Save $50 billion a year!

boa8 · 06-03-2004, 04:53 PM

OPEC is in a deep s**t, guys

jchu · 06-03-2004, 08:46 PM

Wow

daniel · 06-04-2004, 08:18 AM

I think this was posted on another thread as well. I'll repeat here what I said there: I am extremely skeptical of their assertion that there has been no way until now to effeciently produce power from waste heat between 300 and 800 degrees.

I also suspect that there are other working fluids, much less explosive than propane, with similar thermal properties.

In fact, there are so many alternative energy sources available that OPEC would be in deep trouble if we just made up our minds to develop those resources.

N9IWP · 06-04-2004, 09:28 AM

From someone who knows what they are talking about:

As usual, I'm reluctant to base anything other than general impressions on marketing material.

The general concept of using volatile liquids in this way has been well-known for a long time, but generally due to the low quality of the heat the efficiency is very low.

The claims for efficiency and power increase made by the company just seem...words fail me. 150-600% more power? Ummm...hm.

There is so much marketing gibberish on each page of their Powerpoint Presentations that I could make a paragraph of criticism about many of the slides. And that worries me - I shouldn't be able to find at least one incorrect generalization, mis-statement, or meaningless marketing phrase per slide, like I am with this.

I hate to dismiss the claims in general without seeing any actual study results or real technical papers. I will only say these things:

1) Don't be fooled by attractive websites that talk about presentations to the DoE, World Bank, etc. It's meaningless - I've known the DoE to see more than a few perpetual motion machine presentations, and I've been at two "impossible tech" presentations to other government agencies, both here and in the US.

2) Where's the pilot scale tests with independent verification? Typically, that's where the claims end.

Brian

06-03-2004, 04:53 PM	#1
boa8 Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: GVA Posts: 217 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	Save $50 billion a year! OPEC is in a deep s**t, guys

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GM reported a net loss of $39 billion	ken1784	Prius Main Forum	10	11-07-2007 09:15 PM
6 Billion Bits of Data All About Me, Me, Me!	Wildkow	Fred's House of Pancakes	1	06-03-2007 10:27 AM
Overweight Americans Add 1 Billion Gallons of Gas per Year	Arroyo	Fred's House of Pancakes	5	11-01-2006 08:52 PM
A billion here, a billion there...	QED	Prius and Hybrid News	13	12-24-2005 08:49 PM
Drive a Pri and save 3 1/2 hours each year.	Arizona Charlie	Prius Main Forum	5	05-02-2005 10:39 PM

06-03-2004, 08:46 PM	#2
jchu Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nampa, ID Posts: 1,063 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	Wow

06-04-2004, 08:18 AM	#3
daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 9,117 My Car: 2004 Prius Package: #6 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I think this was posted on another thread as well. I'll repeat here what I said there: I am extremely skeptical of their assertion that there has been no way until now to effeciently produce power from waste heat between 300 and 800 degrees. I also suspect that there are other working fluids, much less explosive than propane, with similar thermal properties. In fact, there are so many alternative energy sources available that OPEC would be in deep trouble if we just made up our minds to develop those resources.

06-04-2004, 09:28 AM	#4
N9IWP Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Southeast MN Posts: 147 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	From someone who knows what they are talking about: As usual, I'm reluctant to base anything other than general impressions on marketing material. The general concept of using volatile liquids in this way has been well-known for a long time, but generally due to the low quality of the heat the efficiency is very low. The claims for efficiency and power increase made by the company just seem...words fail me. 150-600% more power? Ummm...hm. There is so much marketing gibberish on each page of their Powerpoint Presentations that I could make a paragraph of criticism about many of the slides. And that worries me - I shouldn't be able to find at least one incorrect generalization, mis-statement, or meaningless marketing phrase per slide, like I am with this. I hate to dismiss the claims in general without seeing any actual study results or real technical papers. I will only say these things: 1) Don't be fooled by attractive websites that talk about presentations to the DoE, World Bank, etc. It's meaningless - I've known the DoE to see more than a few perpetual motion machine presentations, and I've been at two "impossible tech" presentations to other government agencies, both here and in the US. 2) Where's the pilot scale tests with independent verification? Typically, that's where the claims end. Brian