Y'all can make it difficult to be nice sometimes, but i'm going to go ahead and ignore your comment and maintain that I much rather have this discussion in person or refer you to some literature or listening material.
Be well,
Ryan
A Chicken Farmer Explains 15 Minute Cities
- Thread starter 57sputnik
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Be well,
Ryan
I don't usually click on links, but that energy vault caught my interest. Using gravity to release the stored potential energy of say big ass rocks, lifted up in the air. It seems like there would be efficiency losses in the machinery to lift up the rocks, and likewise less than complete recovery of that potential energy using gravity. I like that somebody at least took a physics course, may have skipped the economics session.
This task reminds me of those very old energy storage systems that moved water up into a reservoir ar some elevation. To recover the energy just run the water through turbine (generator). OK I just did a search and that technique is called "Pumped storage". A lot easier to manage water than moving big ass rocks up and down.
Of course the water pumps are not 100% efficient either. Can you deduct that cost from your utility bill?
JR
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Battery systems are expensive and have short lifespans. That prices a lot of potential customers out. And since the current battery tech uses relatively scarce minerals (mostly controlled by CCP), it isn't a winning solution.
Once the battery is full and your panel array is generating excess power, wasting it seems stupid. That's the main advantage of grid-tied setups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill_Power_Station
Some interesting data there about Irelands only pumped power generation system .
The impressive thing about it is that it only takes 70 seconds for the turbines to spin up to full output ,
so its easy to bring them online at times of peak demand .Surlplus power from wind generation seems like a good partner to have alongside it , they claim an overall effeciciency of 75% which isnt all that bad .
1400 pounds of gelignite was stolen in an armed raid by the IRA during the construction in 1972 .
There is plans on paper to build another of these generation systems in my home county but they havent turned the sod on the project yet .
Like all of the rest of Irelands hydroelectric power plants it was the Germans who were brought in to handle the heavy engineering .
Some interesting data there about Irelands only pumped power generation system .
The impressive thing about it is that it only takes 70 seconds for the turbines to spin up to full output ,
so its easy to bring them online at times of peak demand .Surlplus power from wind generation seems like a good partner to have alongside it , they claim an overall effeciciency of 75% which isnt all that bad .
1400 pounds of gelignite was stolen in an armed raid by the IRA during the construction in 1972 .
There is plans on paper to build another of these generation systems in my home county but they havent turned the sod on the project yet .
Like all of the rest of Irelands hydroelectric power plants it was the Germans who were brought in to handle the heavy engineering .
Attachments
living sounds
Well-known member
Yes, we've got a few of those pumped storage systems. Works quite well if you have the space, the terrain and the water (and not much evaporation).I don't usually click on links, but that energy vault caught my interest. Using gravity to release the stored potential energy of say big ass rocks, lifted up in the air. It seems like there would be efficiency losses in the machinery to lift up the rocks, and likewise less than complete recovery of that potential energy using gravity. I like that somebody at least took a physics course, may have skipped the economics session.
This task reminds me of those very old energy storage systems that moved water up into a reservoir ar some elevation. To recover the energy just run the water through turbine (generator). OK I just did a search and that technique is called "Pumped storage". A lot easier to manage water than moving big ass rocks up and down.
Energy Vault is remarkable because of the system's efficiency, which is much better than current battery solutions, 80-90% round trip. It's a lot cheaper and can be made a lot smaller than a pumped hydro system. And there's no chemical degradation and very long storage times with hardly any loss. And it can deliver the right load with a very short reaction time.
Batteries kind of suck....
I am warming up to energy vault vs. batteries. My search did not turn up many details.
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
There's also a company called Gravitricity, offering a similar solution for underground installation:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/11/29/gravitricity-launches-gravity-energy-storage-pilot-in-india/
https://www.huismanequipment.com/en/products/renewables/gravitricity
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/11/29/gravitricity-launches-gravity-energy-storage-pilot-in-india/
https://www.huismanequipment.com/en/products/renewables/gravitricity
A common issue with massive accumulation of potential energy is rather spectacular failure modes, ranging from literal melt downs to dam bursting floods. I suspect a massive suspended weight could make a significant dent if allowed to accelerate with gravity for enough time.
One old potential (pun intended) energy storage system was flywheel power. This was popular mid-last century and I recall one notable example of a transit bus using a huge flywheel for power and even regenerative braking, before it was cool.
The moving bus had drivability issues from the gyroscopic effects of the flywheel. It was probably oriented to ignore left/right turns but up/down changes could stress its suspension.
For a fixed installation I suspect a flywheel could be made even larger/heavier. Power storage is proportional with rotational velocity so more RPM means more energy storage. Anyone who has seen the aftermath of blowing up a flywheel on a car motor (I have blown a clutch disk) can appreciate the damage possible from a much larger, much faster wheel disintegrating.
It has been several decades so I wonder what modern technology might deliver..? A search reveals that this is now called FESS (flywheel energy storage systems) and not forgotten.
For the quiz at the end of this semester.. this kind of energy is called "kinetic" .
JR
One old potential (pun intended) energy storage system was flywheel power. This was popular mid-last century and I recall one notable example of a transit bus using a huge flywheel for power and even regenerative braking, before it was cool.
