home battery

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:10:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167 watt-hours/
liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of metal with water.
Could be lighter. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Gasoline is rated at about 9 KWH/liter, about 50x better than that
flow thing. Given the energy efficiency of an engine, we're in the
guesstimated 20:1 ballpark.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
 
On Friday, 27 February 2015 02:05:36 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:10:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo..com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167
watt-hours/liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of
metal with water. Could be lighter. Maybe.

But it looks especially interesting for the thread topic. PV would be a
lot more interesting if there were storage.

A home flow-battery unit with zinc and iodine in solution sounds pretty tame,
cheap, capacity expanded at will with using larger storage tanks. They'll
have to fix the dendrites problem.

Batteries tend to destroy themselves. The liquid thing sounds good, if
the membrane and electrodes can hold up.

But home storage (and home solar) don't make sense to me. The economy
of scale is awful. There's a reason why few people have a coal-fired
steam turbine generator in their garage.
Click to expand...

A domestic gas-fired gas-turbine driven generator might make more sense, but they do tend to be noisy. They are being peddled in Europe as combined heat and power packages for apartment blocks and factories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Solar panels on the roof do make sense. Adding sun-tracking, even on one axis probably doesn't, unless somebody can invent a clever flexible mounting that flexes, rather than rotating a a shaft.

Home battery packs, if they could be made reliable and a very low maintenance - comparable with a domestic gas-fired central heating boiler - could also make sense. About half the cost of the electricity I buy is paid out to the distribution system, rather than the generating companies. Cutting out that particular middleman would make solar power commercially viable right now.

The economy of scale involved is in the mass-manufacture of the parts, not in the size of the parts manufactured.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:05:36 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:10:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167 watt-hours/
liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of metal with water.
Could be lighter. Maybe.

But it looks especially interesting for the thread topic. PV would be a
lot more interesting if there were storage.

A home flow-battery unit with zinc and iodine in solution sounds pretty tame,
cheap, capacity expanded at will with using larger storage tanks. They'll have
to fix the dendrites problem.


Batteries tend to destroy themselves. The liquid thing sounds good, if
the membrane and electrodes can hold up.

But home storage (and home solar) don't make sense to me. The economy
of scale is awful. There's a reason why few people have a coal-fired
steam turbine generator in their garage.
Click to expand...

I'd have to re-run my handy simulation program, but I think PV starts making
U.S. economic sense around a buck a watt. We'd have to get used to living
without electricity all winter, though.

What we really, really need is a snow-to-heat converter.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Friday, 27 February 2015 16:06:03 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:05:36 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:10:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167 watt-hours/
liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of metal with water.
Could be lighter. Maybe.

But it looks especially interesting for the thread topic. PV would be a
lot more interesting if there were storage.

A home flow-battery unit with zinc and iodine in solution sounds pretty tame,
cheap, capacity expanded at will with using larger storage tanks. They'll have
to fix the dendrites problem.


Batteries tend to destroy themselves. The liquid thing sounds good, if
the membrane and electrodes can hold up.

But home storage (and home solar) don't make sense to me. The economy
of scale is awful. There's a reason why few people have a coal-fired
steam turbine generator in their garage.

I'd have to re-run my handy simulation program, but I think PV starts making
U.S. economic sense around a buck a watt. We'd have to get used to living
without electricity all winter, though.
Click to expand...

Interesting. How much of the US is north of the Arctic circle? There's less sunlight in winter, but a good deal more than none. And most renewable energy proponents are aware that wind power is cheaper than solar power at the moment, and it is available in winter.

Windpower doesn't scale down to house size, and it pays to have a grid that spans a couple of weather systems if you are going to rely on it.

> What we really, really need is a snow-to-heat converter.

That would be a system exploiting the 180 degree - six month - phase lag between the dirt 45cm below the surface and the snow on the ground. The temperature differential is small, but it's reliable. Sadly, the energy density is also small, so any practical version would need to be huge - more estate sized than house sized.

James Arthur's preferred live-style - living very cheaply in a huge un-heated house - might fit that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Friday, 27 February 2015 18:39:03 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo..com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

Energy density is unlikely to be impressive. On the other hand "dumping the waste products overboard" is what has given us anthropogenic global warming.
John Larkin doesn't believe it in (though he does believe in evolution, albeit a much clever version than anybody else's) but it's a real problem and not buring gasoline in cars is going to be part of the solution.

The liquid battery has to carry both reactive components around, and
their solvents, and has to lug the waste mass, too.

All true, but do you want a planet you can live on or a car with a long range between refills?

