the physics reason why rechargeable batteries no longer recharge
Archimedes Plutonium
a finite maximum rechargeability? I think it was in
High School chemistry or physics class that the answer went something
like this:
Either the anode or cathode starts to buildup a chemical pollution
layer that eventually so hinders
the flow of the electrochemical reaction.
Is there some sort of term or terminology associated with this
phenomenon? I am looking for details as
to the maximum number of recharges a typical battery
can endure.
I was watching a TV program tonight about how Copenhagen Denmark was
ambitiously going to
have all electric cars using windmill generation.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
zzbu...@netscape.net
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wanting to know why rechargeable batteries have
> a finite maximum rechargeability? I think it was in
> High School chemistry or physics class that the answer went something
> like this:
>
> Either the anode or cathode starts to buildup a chemical pollution
> layer that eventually so hinders
> the flow of the electrochemical reaction.
>
> Is there some sort of term or terminology associated with this
> phenomenon? I am looking for details as
> to the maximum number of recharges a typical battery
> can endure.
Chemists have come up so much idiot terminology about anodes and
cathodes,
battery cycles, battery sizes, buisness cycles, corrosive
compensation, and crank theoretical physics
limitations of batteries, that's why the non-idiot Engineering
People invented
Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Light Sticks, Flash
Memory, Post Acme Screwthreads,
Multuplexed Fiber Optics, USB, non Rotating Computer Harddisks,
The 21st Century, All-In-One Printers, Post Turn-Key Operation,
Desktop Publishing, 4D Holographics,
On-Line Publishing, Pv Cell Energy, Cyber Batteries, Home
Broadband,
non Vacuum-Tube Microcomputers, thermal-injected microwave
cooling,
mp3, mpeg, HDTV, Blue Ray. Thermo-Electric Cooling, Reverse
Compilers,
Flat Scrreen Software Debuggers, Bi-Optical Computers, Data Fusion,
Digital-Terrain Mapping,
Post Maxwllian Poetics, PGP++, CD+rw, DVD-rom, Laser-Guided
Phasors,
GPS-On-Line, UAVs, Drones, Post Optimal Hermitian Intergration and
Self-Assembling Robots.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I was wanting to know why rechargeable batteries have
> a finite maximum rechargeability? I think it was in
> High School chemistry or physics class that the answer went something
> like this:
>
> Either the anode or cathode starts to buildup a chemical pollution
> layer that eventually so hinders
> the flow of the electrochemical reaction.
>
> Is there some sort of term or terminology associated with this
> phenomenon? I am looking for details as
> to the maximum number of recharges a typical battery
> can endure.
>
> I was watching a TV program tonight about how Copenhagen Denmark was
> ambitiously going to
> have all electric cars using windmill generation.
>
I should include chemistry into the discussion since batteries fill
both
chemistry and physics texts.
It is nice to see a entire country of Denmark and even Hawaii
converting
to an all electric car society where they harness wind power and to
store
that electricity into batteries as the PBS tv show displayed
yesterday.
So my question that the show aroused was whether anyone was working
on improving the rechargeableness of batteries and what makes
recharging
of batteries a less perfect battery than a brand new battery? If my
memory
is correct there is some sort of pollution or corrosion on the anode
or cathode
with builds up until it blocks the reversible procedure.
I was looking to see if Wikipedia had any information on this but they
have zip.
And no luck with any general google search has zip on this specific. I
am
guessing it has a special name for this pollution that limits a
battery life.
But there should be a decent amount of research into this pollution
since our
world is moving ever closer to renewable and all electric transport.
Yevgen Barsukov
going to break".
It is "spontaneous entropy increase".
But particular answer is specific to each battery chemistry. If you go
to wiki-page
for each type of battery, for example "Li-ion", you will find a
section on degradation.
Since this is the hottest chemistry, lets focus on it for a moment,
specially as
its degradation mechanism is different from other common batteries
because
it is intercalation based.
Mechanism of charge-discharge of this battery does not involve
dissolving / depositing
any metals as it is in Lead-acid or NiCd batteries. Instead, Li-ions
get forced into crystalline
structure during charge (like straining a string), and spontaneously
come out of it during discharge,
releasing stored energy.
Looking at this mechanism, it is not obvious why it should degradation
since morphiology and
shape of the particles remains constant.