The moving bus had drivability issues from the gyroscopic effects of the flywheel. It was probably oriented to ignore left/right turns but up/down changes could stress its suspension.For a fixed installation I suspect a flywheel could be made even larger/heavier. Power storage is proportional with rotational velocity so more RPM means more energy storage. Anyone who has seen the aftermath of blowing up a flywheel on a car motor (I have blown a clutch disk) can appreciate the damage possible from a much larger, much faster wheel disintegrating.
It has been several decades so I wonder what modern technology might deliver..? A search reveals that this is now called FESS (flywheel energy storage systems) and not forgotten.
For the quiz at the end of this semester.. this kind of energy is called "kinetic" .
JR
boji
Well-known member
Word has it there are felons chained to stationary bicycles under each gravity brick. They get to pedal their way to freedom (from being crushed).
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 491
The endgame of the 15 minute city is enslavement.
Last edited:
user 37518
Well-known member
Right....
Thanks for the elaborate discourse. You still haven't brought forth an actual argument why this concept constitutes communism in your opinion.
I have anything I could possibly need day-to-day within 5-10 minutes of walking. I'm happy to report I'm not enslaved. Stick to posting dubious links, they surprisingly still make more sense than this embarrassing drivel.
Central planning by people without skin in the game, instead of (free) market driven choices is a sign of authoritarian governance. The sheeple are easier to manage inside densely packed cities.
Me too*** if we count Amazon web order deliveries.
JR
**** I do drive about 15 miles round trip to the nearest Walmart for groceries once a week. My small garden is coming along nicely, I am already getting some home grown veggies (so far just a few squash).
user 37518
Well-known member
15 minute cities is not just about having a city where everything is close together, and you can get there in 15 minutes time. It is crowd control, it involves "providing people what they need" by the state whilst isolating it from the rest. It is textbook communism.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Central planners dictate the design and operation of such places. Central planning is collectivist/authoritarian. Distributed systems are more robust in general than centralized ones.
Many humans are happier with daily interactions with nature, peace and quiet, the security of private property, and other such things not provided by cities ("15 minute" or otherwise).
As already has been said, central planning happens in every city, everywhere, already. Nothing about that changes, only the direction of the course. Zoning laws, tax incentives, traffic control, just like now but in a different way. There isn't anything more authoritarian about this concept that it hasn't been before.
That's exactly the idea, within the compound of the city: instead of having distinct shopping districts or malls etc. the daily necessities should be more distributed and decentralized, and smaller districts of the cities being more self-sufficient so that larger movements and traffic are less necessary..
Yes, that includes me as well, eventually I'll move back to a more rural place, same as I grew up. But many people enjoy the city life, or have to be there due to circumstance. Why are you so keen on stagnation? We can go back to my first post in this thread, what exactly about a city structure like Houston's is worth upholding to you? Shouldn't a walkable city, with more room for green areas and less car traffic appeal to you based on your prefererences? It wouldn't be outdoor nature obviously, but a whole lot better than the way most cities are now.
Last edited:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
By elected officials and within the confines of the law.
Just like now, but not.
When arbitrary decisions are made that likely negatively affect many, but "for the good of the majority" (allegedly) that is authoritarian. Many people have cars. Many need cars and cannot walk a mile or ride a bike. So when you eliminate road transport options you are hurting them. An elderly person can't manage getting a week or two of groceries by train, for example.
It's forced and the decision-making is not distributed. Arguably this is the most important aspect of a free society--having more decisions made more locally. You want to push them upwards and seemingly without concern about those who don't want it.
And I'd also point out that in the USA, most auto traffic is work commuting. There is no reasonable way to limit living and working in the same "district." Anyone who has bought a house or condo in or near an urbanized area understands that a home is a major investment and that choosing one involves tradeoffs including proximity to work, schools, and necessities like groceries. In many parts of the US people change jobs much more frequently than they change homes. Moving is a PITA. Selling a house is expensive and timing is important. So it is even more likely that home and work will not be in the same "district."
Of course if your central planners also desire no private property and to dictate career moves, then these aren't the concern of Citizen Joe and Jane, right? Having spent time working with a sub-group of one of my employers that was in Daejeon South Korea (and having made several trips there for work) I have been exposed to how that looks, too. It isn't a life I'd choose.
I understand that having lived in dense suburbia because of work and inability to afford to buy a home when I was younger.
I'm not keen on stagnation. I'm keen on liberty and decentralized authority as much as is possible. I don't believe so-called experts are the best people to control everything from on high.
You're constructing a strawman. Just because I don't support your notions of "ideal" re-imagined cities doesn't mean I think all current cities are fine.
I prefer small towns or small cities to megopolis constructs. I think above a certain size many things become unmanageable and unpleasant. I used to enjoy an occasional trip to San Francisco for a day or an evening back when it was much safer and less expensive. Usually we'd drive up, park in a garage for the day and walk everywhere. Sometimes we took BART or CalTrain. But walking a hilly city all day is not for everyone. Mass transit only gets you so far and is slow/inconvenient. It's also gotten expensive, unpleasant, and dangerous.
Because of the economics of dense urban areas, parks become very expensive to build and maintain.