10x, 20x the mass of gasoline?

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...
Click to expand...

That is the implication of flywheel "storage", but you do need to have these things pointed out to you. The thread is about energy storage in "home batteries" but our slower posters do need frequent reminders.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:38:59 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

> Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

And they stall under load real fast. Think of how fast a capacitor
empties. That is why we use batteries not capacitors in devices.

A flywheel definitely falls in on the capacitor side, and has no
potential to take a load long distances without constant kicks in the ass.
Not like a battery at all.

BTW the title of this thread *really* "don't sound right".

Folks get in trouble for that shit.
 
On Friday, 27 February 2015 21:10:44 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:38:59 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

And they stall under load real fast. Think of how fast a capacitor
empties. That is why we use batteries not capacitors in devices.

A flywheel definitely falls in on the capacitor side, and has no
potential to take a load long distances without constant kicks in the ass.
Not like a battery at all.
Click to expand...

But close enough that people have built fly-wheel operated buses and trains.
Strictly short range stuff, but the energy density is better than a battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

> BTW the title of this thread *really* "don't sound right".

You mean the alternative reading as "domestic violence"?

> Folks get in trouble for that shit.

And so they should. On the other hand, I hadn't noticed the ambiguity until you pointed it out. In group like sci.electronics.design a battery is some that stores energy. Your experience may have sensitised you to other interpretations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU


Cheers,
James Arthur
Click to expand...
Lemme see, it appears that the energy needed to push the liquids is
being ignored in the "evaluation" of the battery's efficiency.
 
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

Energy density is unlikely to be impressive. On the other hand "dumping the waste products overboard" is what has given us anthropogenic global warming.
John Larkin doesn't believe it in (though he does believe in evolution, albeit a much clever version than anybody else's) but it's a real problem and not buring gasoline in cars is going to be part of the solution.

The liquid battery has to carry both reactive components around, and
their solvents, and has to lug the waste mass, too.

All true, but do you want a planet you can live on or a car with a long range between refills?

10x, 20x the mass of gasoline?

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...
Click to expand...
 
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:36:55 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Lemme see, it appears that the energy needed to push the liquids is
being ignored in the "evaluation" of the battery's efficiency.
Click to expand...

I don't imagine it's all that much. I didn't see any charging efficiency
info.

Far more pertinent immediately are the vanadium-iron unit's horrible 25
watt-hours/liter, and the zinc-polyiodide unit's dendrites.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:05:36 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

Batteries tend to destroy themselves. The liquid thing sounds good, if
the membrane and electrodes can hold up.

But home storage (and home solar) don't make sense to me. The economy
of scale is awful. There's a reason why few people have a coal-fired
steam turbine generator in their garage.

I'd have to re-run my handy simulation program, but I think PV starts making
U.S. economic sense around a buck a watt. We'd have to get used to living
without electricity all winter, though.

What we really, really need is a snow-to-heat converter.

We have them, called "dams."
Click to expand...

Those don't work without solar power, bringing us full-circle.

Cheers,
James
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:05:36 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:10:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167 watt-hours/
liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of metal with water.
Could be lighter. Maybe.

But it looks especially interesting for the thread topic. PV would be a
lot more interesting if there were storage.

A home flow-battery unit with zinc and iodine in solution sounds pretty tame,
cheap, capacity expanded at will with using larger storage tanks. They'll have
to fix the dendrites problem.


Batteries tend to destroy themselves. The liquid thing sounds good, if
the membrane and electrodes can hold up.

But home storage (and home solar) don't make sense to me. The economy
of scale is awful. There's a reason why few people have a coal-fired
steam turbine generator in their garage.

I'd have to re-run my handy simulation program, but I think PV starts making
U.S. economic sense around a buck a watt. We'd have to get used to living
without electricity all winter, though.

What we really, really need is a snow-to-heat converter.
Click to expand...

We have them, called "dams."


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
 
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:48:28 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:36:55 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Lemme see, it appears that the energy needed to push the liquids is
being ignored in the "evaluation" of the battery's efficiency.

I don't imagine it's all that much. I didn't see any charging efficiency
info.

Far more pertinent immediately are the vanadium-iron unit's horrible 25
watt-hours/liter, and the zinc-polyiodide unit's dendrites.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Click to expand...

Hmmm, don't sell your Exxon stock just yet.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
 
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 21:10:44 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:38:59 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

And they stall under load real fast. Think of how fast a capacitor
empties. That is why we use batteries not capacitors in devices.

