Lithium Economy -- Why hydrogen might not power future vehicles and lithium-based batteries might.
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15920,318,p2.html
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
The Lithium Economy
Why hydrogen might not power future vehicles and lithium-based
batteries might.
By Kevin Bullis
The need to reduce carbon emissions and to find a long-term replacement
for oil has many people looking at hydrogen fuel cells to power
factories and vehicles. But finding ways to store volatile hydrogen
safely and bring down the costs of fuel-cell ingredients, which
currently include the fantastically expensive element platinum, has
proved difficult.
While the quest for the affordable fuel cell continues, many
environment-conscious consumers have been turning to hybrid cars to
reduce emissions. At the heart of the hybrid is a technology that may
be less "sexy" than fuel cells, but, according to MIT's Donald Sadoway,
could be key to a fossil-fuel-free tomorrow -- the rechargeable
battery.
TechnologyReview.com's nanotechnology and materials science editor,
Kevin Bullis, recently talked with Sadoway, a professor in the
department of materials science and engineering. He holds 13 patents,
has received multiple teaching awards, and has published more than 100
papers on the future of batteries and the all-electric car.
Technology Review: Why did you get into battery research?
Donald Sadoway: What got me into this in the first place was the desire
to get rid of the internal combustion engine. As far as powering
portable devices and so on, there are business opportunities there, but
I don't get excited about it. I did not get into this line of research
because I wanted to help somebody talk 30 percent longer on his cell
phone.
TR: Why get rid of the internal combustion engine?
DS: The real problem is greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.
If we don't start dealing with that question, the rest doesn't make a
damn bit of difference -- if 25 years from now the general temperature
of the United States is 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher and the oceans are
four feet [higher]. We really need to think about sustainable ways of
generating electric power and then moving [around] as much as we can
without burning carbon.
TR: What about using fuel cells for vehicles to reduce emissions?
DS: I don't believe in fuel cells for portable power. I think it's a
dumb idea. The good news is: they burn hydrogen with oxygen to produce
electricity, and only water vapor is the byproduct. The bad news is:
you have to deal with molecular hydrogen gas, and that's what's
stymieing the research and in my opinion is always going to stymie the
research.
That's why I don't work on fuel cells. Where's the infrastructure?
Where are we going to get hydrogen from? Hydrogen is a molecule, it's
H2. To break it apart, to get H+, you've got to go from H2 to H, and
that covalent bond is very strong. To break that bond you have to
catalyze the reaction, and guess what the catalyst is? It's noble
metals -- platinum and palladium. Have you seen the price of platinum?
Lithium [for lithium ion batteries] is expensive. But it's not like
platinum. Lithium right now is probably $40 a pound. Platinum is $500
an ounce. If I could give the fuel-cell guys platinum for $40 a pound,
they would be carrying me around on their shoulders until the day I
die.
The Lithium Economy
Continued from Page 1
By Kevin Bullis
TR: We've heard about all-electric cars for some time, but so far they
haven't panned out -- you can't get very far on a single charge, for
example. What has happened in battery development that makes you think
this will change?
DS: There was a lot of trial and error with good rules of thumb. But
there's far too many possibilities, and that's where [MIT materials
science professor] Gerbrand Ceder came in, who was using the principles
of quantum mechanics to predict the principles of compounds yet
unsynthesized. With Gerbrand's computational materials science, we were
able to identify compounds previously ignored in this application.
TR: How good can batteries get?
DS: I think we could easily double [the energy capacity of] what we
have right now. We have cells in the lab that, if you run the numbers
for a thin-film cell of reasonable size, you end up with two to three
times current lithium ion [batteries].
But there's more. The fantasy of all fantasies is chromium. If we could
stabilize chromium [as a material for battery cathodes] and I
could...give you a battery with 600-700 watts per kilogram [of energy
capacity] with reasonable drain rate, that says good-bye hydrogen
economy.
TR: You've driven an electric car before. What was that like?
DS: I opened the sun roof, rolled down the windows, and I pulled out.