There is however a catch. To store a lot of energy, you need to make
chemical reaction highly
energetic. To do that, you need to have highly aggressive chemical
compounds in the system.
Once you do that, you have to live with the fact that they will react
not only with the desired
partner, but also with all other components of the system (e.g. side
reactions).
That is what happens in Li-ion battery.
Specially Li-intercalated graphite is unstable in any organic
electrolyte. The only
reasons batteries even work is a passivating layer (similar to
aluminium) that builds on graphite interface and allows Li to pass but
not electrolyte. But no layer is perfectly protective
and even Al is gradually corroding.
This corrosion and accumulating of its byproducts (insolble Li-salts)
is what degrares
Li-ion battery. Unfortunately this process has nothing to do with
cycling as such,
so as long as battery is charged it will degrade by just sitting
there. Keeping it
at low voltage (less agressive components) and low temperature helps
to slow down this process, like any other reaction.
Hope for solving the problem is
1) use less energetic materials (Lithium tithanate anodes or LiFePO4
cathodes)
2) develop more stable electrolytes such as liquid salts
both unfortunately means sacrificing energy density.
Regards,
Yevgen
On Oct 31, 2:36 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
Bill Penrose
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So my question that the show aroused was whether anyone was working
> on improving the rechargeableness of batteries and what makes
> recharging
> of batteries a less perfect battery than a brand new battery?
Love that word, 'rechargeableness'.
Most chemical reactions involve side reactions. Producing electricity
electrochemically is a reaction. Making that reaction go in reverse
often includes side reactions that result in products that no longer
contribute to the batteriness. Attempts to recharge alkaline
batteries, frex, causes oxygen production and/or resistive heating of
the electrolyte and causes the battery to burst, or unbattery itself,
as they say. Lead-acid batteries accumulating sulfates on their plates
is an example.
Or an electrode with high surface area may reform the electrode to one
with lower surface area.
The few side reactions, the closer you get to a battery with true
rechargeableness. Lithium-ion batteries come close to this and have
cycle counts as high as 1000.
Dangerous Bill
Ernie
Wikipedia gives the following half-reaction at the Lithium anode; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery
xLi+ + xe- + 6C -><- LixC6
If x in the above half reaction is 3 or less [3 Li for 6 carbons] then the
effective equivalent weight of the Li anode is at least 31 (2*12[for 2
carbons] + 7 [for Li]). The molecular weight of sodium (Na) is 23.
While I do not have oxidation-reduction potentials for Li and Na in
non-aqueous media, in acidic solutions Li is estimated at 3.1 volts and Na
at 2.7 volts. Thus, a Li/carbon anode should provide 3.1 e-volts/31 eq.
weight, (0.1 e-v per eq. wt) while a Na anode should provide 2.7 e-v/23 eq.
weight (0.117 e-v per eq. weight). Note that the first ionization potential
of Li is 5.39 e-v, and that of Na is 5.15 e-v, suggesting that Na should
provide almost as much electromotive force as Li. On weight basis, the Na
anode should be at least equivalent to Li/graphite.
Na is easier to handle than Li; Na does not react with nitrogen (Li does!);
there is an unlimited supply of Na, there is a very long history of
commercial production and large scale shipments of Na. Why would anyone
look for trouble and use Li in a battery?
But, I never heard of a Na Battery employing a chemistry similar to Li ion
batteries! Why?
(Sodium/sulfur battery operates at 300 - 350 deg. C; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery)
Ernie
"Yevgen Barsukov" <evge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb1a295c-1802-4340...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Poutnik
Erniema...@verizon.net says...
>
> Na is easier to handle than Li; Na does not react with nitrogen (Li
does!);
> there is an unlimited supply of Na, there is a very long history of
> commercial production and large scale shipments of Na. Why would anyone
> look for trouble and use Li in a battery?
>
> But, I never heard of a Na Battery employing a chemistry similar to Li ion
> batteries! Why?
>
Probably because Li - Na switching makes all the difference ?
Li is not so frequent as Na, but is not so rare element
its price to be substantial part of price of the cell.
Li is not present in cell in metal form,
only as intercalate - so easier to handle.
Free Na would faster react with dialkylcarbonates, electrodes ,
maybe with NaPF6 itself - being free and more reactive
( nitrogen is exception )
It could be very difficult to find usable, stable and safe combination
of electrodes, electrolyte and solvent.