A flywheel definitely falls in on the capacitor side, and has no
potential to take a load long distances without constant kicks in the ass.
Not like a battery at all.

But close enough that people have built fly-wheel operated buses and trains.
Strictly short range stuff, but the energy density is better than a battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

BTW the title of this thread *really* "don't sound right".

You mean the alternative reading as "domestic violence"?

Folks get in trouble for that shit.

And so they should. On the other hand, I hadn't noticed the ambiguity until you pointed it out. In group like sci.electronics.design a battery is some that stores energy. Your experience may have sensitised you to other interpretations.

What kind of salt?
Click to expand...
 
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 18:39:03 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

Energy density is unlikely to be impressive. On the other hand "dumping the waste products overboard" is what has given us anthropogenic global warming.
John Larkin doesn't believe it in (though he does believe in evolution, albeit a much clever version than anybody else's) but it's a real problem and not buring gasoline in cars is going to be part of the solution.

The liquid battery has to carry both reactive components around, and
their solvents, and has to lug the waste mass, too.

All true, but do you want a planet you can live on or a car with a long range between refills?

10x, 20x the mass of gasoline?

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

That is the implication of flywheel "storage", but you do need to have these things pointed out to you. The thread is about energy storage in "home batteries" but our slower posters do need frequent reminders.
Click to expand...
So it is somehow a "benefit" to be "stupid" and IGNORE where these
storage devices GET their energy?
 
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:38:59 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

And they stall under load real fast. Think of how fast a capacitor
empties. That is why we use batteries not capacitors in devices.

A flywheel definitely falls in on the capacitor side, and has no
potential to take a load long distances without constant kicks in the ass.
Not like a battery at all.

BTW the title of this thread *really* "don't sound right".

Folks get in trouble for that shit.
Yes...maybe the battery should get out of the house...
Click to expand...
 
On Saturday, 28 February 2015 17:44:22 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 18:39:03 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/
Click to expand...

<snip>

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

That is the implication of flywheel "storage", but you do need to have these things pointed out to you. The thread is about energy storage in "home batteries" but our slower posters do need frequent reminders.

So it is somehow a "benefit" to be "stupid" and IGNORE where these
storage devices GET their energy?
Click to expand...

The thread started with a John Larkin reposting an article from the UK Register, where Elton Musk boasted about home storage battery about which was "the company was in the process of talking to a number of utility companies".

Somebody with a slightly better grip of reality than you exhibit would be aware that utility companies are having an increasing problem coping with power inputs from solar panels and wind farms, which don't tend to be timed to match the peaks in domestic power consumption.

So the rest of us aren't "ignoring" the question of where these storage devices get their energy - we understand that the utilities have a problem that this kind of device could solve. Since you seem to be a thick as a brick, you've missed this.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Saturday, 28 February 2015 17:52:21 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:45:41 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:38:59 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

And they stall under load real fast. Think of how fast a capacitor
empties. That is why we use batteries not capacitors in devices.

A flywheel definitely falls in on the capacitor side, and has no
potential to take a load long distances without constant kicks in the
ass.
Not like a battery at all.

BTW the title of this thread *really* "don't sound right".

Folks get in trouble for that shit.
Yes...maybe the battery should get out of the house...
Click to expand...

<snip>

> beating her clit to death with my pubic bone.

Weak grasp of anatomy. You probably meant your pubic symphysis, which is a cartilaginous joint about 2cm above your penis, well away from from the contact area.

I have always wondered if she means not to stop, or that I should stop.

Pretty sure she wants me to keep going.
Click to expand...

You've got a lively imagination, but a less than convincing story. If you had any kind of sex life, you wouldn't waste so much of your time posting nonsense here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 04:11:06 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

> You've got a lively imagination,

Bill Sloman the slowtard tries to make more insults upon folks in Usenet.

Nice absolutely pathetic life you have there, Slotard.

You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.
 
On Sunday, 1 March 2015 01:26:28 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 04:11:06 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

You've got a lively imagination,

Bill Sloman the slowtard tries to make more insults upon folks in Usenet.
Click to expand...

Not all the folks. Just the various manifestations of AlwaysWrong
Nice absolutely pathetic life you have there, Slotard.
Click to expand...

What would you know about? You work your imagination hard, and don't feed it with much in the way of facts, and make loads of absurd - and frequently hilarious, as here - mistakes in consequence.

> You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.

You'd like to think so. Sadly, you are the absolute idiot who thinks he can get away absurd claims, unsupported by anything that even looks like evidence. You could be krw posting under a nym but you aren't right wing enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top