It was like a magic carpet. You hear people laughing, talking, and
you're interacting with the city. I returned the vehicle to the fellow
at Boston Edison, and I came back here and said, "I've got to work
harder. I've got to make this thing happen." The only reason that car
isn't everywhere: it couldn't go more than 70 miles on a charge. But
you make it 270, game over. Anybody who drives it will never go back to
internal combustion.
TR: What's next?
DS: What we need to understand better is systems. Up to now we've been
asking, "What makes the best polymer electrolyte?" and then we test it
against some cathode and some anode. We need to understand what happens
when we put the battery together.
Let's keep the research going. Let's use the phrase that they used in
the early days of nuclear power -- "I want this stuff too cheap to
meter." I want these batteries so cheap you can give them away. We've
got a long way to go, but we've got to work at it.
Dan Bloomquist
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com wrote:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech-Materials/wtr_15920,318,p1.html
> http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15920,318,p2.html
>
> Tuesday, November 22, 2005
> The Lithium Economy
>
> Why hydrogen might not power future vehicles and lithium-based
> batteries might.
Gee, now you are getting it. It seems that Don Lancaster was one of the
first to realize this years ago.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Science Cop
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Global_Warming @Peacemail.com wrote:
> > http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech-Materials/wtr_15920,318,p1.html
> > http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15920,318,p2.html
> >
> > Tuesday, November 22, 2005
> > The Lithium Economy
> >
> > Why hydrogen might not power future vehicles and lithium-based
> > batteries might.
>
> Gee, now you are getting it. It seems that Don Lancaster was one of the
> first to realize this years ago.
I think Engineer Scotty and his Dilithium Crystals Warp Drive dates
back to the 1960s. Remind me to thank Lancaster for the fact that we
all drive around in Lithium Powered cars without any CO2 Global Warming
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
If it hadn't of been for Lancaster pushing Lithium battery technology
as hard as he did, we might still be using hydrocarbon fuels in the
21st century, fer gawds sakes. Gives me the shivers just to think of
such a nightmare thought...
K. Jones
"Global_Warming @Peacemail.com" <Global_...@Peacemail.com> wrote in
message news:1132708957.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech-Materials/wtr_15920,318,p1.html
> http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15920,318,p2.html
>
> Tuesday, November 22, 2005
> The Lithium Economy
<snip>
Did you read the article you posted?
quote :"TR: What about using fuel cells for vehicles to reduce emissions?
DS: I don't believe in fuel cells for portable power. I think it's a
dumb idea. The good news is: they burn hydrogen with oxygen to produce
electricity, and only water vapor is the byproduct. The bad news is:
you have to deal with molecular hydrogen gas, and that's what's
stymieing the research and in my opinion is always going to stymie the
research.
That's why I don't work on fuel cells. Where's the infrastructure?
Where are we going to get hydrogen from? Hydrogen is a molecule, it's
H2. To break it apart, to get H+, you've got to go from H2 to H, and
that covalent bond is very strong. To break that bond you have to
catalyze the reaction, and guess what the catalyst is? It's noble
metals -- platinum and palladium. Have you seen the price of platinum?
For all these hydrogen schemes "Where are we going to get the hydrogen
from?"
K. Jones
Sparky @zig-zag.net
K. Jones wrote:
> For all these hydrogen schemes "Where are we going to get the hydrogen
> from?"
Water and solar. The short name is H2-PV.
Steve Spence
ROFLMAO
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Nanook
Well, make a big joke, but I happen to agree. The new nano-technology
lithium batteries make an electric car that can go 300 miles and fully charge
in three minutes possible.
And it requires a lot less new technology than using hydrogen.
Although to be fair, the "Lithium" batteries are actually Lithium-hydride
and you're shuffling protons (hydrogen nuclei) around so you're still using
hydrogen in a way. Just using it to move electrons in an external circuit
as protons move internally instead of reacting with oxygen to move electrons.
Also, when one speaks of a "Hydrogen Economy" there are really two
seperate and distinct meanings:
1) Hydrogen as an energy storage medium, usually reacted with oxygen
in a fuel cell to recover stored energy.
2) Hydrogen as an energy source in fusion reactors.