NaPF6 can have worse solubility in dialkylcarbonates,
because small Li+ cations has stronger field
to atract dialkylcarbonate ligands.
Na S cells are very interesting, but have special usage.
--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.
Benj
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there some sort of term or terminology associated with this
> > phenomenon? I am looking for details as
> > to the maximum number of recharges a typical battery
> > can endure.
Battery life depends on a lot of things. But as for vehicle technology
they all fall a bit short. Lead acid last quite a few years (example
is in your car) but are heavy and storage capacity is low. Nickle
Cadmium (the real wet cells not the dry-cell type you find in phones
etc. that are essentially worthless) last a very long time and have
better storage but not great. Metal Halides have good storage and life
is reasonable but they tend to discharge by themselves when sitting.
The best energy density is Li-Ion but they currently have a limited
life of about 5 years with storage capacity steadily dropping over
that time. Which means a new battery set every 4 years or so. That
thing in front of you is called a computer. You can search the
internet for these data. Just had to put a new Li-Ion battery in my
laptop ($100) verifying the data. See the problem?
> > I was watching a TV program tonight about how Copenhagen Denmark was
> > ambitiously going to have all electric cars using windmill generation.
It may make sense in Denmark, though I doubt it. Most of this wind
power talk is pure bullshit. There is NOT enough wind power out there
to solve ANY energy problems.
> It is nice to see a entire country of Denmark and even Hawaii converting
> to an all electric car society where they harness wind power and to
> store that electricity into batteries as the PBS tv show displayed
> yesterday.
Right. PBS is just THE place to get reliable science. They'll tell you
how AGW is true too. You need to learn how to separate politics and
criminal stealing from science. There are VERY few places where that
mainstay of the 19th century, wind power, makes any sense at all. Wake
up.
> So my question that the show aroused was whether anyone was working
> on improving the rechargeableness of batteries and what makes
> recharging of batteries a less perfect battery than a brand new battery? If my
> memory
> is correct there is some sort of pollution or corrosion on the anode
> or cathode
> with builds up until it blocks the reversible procedure.
Obviously solving the battery life, storage capacity vs weight and
"rechargeableness" of batteries is the FIRST thing that needs to be
done to make electric cars viable. People are indeed working on the
problems. A main application of such improved batteries would be to
convert to electric cars, but NOT for "wind power" or "photoelectric
solar energy" which are not really viable for these applications, but
to convert from oil to coal as oil runs out. A decent battery for an
electric car would be a wonderful solution as opposed to say making
gasoline from coal which is expensive to do (even though the Nazis
managed to keep WWII going for quite a while doing it). Electricity
from coal allows the use of large plants where pollution nasties can
be filtered.
So yeah, improved batteries are the answer. Your PBS version of some
mythical future is NOT.
Archimedes Plutonium
Thanks alot, your post is a delight to read.
For decades now I have been searching for an answer as to why Earth
seems to
have an overabundance of salt. I had thought that it somehow was
connected
with the abundance of life. That if we had a planet wherein only 1/2
or 1/3 of the
salt existed, it would seem to me to have been a better planet to
support even
more life. That if the oceans were more "fresh water" rather than salt
water
that we would have an even larger abundance of life.
And of course I believe in Superdeterminism of an Atom Totality, so
that our
planet has everything in place for the future fate of us and our
planet.
Lithium based all electric society gets into the same sort of trouble
that
oil and fossil fuels get into with a shrinking supply and increasing
demand.
So, what batteries can be built using sodium Na? So that even Denmark
could
simply scoop up their ocean water and retrieve salt and be energy and
lithium
independent.
So maybe Earth's oversupply of salt was superdetermined for that
future day
society where most energy is electrical and most batteries are sodium
based
batteries.
Archimedes Plutonium
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:c7ffe3eb-3bf6-436b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
If you have Google Earth you can active "Weather" and see for
yourself, using the changing cloud patterns, just how much wind
is blowing across the North Sea for England, Scotland, Wales,
the Netherlands and Denmark. There is even an animation feature,
although you need to be patient with it.
Contrary to popular belief among Yanks, the USA is not the centre
of the world. So yeah, wind and wave power is the answer, but not
for energy hungry American land-lubbers.
Gawd I love it when I disagree with Jocaby!
