Snow is a thing of the past

von_noobie said:
Apologies, The Wiki thing it seems talks about total energy consumption (ie: car's, planes, houses etc etc) So I'm guessing that would account for the difference.

As for the thing about wasted energy, Turn's out that includes everything from Vehicles to waste heat from power plant's, With according to one site the US having an energy efficiency of just 42% (Not stating this as a fact, Just citing a source) http://phys.org/news/2011-04-energy_1.html

According to one part on this site the average US power generating source wastes about 2/3 of power generated. http://grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste/

As for if this is primarily due to an inefficient power grid, Obsolete power stations or old technology and practices in the family home is the question though.
Click to expand...

Considering that the maximum theoretical efficiency is only 50%, 42% is considered good, and steam turbines the world over operate in the same range, as I already pointed out.

This is not to say there is not room for improvement in our energy usage.
 
von_noobie said:
According to one part on this site the average US power generating source wastes about 2/3 of power generated. http://grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste/
.
Click to expand...

No, your site doesn't say anything like that at all.

It says we use 100 quads of energy.
It says we have 60 quads of waste, which includes the theoretical energy value of our trash (at 100% efficiency) as well as our sewage, combined with all our other waste heat nationwide, (going so far as to include the low level heat lost to cooling towers at generating plants, which only exist because they ADD efficiency) as well as heat lost by automobile engines, etc.

Yes, there is waste, but nowhere is it described that we waste 2/3s of the energy we generate. A great of amount of this waste heat has too little difference in temperature between itself and ambient (delta t) to be effectively captured anyway, but let me assure you that despite the difficulty, researchers are attempting to do so none the less.

The low hanging fruit for the US is combined heat and power generating plants, but the oil companies don't like the idea of using energy more effectively.
 
Rune said:
We don't waste 2/3 of the power we generate, retard, which is what van noobie claimed his link said. :palm:
Click to expand...

Did you ever do elecrical theory? The maximum power generated by an AC line is defined by the RMS voltage, as expressed by the equation:

V = V[SUB]m[/SUB]/√2 ~ 0.71*V[SUB]m[/SUB]

Direct current also uses transmission cables more efficiently. For instance, the power delivered by an AC line is defined by the root mean square (ie, 71%) of its peak voltage. A DC line, by contrast, can be made to operate continuously at its peak value. A high-voltage DC system can therefore carry 40% more power for a given current. Alternatively, it can use a thinner-gauge—and therefore cheaper—wire to carry the same current.But it is when electricity has to be transported underground or underwater that DC truly reigns supreme. Unlike a cable hanging in the air, the live conductor in a buried or submerged cable has to be surrounded by a layer of insulation and then clad in a metal sheath. This makes it not only a means of transporting electricity, but also a huge coaxial capacitor. When an alternating current is applied to this capacitor, an additional current must flow continuously through the cable to keep the capacitor fully charged. The result is extra energy losses caused by the electrical and magnetic fields generated, as well as by the heat produced in the process. This capacitance effect limits the amount of power AC cables can carry, and the distance over which they can operate.
Click to expand...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/01/power-transmission
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
We don't waste 2/3 of the power we generate, retard, which is what van noobie claimed his link said. :palm:
Click to expand...

pretty sure they did...did you read the article:

So in total, all our solid waste is about 1.7 quads of total energy waste, or 1.7 percent of all our primary energy use.

Add those all up and we’ve got 100 quads of primary energy and 60 quads of waste energy.
Click to expand...

sure looks like they are referring to the waste quads as a percent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top