I believe ultimately, controlled nuclear fusion is going to be the energy
source to meet the majority of our energy needs, so in this sense I believe
the "hydrogen economy" will still happen, providing we don't destroy ourselves
first.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Real human assistance, not telephone trees or foreign script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
H2-PV NOW
Nanook wrote:
> In article <1132713169....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "Science Cop" <scien...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> > > Global_Warming @Peacemail.com wrote:
> > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech-Materials/wtr_15920,318,p1.html
> > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15920,318,p2.html
> > > >
> > > > Tuesday, November 22, 2005
> > > > The Lithium Economy
> > > >
> > > > Why hydrogen might not power future vehicles and lithium-based
> > > > batteries might.
> > >
> > > Gee, now you are getting it. It seems that Don Lancaster was one of the
> > > first to realize this years ago.
> >
> > I think Engineer Scotty and his Dilithium Crystals Warp Drive dates
> > back to the 1960s. Remind me to thank Lancaster for the fact that we
> > all drive around in Lithium Powered cars without any CO2 Global Warming
> > Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
> >
> > If it hadn't of been for Lancaster pushing Lithium battery technology
> > as hard as he did, we might still be using hydrocarbon fuels in the
> > 21st century, fer gawds sakes. Gives me the shivers just to think of
> > such a nightmare thought...
>
> Well, make a big joke, but I happen to agree. The new nano-technology
> lithium batteries make an electric car that can go 300 miles and fully charge
> in three minutes possible.
As usual, no supporting math from you guy.
Assume a vehicle mass which currently gets 40 mpg. 300 mile range
requires 7.5 gallons of gasoline. Convert the BTUs in gasoline to
electrical equivilent potental energy: (112,000 BTUs/gal x 7.5 =
840,000 BTUs = 246.1797 KWHs. Pump 246.1797 KWHs into batteries in 3
minutes = (20 x 246.1797 KWHs) = 4923.594 KW in 3 minutes = 1641.198 KW
per minute = 1,641,198 watts per minute
Hope you have one big mutha charger. AT 120 volts plug-in, that is
13,676.65 amps per minute, (60 seconds per minute) or 227.9 amps per
second. What size fuses do you have in your box? What guage wire from
the box to the outlet plug? Oh look, he charged his car in 3 minutes
and his house burned down. And these numbers were just for the
rectified DC side of the charger, not the AC input side, which involves
all the same losses you guys always remember whenever discussing
rectified AC for electrolysis. Oh look, not only did his house burn
down, but his charger and car did too.
Talk about telling big jokes...
> And it requires a lot less new technology than using hydrogen.
>
> Although to be fair, the "Lithium" batteries are actually Lithium-hydride
> and you're shuffling protons (hydrogen nuclei) around so you're still using
> hydrogen in a way. Just using it to move electrons in an external circuit
> as protons move internally instead of reacting with oxygen to move electrons.
>
> Also, when one speaks of a "Hydrogen Economy" there are really two
> seperate and distinct meanings:
>
> 1) Hydrogen as an energy storage medium, usually reacted with oxygen
> in a fuel cell to recover stored energy.
>
> 2) Hydrogen as an energy source in fusion reactors.
>
> I believe ultimately, controlled nuclear fusion is going to be the energy
> source to meet the majority of our energy needs, so in this sense I believe
> the "hydrogen economy" will still happen, providing we don't destroy ourselves
> first.
The closest you ever want to be to a fusion reactor is 93,000,000
miles, about exactly the distance between Earth and Sol, especially if
it is built by guys whose math charges their cars in 3 minutes.
K. Jones
"Sparky @zig-zag.net" <Spa...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
news:1132778691....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
LOL! Funny guy.
You don't seem to understand the concept of energy density. Remember the
thousands of square meters needed to produce the 10Mw you wanted to produce
on your roof?
Tell me, just how much solar (area) do you need, to replace the current
world's consumption of approx 81 MILLION barrels of oil, PER DAY, with
"H2-PV"???
Hmmmm.......Quick BOTE calc....
( 1,700 kWh/barrel * 81,000,000 = 139,060,800,000 kWh/day)
Say approx 164 watts per square meter average insolation, per 24 hour day@
15% efficiency = ~25 watts/square meter/24 hours net production.
