Forgot your password?

Comment: all depends (Score 1) 200

by WindBourne (#47808301) Attached to: Power Grids: The Huge Battery Market You Never Knew Existed
On the flow batteries, nothing.
OTOH, put a bullet through li-ion, and it will heat up over time.

BUT, put a leak into a nat gas line, near some sparks, well, then you have a REAL EXPLOSION.
And that is exactly why gas/diesel cars have many times more death per car mile, than do real electric cars.

Comment: Actually, it CAN be (Score 1) 200

by WindBourne (#47808251) Attached to: Power Grids: The Huge Battery Market You Never Knew Existed
That does not mean that it will be.
What is needed is for the utilities to change direction. The profit should be in providing grid and storage. Basically, they need to spin off the electricity production and focus on the monopoly. By doing this, they can change their large grids into small 100 MW grids, use the storage to meet say 2 hours of demand. Then pay the same price for electricity no matter if it is from coal, nukes, nat gas, wind, geo-thermal, solar, etc. Then they make the money CHARGING for the difference (whole sale vs. retail).

Comment: Re:What pro cyclists eat (Score 1) 269

by angel'o'sphere (#47808057) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

Seems my iPad lost the Post, to lazy to retype it.

Where do you live that you can/do host a whole team? How big is such a team actually?

Yeah, I can imagine ... well not literally :) ... how difficult it is to plan for them or even cook. After all they eat 3 to 5 times as much a 'normal' human being would and while they look athletic they don't look like a sumo ringer or a weight lifter.

Comment: Re:Storage introduces losses. (Score 1) 200

by WindBourne (#47807927) Attached to: Power Grids: The Huge Battery Market You Never Knew Existed
You are right that storage has losses. In fact, with EOS energy, you will lose about 15-25% but with much of it coming from line losses. That is why ideally, utilities will not do single large storage, but will instead, work on the 100 MWh size storage while creating microgrids.

Comment: Re:A long list of possibilities (Score 1) 200

by WindBourne (#47807895) Attached to: Power Grids: The Huge Battery Market You Never Knew Existed
Yeah, but what is really needed is to get utilities to do the storage, but on smaller scales. Ideally, they utilities would do storage AND GRID SEPARATION. The small grids should be around 100 MW, with the storage able to do say, 15-120 minutes. Now to many, the separation sounds foolish, however, with this, it enables a utility to make faster changes to the super grids, while the storage allows for utilities to not only deal with AE, but also to better handle the variables demand. Interestingly, you mentioned a number of these that have been going on for a LONG TIME.

BUT, one that is new and really gaining traction are the flow batteries. These are built to a certain size (i.e. a maximum amps that it can deliver) combined with a reserve of liquid (which is the total kWHs). One that I like is the EOS Energy which uses zinc (dirt cheap and plentiful). They are charging less than what a nat gas plant costs and have around 75% efficiency. As such, they are around .12-.17 / kWh, and is dropping quickly. Right now, the national average is .13 / kWh, so, this will only get better.

Comment: Re:Gas - problem solved (Score 1) 200

by angel'o'sphere (#47807773) Attached to: Power Grids: The Huge Battery Market You Never Knew Existed

That is exactly the point: it is a low percentage of H2, put into an existing grid, and used up rapidly. It is not stored. Hence your concerns about leakage or britteling is not relevant.
As a wind power operator I use the existing gas grid and charge the gas grid for my H2 I contribute. As soon as I need electric power and want to use gas (in a diesel like engine or a turbine) I use "natural gas" (my H2 is already burned in a stove or a heating somewhere).
The win / win situation is that I can use the existing storage of the gas grid (CH4 storage) and can support the grid with H2.
my guess is after liquefaction of CH4 the still gaseous molecular H2 is simply allowed to escape.
No it is not :) as the H2 is piped into the lowest pressure levels, it never gets liquified or is mixed with gas that is supposed to be liquified.

Comment: Another wasted research project (Score 1) 269

by angel'o'sphere (#47807679) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

