time to get fusion working. 
> 
> Unequivocally wrong. Natural gases and oil are, right after the water, the 
> most abundant resource on planet Earth.

If they are "the most abundant resource on planet Earth", how can what
I ACTUALLY said be unequivocally wrong?

> 
>> Solar energy isn't going to > power ships, airplanes, trucks,
>> construction equipment or large farm  machinery. And you completely
>> overlook current nuclear technology. You are a babbling Chicken Little.
> 
> You are batshit crazy. Only in rotten poor capitalist countries around the 
> world would believe such that.

How do you power an airliner with solar power? 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369343

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:

>>> Solar energy isn't going to > power ships, airplanes, trucks,
>>> construction equipment or large farm  machinery. And you completely
>>> overlook current nuclear technology. You are a babbling Chicken
>>> Little.
>> 
>> You are batshit crazy. Only in rotten poor capitalist countries around
>> the world would believe such that.
> 
> How do you power an airliner with solar power?

Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369367

Dne 08/11/2015 v 01:50 Edgardo Alcantara napsal(a):
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:
> 
>>>> Solar energy isn't going to > power ships, airplanes, trucks,
>>>> construction equipment or large farm  machinery. And you completely
>>>> overlook current nuclear technology. You are a babbling Chicken
>>>> Little.
>>>
>>> You are batshit crazy. Only in rotten poor capitalist countries around
>>> the world would believe such that.
>>
>> How do you power an airliner with solar power?
> 
> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.
> 
It is not so easy.

Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
( Many people are not aware of
the flying is more energy efficient than 1 person car driving  )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values

For 200 people and 900 km/h it is 3600-5400 L/hour.
If I estimate fuel specific energy 10 MJ / L
it is 36-54 GJ / h = 10-15 MJ/s = 10-15 MW.

If I suppose panels providing 200 W /sq m,
it is 50000-75000 sq meters,
what makes area 1000 x 50-75 metres.

We do not use airplanes with such a vertical crosssection area. (smile)
And even if we do, it would not take off it there is cloudy.

Another technological challange is power supply, if batteries are used.
Aside of the price, batteries are known to be very inferior to fuels
in energy/mass parameter, what is show stopper for flying.

Another technological challange is electric engine technology,
as current implementations using just propeller engines
that are efficient for slow airplanes only.

As resume, for airliners I see as real only cases
the planes ARE powered by fuel,
but synthetically prepared with solar energy use.
In such cases the carbon cycle is closed.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369389

Dne 08/11/2015 v 08:45 Poutnik napsal(a):
> For 200 people and 900 km/h it is 3600-5400 L/hour.
> If I estimate fuel specific energy 10 MJ / L
> it is 36-54 GJ / h = 10-15 MJ/s = 10-15 MW.
> 
> If I suppose panels providing 200 W /sq m,
> it is 50000-75000 sq meters,
> what makes area 1000 x 50-75 metres.
> 
> We do not use airplanes with such a vertical cross-section area. (smile)
> And even if we do, it would not take off it there is cloudy.

I have realized the fuel has about 37 MJ / kg,
so area would be 3.7 times larger.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369721

Poutnik wrote:

>>> How do you power an airliner with solar power?
>> 
>> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.
>> 
> It is not so easy.
> 
> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient than
> 1 person car driving  )
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values

Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power. 
Nowhere to use litres.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369764

Dne 12/11/2015 v 00:58 Ludwig Böhm napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>> How do you power an airliner with solar power?
>>>
>>> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.
>>>
>> It is not so easy.
>>
>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient than
>> 1 person car driving  )
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
> 
> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power. 
> Nowhere to use litres.
> 

It seems you were not patient enough to read all the post,
otherwise you would notice your reply is not relevant,
as it was addressed there.

As rate of spent fuel volume
is *closely* related to required solar power.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369786

Poutnik wrote:

>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>> 
>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>> Nowhere to use litres.
>
> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
> power.

Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
their particular configuration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369807

On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>
>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>
>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>> power.
> 
> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
> their particular configuration.
> 

What does say the term equivalence to you ?

1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.

Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
comparable to fuel rate.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369816

In sci.physics Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>
>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>
>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>> power.
>> 
>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>> their particular configuration.
>> 
> 
> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
> 
> 1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
> Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
> 
> Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
> of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
> comparable to fuel rate.
 
You are arguing with a nym shifting troll idiot.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369819

jimp wrote:

>> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>> 
>> 1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy. Spending
>> rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>> 
>> Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency of used
>> engines hasa to provide equivalent power comparable to fuel rate.
>  
> You are arguing with a nym shifting troll idiot.

No, you are arguing with an idiot. No litres. 

Finalmente, una aerotabla que puede volar de verdad - No litres
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpBkT6h1SLA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369817

Poutnik wrote:

>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar
>>>> power.
>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>
>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>> power.
>> 
>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic
>> meters etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres
>> anywhere in their particular configuration.
>
> What does say the term equivalence to you ?

To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and 
electric motors are not using litres.

> 1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy. Spending
> rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.

I'm not paying attention, Pout.

> Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency of used
> engines hasa to provide equivalent power comparable to fuel rate.

No. Different domains, construction and everything else. Watch this, no 
litres. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqcKL2G2Ews

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369821

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar
>>>>> power.
>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>
>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>> power.
>>> 
>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic
>>> meters etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres
>>> anywhere in their particular configuration.
>>
>> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
> 
> To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and 
> electric motors are not using litres.

If you are not a troll, you are an utter idiot.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369836

jimp wrote:

>>> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>> 
>> To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and
>> electric motors are not using litres.
> 
> If you are not a troll, you are an utter idiot.

Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly 
supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in 
litres, hahhahaha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369838

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>>> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>> 
>>> To me, nothing. I dont need to equivalence anything. Solar panels and
>>> electric motors are not using litres.
>> 
>> If you are not a troll, you are an utter idiot.
> 
> Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly 
> supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in 
> litres, hahhahaha

Your utter ignorance is showing badly, troll.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369841

jimp wrote:

>> Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly
>> supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in
>> litres, hahhahaha
> 
> Your utter ignorance is showing badly, troll.

The only sentence you repeat stupidly over and over again. Man, you are so 
f. stupid. When I need to build an electric solar panel driven aeroplane I 
need to worry about whatever other fossil fuel motor is used in a 
completely other aeroplane. Can you become more stupid than that, jimp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369847

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>> Oh boy, saying that an electric motor uses litres makes you a terribly
>>> supersized imbecile. Hahahahaa. Solar panels and electric motors in
>>> litres, hahhahaha
>> 
>> Your utter ignorance is showing badly, troll.
> 
> The only sentence you repeat stupidly over and over again. Man, you are so 
> f. stupid. When I need to build an electric solar panel driven aeroplane I 
> need to worry about whatever other fossil fuel motor is used in a 
> completely other aeroplane. Can you become more stupid than that, jimp.

Babbling nonsense.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369826

Dne 12/11/2015 v 20:52 Ludwig Böhm napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic
>>> meters etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres
>>> anywhere in their particular configuration.
>>
>> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
> 
> To me, nothing. 

I see.
But such level of ignorance
disqualifies you from further discussion.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369835

Poutnik wrote:

>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic
>>>> meters etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres
>>>> anywhere in their particular configuration.
>>>
>>> What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>> 
>> To me, nothing.
> 
> I see.
> But such level of ignorance disqualifies you from further discussion.

Disqualifies you!, as proven, the reason you snip the content and not 
relate at. Electric currents and charges are not measured in litres. But 
rather something close to q=it, which is this an electric motor consumes 
when activated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369827

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>> than 1 person car driving  )
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>
>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>
>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>> power.
>> 
>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters 
>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in 
>> their particular configuration.
>> 
>
>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>
>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>
>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>comparable to fuel rate.

        40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
the most solar an airliner could collect
is about  40 KW.

        The power needed has confused
even engineers (I think), the atomic 
powered bomber reactors were only
about 2 megawatt, the power of the
gasoline reciprocating engines on 
the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
or more than 2 megawatt, and the
B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
could a B-36 be powered with
2 megawatt reactors?

       Other engineers worked on
a project to power airliners with
a 2 megawatt fuel cell, that isn't
much more than some of the new
aux power units electric produce.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web