Bill Penrose
> ...Just had to put a new Li-Ion battery in my
> laptop ($100) verifying the data. See the problem?
(Psst. $150 from Toshiba, $35 new from a supplier on Ebay.)
DB
Androcles
"Bill Penrose" <danger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d24621c6-6fc8-45ba...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
...Just had to put a new Li-Ion battery in my
> laptop ($100) verifying the data.
Psst... You should get your laptop's snipping tool from Toshiba, it
might work better than those cheap Ebay models that generate wrong
attributions.
Benj
> =============================================
> If you have Google Earth you can active "Weather" and see for
> yourself, using the changing cloud patterns, just how much wind
> is blowing across the North Sea for England, Scotland, Wales,
> the Netherlands and Denmark. There is even an animation feature,
> although you need to be patient with it.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ylew394
>
> Contrary to popular belief among Yanks, the USA is not the centre
> of the world. So yeah, wind and wave power is the answer, but not
> for energy hungry American land-lubbers.
> Gawd I love it when I disagree with Jocaby!
A lot of wind may blow across the North Sea but you need to compare
that to the amount of energy that flows out of an oil pipeline. And
look at how thin the blades are on "modern" bird-killing "turbines"!
Crap, most of the wind is going right through doing nothing! Compare
to ancient Dutch jobbies!
And actually the USA IS the center (note correct spelling) of the
world... at least until China takes the title...
Benj
Well that news just made my day. But it's OK since I hate PayPal.
Androcles
===========================================
Those skinny parrot-bashing blades are churning out 1.3 Megawatts.
But the real problem isn't how to get energy at all, it's how to store
it for when you want to use it. Solar power isn't much use at night,
so you need to charge batteries, electrolyze water into hydrogen
and oxygen, store heat underground all summer and release it
come winter, make oil from algae -- however you do it, storage is
the problem. One variation on the windmill idea is to fly an
enormous kite into the jet stream, turning a generator as is climbs.
Then you tilt it so that it spills air and comes down again, as a
second kite climbs. Tidal energy is also reliable and Britain (centre
of the world) is well placed to harness it.
Yevgen Barsukov
>
> xLi+ + xe- + 6C -><- LixC6
>
> If x in the above half reaction is 3 or less [3 Li for 6 carbons] then the
> effective equivalent weight of the Li anode is at least 31 (2*12[for 2
> carbons] + 7 [for Li]). The molecular weight of sodium (Na) is 23.
> While I do not have oxidation-reduction potentials for Li and Na in
> non-aqueous media, in acidic solutions Li is estimated at 3.1 volts and Na
> at 2.7 volts. Thus, a Li/carbon anode should provide 3.1 e-volts/31 eq.
> weight, (0.1 e-v per eq. wt) while a Na anode should provide 2.7 e-v/23 eq.
> weight (0.117 e-v per eq. weight). Note that the first ionization potential
> of Li is 5.39 e-v, and that of Na is 5.15 e-v, suggesting that Na should
> provide almost as much electromotive force as Li. On weight basis, the Na
> anode should be at least equivalent to Li/graphite.
>
> Na is easier to handle than Li; Na does not react with nitrogen (Li does!);
> there is an unlimited supply of Na, there is a very long history of
> commercial production and large scale shipments of Na. Why would anyone
> look for trouble and use Li in a battery?
>
> But, I never heard of a Na Battery employing a chemistry similar to Li ion
> batteries! Why?
1) Sodium has much worse diffusion coefficient than Li in solids.
That is what makes Na intercalation materials to have many
orders of magnitude worse kinetics (think higher resistance for
battery) compared to Li.
Simply speaking, you could make a battery with huge energy
but tiny power capability.
2) For similar reason, a way to prepare Na-conductive passivating
layers with decent conductivity has not been yet discovered, while Li
builds spontaneously a well Li-conductive passivating layer in many
traditional organic electrolytes.
So we are stack with either Na continuously reacting with electrolyte
(very short life of battery), or Na passivated with completely
resistive film.
Solution for the problem might be to find electrolyte/salt
composition that would produce something like NASICON layer on the
surface, which would have good Na-conductivity.
Presently such layers have been produced only using vacuum
deposition or ceramic processes, but not a liquid process.
This is not a problem for high temperature molten Na batteries, that
is why they do exist.