All those foundings in this study could have been 'discovered' by an internet research (google is your friend).
We know since 30 years or longer how nutrition works and how to proper eat and stay healthy. Well, we as 'we who care' or 'we, the scientists who researched it'.
It is astonishing, amazing even, that an american institute does a study about a topic that is basically 'researched out'.
But I guess that is the typical american arrogance. Assuming first no one ever really did 'a study' and if they figure 'oh, someone did' they jump onto the wagon: 'yeah, but that was in europe'. So european studies are not trustworthy? Or is it that 30 year old insights aged somehow and are no longer valid? Hint: or Atkins(Atkinson?), btw an American as far as I know. He also solved everything around nutrition. But well, instead of simply understanding what is going on you call it 'diets'. Sigh, I believe Atkins lost his credibility when companies started to sell pre packed food for the microwave with his name on it.
Anyway, lets get a few things straight many people here falsely assume about diets and nutrition.
Exercises make you more healthy, but they don't help you to stay or become slim in case you eat to much
You can easy verify this by googeling how much energy you burn, sitting, sleeping, running, swimming ... and how much a simple big mac with french fries (plus ketchup! plus the coke!) is in calories.
Will power does not help if you eat the wrong things or fall into the american myth that you should eat a snack 6 times a day (rofl, those six snacks alone have more calories than the rest you eat over a day). Hint: exercising does not help ... so your willpower only helps to resist a cake with cream.
The influence of genetics is nearly non existing (for a white anglo saxon christian american). Yes, Maori or Inuit have a slightly different metabolism, they even become really 'fat' by only eating proteins or 'fat' ... actually they eat low carb ... funny, isn't it?
(chemical) Sweeteners have no calories in themselves, but they
a) are triggering some responses in the body, like insulin levels, but also change absorption of other carbs in your guts. So the prime mistake e.g. is to eat an ordinary cake/torte with a coffee containing sweeteners. That will increase the 'calorie bomb effect' of the cake a ten fold, a normal coffee with sugar is much better.
b) most (chemical) sweeteners are suspected to cause cancer (well known since over 30 years, but it seems the food industries can avoid to make this public somehow, Aspatam, Saccarin, Cyclamat etc.)
c) Fructose or other 'sweeteners' are proclaimed to be not digestible. Well, see below, that actually depends on your personal gut bacterias.
While the genetics of humans have a low influence, the genetics if the hut bacterias have a high one.
The general mantra that it is healthy to eat lots of fibers is wrong in many cases. If you believe you are eating super healthy but you are fat nevertheless chances are you caught some bovine bacterias that can indeed prepare the fibers (which should be undigestible) into carps that your body happily is digesting. The estimate is that about 25% of the 'super fat' harbour bacteria like that.
Now the explanation: INSULIN
Suppose you eat to fat. Extreme example: you eat a pound of butter. You would never do that? Wow, ever ate 100grams mousse au chocolat? That mousse contains roughly 90grams of butter, a bit of chocolat and a bit of eggs. Well, perhaps only 80.
What happens if you digest that? Well, the simple answer is: nothing. That is one of the reasons it is a famous dessert. On paper it has a lot of calories but they are all fat. That means: if you eat that as a breakfast, 90% of the fat will be passing your guts without getting digested.
Your body can digest fat only in two ways:
a) very slowly in combination with other stuff that can only be processed slowly, like meat. And in this case still a huge part of the fat gets transformed into poo
b) in combination with insulin. That however affects only that part of the fat, that managed to get into the blood (you still will convert most of the fat into poo)
If you eat high carbs, in combination with fat, worst case example: french fries with ketchup/mayonnaise then the high amount of carbs/sugar(from the ketchup and the fries) will trigger a high insulin level. A high insulin level means sugar is removed from the blood, and either stored in the liver or converted into fat and stored in the fat cells. A very high insulin level means: the fat in your blood is transported right away into the fat cells. And it means: your guts can deposit more fat into the blood (which otherwise would become poo).

So, bottom line: the question what is better, low carb or low fat is answered since decades, half a century actually!

The main mechanism is insulin. Sweeteners have sever drawbacks. Fibers 'can be digested' if you have the 'wrong' gut bacteria. Exercises don't make you slim, you simply can not burn enough energy. Yes, only eating mousse au chocolat would be a superb diet (to lose weight, not sure about vitamins) despite the absurd high calories you would eat in that case.

Why do I not post links? If you really would be interested in this topic/matter you would not repeat decade old myth but had googled/researched that yourself decades ago.

Oh, btw, I'm a martial arts teacher, nutrition belongs into the curriculum, don't you think so? My first GF was a biologist (well, not the 'first' but the first one I was a couple with over a few years), specializing into nutrition, so I know the stuff about sweeteners ... still wondering why they are not forbidden meanwhile. I lived in a community from roughly 1990 to 1995, one of my mates was a PhD in Nutrition (Ernaehrungswissenschaften), yes, you actually can study that in Germany, and make a Diploma or a PhD in it.

The only link above I posted explains basically everything you need to know about nutrition and healthy food.

Comment: Re:The diet is unimportant... (Score 1) 269

by angel'o'sphere (#47806861) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

Sorry, Karmashock, but many of your posts are completely idiotic.
You can eat 10, even 20 times more calories, per day than you can burn with exercises.
Perhaps you should google how many calories certain jobs (like mining, working in a steel smeltery etc.) take per day, or how much certain exercises burn per hour.
You will be surprised, e.g 5 super size cokes from McD have more calories an average human burns per day.

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"