If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
On Jul 25, 8:40 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons. Batteries don't store electrons. They store energy in the form of chemical changes. Every electron that leaves a battery via the negative terminal is replaced by another coming in the positive terminal. In a lead-acid battery, lead and lead peroxide react with sulfuric acid and end up as lead sulfate and water. Two electrons are released for every lead peroxide/sulfuric acid molecule reaction, and two are absorbed by the lead sulfate/water result. When we recharge the battery, we're forcing electrons backward through it, converting the lead sulfate and water back to lead, lead peroxide and sulfuric acid. So there's no weight change because there are no atoms coming or going, and no electrons leaving that aren't replaced. Just a molecular change within the battery. The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a new battery. Dan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
Morgans wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on the Nuke bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped construction of new nuclear power plants in the first place. I had not heard that they were back on the nuke bandwagon. Could you point me at some reading along those lines? http://www.ecolo.org/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
Vaughn Simon wrote:
I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually). I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time. They have (for example) no such thing as a fast scram recovery procedure, and, being attached firmly to the ground, don't have to deal with the pitch, roll and vibration of operating at sea. Furthermore, they use injected fission poisons so that they can operate with the rods pulled out, resulting in safer core power distributions and giving them a tremendous shutdown margin for emergencies. Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
"
"For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. " "Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's also clean." " ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm ex-Navy, worked for Bechtel's nuclear power division for a while. If you're bright enough to pour **** out of a boot you knew the tree- huggers had their facts all wrong when it came to nukes, which are mother's milk compared to coal. The nuclear power industry hired a firm to do a survey to try and learn where all the bum dope was coming in order to formulate a strategy to counteract it. Turns out over 90% of those intelligent, college-educated tree- huggers, got their nuclear 'education' from a television cartoon show called 'The Simpsons.' Network television didn't come along until I was in my teens and I never caught the habit, had never heard of 'The Simpsons' until I saw the report. Indeed, most didn't believe it... until a second firm came up with similar results. Given enough money a properly conducted propaganda campaign can convince people of literally ANYTHING. But the estimated cost of altering the public's cartoon-based misconceptions about nuclear power was on the order of several BILLION 1980-era dollars and the nuclear power industry budget for PR was less than a million. Ergo, no more nuke plants in the USA. Newton Minow was right :-) -R.S.Hoover |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
Vaughn Simon wrote:
I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually). I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time. It also seems that a lot of the executives and the operating personnel at US nuclear facilities are ex Navy bubbleheads as well. I believe the first Nuclear plant on the grid was a Navy sub that was connected to the Philadelphia grid and run for some time, but I can't find a reference for that now. Another factoid, the US Navy is the fifteenth largest utility in the US, although they buy most of their power rather than generate it themselves. Charles |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons. ------------------------------------------------------------------ So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American 'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Another point folks fail to appreciate is that civilian tea-kettles are operated 'way down the curve compared to Navy reactors. Plus, being shore-based they are hardened to an extent that's difficult to understand. Up on the turbine deck of SONGS-2 Japanese and Korean engineers would actually giggle and take pictures of each other standing beside a 10x10 I-beam stanchion supporting a 1" high-pressure instrument line, which is what it takes to guarantee Richter 9 survivability. (As a point of interest, the Japanese have recently learned what happens when they fail to build to worse-case standards.) -R.S.Hoover |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
On Jul 26, 7:37 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote: wrote: The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a new battery. Dan Which is the problem that has yet to be dealt with as far as the "environmental friendliness" of all the new hybrid cars. What are they going to do with the old used batteries? Same as they do now: break them up, retrieve the plastic, acid and lead compounds, refine everything and make new batteries. Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High-wing Sonex??? | Montblack | Home Built | 9 | April 8th 06 03:34 PM |
Static thrust for Sonex with 54" prop | Mel | Home Built | 3 | November 2nd 05 01:31 AM |
Electric DG | Robbie S. | Owning | 0 | March 19th 05 04:20 AM |
Spicer Sonex/Jabiru | [email protected] | Home Built | 1 | January 4th 05 03:39 PM |