Regards,
Yevgen
Poutnik
@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, plutonium....@gmail.com says...
>
Li and Na sources are not like oil and gas
we can take energy from them.
All energy in Li or Nas based electrical systems
must be first stored in them.
Either electricaly, either by chemical preparation.
What you can take is what you have given, not more.
But, on the other hand,
they are recoverable, in opposite to oil.
When cell is old, there is still Lithium inside.
Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
> > But, I never heard of a Na Battery employing a chemistry similar to Li ion
> > batteries! Why?
>
> 1) Sodium has much worse diffusion coefficient than Li in solids.
> That is what makes Na intercalation materials to have many
> orders of magnitude worse kinetics (think higher resistance for
> battery) compared to Li.
> Simply speaking, you could make a battery with huge energy
> but tiny power capability.
>
> 2) For similar reason, a way to prepare Na-conductive passivating
> layers with decent conductivity has not been yet discovered, while Li
> builds spontaneously a well Li-conductive passivating layer in many
> traditional organic electrolytes.
> So we are stack with either Na continuously reacting with electrolyte
> (very short life of battery), or Na passivated with completely
> resistive film.
> Solution for the problem might be to find electrolyte/salt
> composition that would produce something like NASICON layer on the
> surface, which would have good Na-conductivity.
> Presently such layers have been produced only using vacuum
> deposition or ceramic processes, but not a liquid process.
>
> This is not a problem for high temperature molten Na batteries, that
> is why they do exist.
>
> Regards,
> Yevgen
Let me try to summarize so far the question I asked at the beginning
of
this thread.
I asked whether the cost in energy from Windmills of Denmark is
greater
for recharging rechargeable batteries or whether it is better to use
that energy
to make recycled batteries into new one time life batteries. So the
question
I asked at the beginning is which is the better energy option:
a) recharge lithium batteries overnight
b) insert a new one time use lithium battery
In summary of the entire Denmark strategy:
(1) To use renewable Windmills for electricity and to use that
electricity to power
society
(2) how to use the unused electrity: (2.1) rechargeable battery or
(2.2) remanufacture a
recycled lithium battery
The conversation so far has not answered whether 2.1 is better than
2.2. I believe
2.2 is the better option from experience of rechargeable batteries. My
experience
is that they are aggravating with less power.
But let me ask a different question. Can Denmark set up Leyden jars?
Industrial
size leyden jars to store electricity? Or are Leyden Jars a poor
storage of electricity?
Let me ask another question. Is the use of electricity to break down
water into
its components of 2H and O a good use of that energy? Is it better to
use electricity
to break down water than it is to use electricity to recharge a
battery? If it is, well,
then the answer for Denmark is clear. To use all the electricity from
windmills for
battery making and what is excess electricity to convert water into 2H
and O.
Has anyone computed the energy use of recharging batteries versus the
conversion
of water into 2H and O? Which is the better choice?
And, let us bring in the idea of salt NaCl. Is it of energy savings to
use electricity
to convert salt into its components of Na and Cl? Here the trouble
would be that
whether pure Na or pure Cl is a fuel for transportation? I wonder if
we can
set up pure Cl and pure Na as a battery where the two come together to
yield
back the energy of separation, without explosion of course.
One last question for tonight? What is the best energy storage of
excess electricity
when the use is that of breaking down molecules? Is it water or salt.
And related to
that question is whether there is a nuclear reaction of electricity.
Is there a element
in which we can run in electricity and transform the radioactivity of
that element. Thorium
is abundant and whether electricity can make thorium a better fuel?
These are exciting new times since the world is changing rapidly to
find clean renewable
energy, so alot of question abound.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> But let me ask a different question. Can Denmark set up Leyden jars?
> Industrial
> size leyden jars to store electricity? Or are Leyden Jars a poor
> storage of electricity?
>
How silly of me. Come to think of it, a Leyden jar is a capacitor is
a
battery. And I suppose lithium ion batteries are the world's most
advanced battery and thus the most advanced Leyden jar. So the
answer seems to be clear. To build a gigantic Lithium battery the
size of a huge building and which the excess electricity of the
windmills goes into charging this gigantic lithium battery.
Poutnik
@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, plutonium....@gmail.com says...
>
> How silly of me. Come to think of it, a Leyden jar is a capacitor is
> a
> battery. And I suppose lithium ion batteries are the world's most
> advanced battery and thus the most advanced Leyden jar. So the
> answer seems to be clear. To build a gigantic Lithium battery the
> size of a huge building and which the excess electricity of the
> windmills goes into charging this gigantic lithium battery.
>
is about 2 order more expensive than from power lines ?
And electricity from rechargeable cells is still
about 2 orders cheaper then from primary one time cell ?
Archimedes Plutonium
Do you realize that we are not concerned with cost, but to storage
excess electrical
power when the wind is blowing. Your frame of mind is on a wrong
track. What Denmark
wants to realize is to save excess power when the wind is blowing.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Archimedes Plutonium
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> >
> That why be built this:
> http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm
>
> --
> Dirk
Interesting, but I do not see windturbines on Denmarks ocean coasts
able to
pump water since there is no mountain elevation to create a water
turbine.
Poutnik
@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, plutonium....@gmail.com says...
>
>
> Do you realize that we are not concerned with cost, but to storage
> excess electrical
> power when the wind is blowing. Your frame of mind is on a wrong
> track. What Denmark
> wants to realize is to save excess power when the wind is blowing.
We ? Are you sure you can speak for the Denmark ?
Storing energy not concerning cost is foolishness.
Much more effective and cheaper solution is
to sell electric power to other countries
if wind is blowing, and to buy if not.
Or, converting electricity to thermal energy or potencial water energy.
the latter is not obviously applicable to Denmark.
Poutnik
says...
>
> Or, converting electricity to thermal energy......
Using of wind born electricity
to heating underground media basins
has an advantage to existing solar heating of it.
In cold season there is less of light, but more of wind.
Autymn D. C.
> On Nov 4, 2:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
> > =============================================
> > If you have Google Earth you can active "Weather" and see for
> > yourself, using the changing cloud patterns, just how much wind
> > is blowing across the North Sea for England, Scotland, Wales,
> > the Netherlands and Denmark. There is even an animation feature,
> > although you need to be patient with it.
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ylew394
>
> > Contrary to popular belief among Yanks, the USA is not the centre
> > of the world. So yeah, wind and wave power is the answer, but not
> > for energy hungry American land-lubbers.
> > Gawd I love it when I disagree with Jocaby!
>
> A lot of wind may blow across the North Sea but you need to compare
> that to the amount of energy that flows out of an oil pipeline. And
> look at how thin the blades are on "modern" bird-killing "turbines"!
> Crap, most of the wind is going right through doing nothing! Compare
> to ancient Dutch jobbies!
thin -> slim
http://google.com/groups?q=%22a+cloud+is+thin%22
> And actually the USA IS the center (note correct spelling) of the
> world... at least until China takes the title...
Correct spelling is centron, Hellènic for ecklen, or its stem-
buddies. -er is injustifact: there is no operative or frequentative
in centron; its ending meseems is instrumental [accusative], thus
ecklen in English. Centre is fine. ("sènt[w]r" is still not.)
-Aut
dry cell -> wet cell -> gas fuel cell -> molten salt fuel cell ->
ultracapacitor, magnetic vacive flywheel
Jonah Thomas
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was watching a TV program tonight about how Copenhagen Denmark
> > > was ambitiously going to have all electric cars using windmill
> > > generation.
>
> It may make sense in Denmark, though I doubt it. Most of this wind
> power talk is pure bullshit. There is NOT enough wind power out there
> to solve ANY energy problems.
If there isn't enough windpower to supply as much enegy as we want, but
it comes out cheaper than the second-best solution, then it makes sense
to push it even though it won't be a complete solution.
What bothers me is the possibility of rare storms that damage the
equipment. We really don't have a handle on just how rare those storms
will be, so it's easy to assume that wind power will be more profitable
than it actually turns out over the decades. I don't see any real
solution to this -- the best estimates are still our best estimates even
if they aren't very good, and I can't in good conscience argue that the
damage will be worse than expected. But there's a strong possibility
that repair costs will turn out significantly higher than expected, and
it's hard to factor that possibility into investment decisions.
Androcles
"Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20091115230406.3...@gmail.com...
"Winds of 100mph battered the south coast today as the UK experienced its
worst storm this year."
From Times Online
November 14, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917042.ece
No wind turbines were harmed in this message.