139,060,800,000,000 / 25 = 5,562,432,000,000 m^2 = 5,562,432 km^2
The land mass of the United States is about 9,200,000 km^2
So you'd completely cover approx 60% of the entire land area of the USA?
Ooops, we forgot electrolysis efficiencies, and the energy required to
compress the hydrogen produced.....
So, you want to basically cover, entirely, a land mass the size of the
United States, to produce enough energy for the world's current demand??????
How about the rapidly increasing energy demands by places like China, India,
et al?
Just how "environmentally responsible" is that?
That's about the most hare-brained scheme I've heard of yet.
Makes "big oil" look like Eco-Nazis.
Wanna try a different answer?
K. Jones
stinkeroo
you don't see it you're part of George Bush's global warming right wing
nazis.
life...@atlantic.net
K. Jones wrote:
> Wanna try a different answer?
No, I think I'll have to go with the sun heats the earth answer.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
http://www.lifeform.net/talkshop
tkgo...@ktcnslt.com
Err.. NO.. not even close.. way too.. high..
ICE vehicles waste upwards of 95% of energy content..
EV's don't require the waste of all that energy..
Start with 150Wh per mile... 300 Miles.. 45kWh..
* 20 to accomplish recharge in 1/20 of hour(3 minutes)== 900kW for
3 minutes.
Newer Li-ion based EV's will be around 90Wh per mile.. or 27kWh
* 20 .. recharge in (3 minutes) == 540kW... closer...
But, most EV's won't be used right to the edge of max capacity..
I.E.. How did they manage to EXACTLY get to max range and still end
up at some specific point(recharge station)?... Answer not going to
happen..... thus.. cut the discharge/recharge state by 20%.... Double
the charge time.. 6 min.. and you're down to 216 kW for 6 minutes..
Which is getting close to the a standard 3-phase service for an
existing service station. (150kW).. Add a coffee shop and lengthen
the stay for a full recharge time to 30 mins and the numbers drop even
further..
>
> Hope you have one big mutha charger. AT 120 volts plug-in, that is
> 13,676.65 amps per minute, (60 seconds per minute) or 227.9 amps per
Silly person using silly premise (120v plugin charger in fast charge
station).
+ wrong math on bogus #'s + you're off by a factor of 60.
> second. What size fuses do you have in your box? What guage wire from
> the box to the outlet plug? Oh look, he charged his car in 3 minutes
> and his house burned down. And these numbers were just for the
> rectified DC side of the charger, not the AC input side, which involves
> all the same losses you guys always remember whenever discussing
> rectified AC for electrolysis. Oh look, not only did his house burn
> down, but his charger and car did too.
>
> Talk about telling big jokes...
Any charger based on single phase 120/240V will be overnight tech..
>
>
> > And it requires a lot less new technology than using hydrogen.
> >
> > Although to be fair, the "Lithium" batteries are actually Lithium-hydride
> > and you're shuffling protons (hydrogen nuclei) around so you're still using
> > hydrogen in a way. Just using it to move electrons in an external circuit
> > as protons move internally instead of reacting with oxygen to move electrons.
err.. no..
No positively charged states of hydrogen involved.
just shuttling around electrons.. to/fro Li compounds.
Lithium ion batteries is based on a compound using Lithium..
for example.. LiFePO4, LiMnO2, LiCoO2, LiS02, LSOCl2...etc...
refs:
http://www.phostechlithium.com/technology/usages.asp
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/electrical/ultralife/
http://www.tadiranbat.com/articles/batterydigest.pdf
Snip rest of post..
H2-PV NOW
K. Jones wrote:
> "Sparky @zig-zag.net" <Spa...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
> news:1132778691....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > K. Jones wrote:
> > > For all these hydrogen schemes "Where are we going to get the hydrogen
> > > from?"
> >
> > Water and solar. The short name is H2-PV.
>
> LOL! Funny guy.
>
> You don't seem to understand the concept of energy density. Remember the
> thousands of square meters needed to produce the 10Mw you wanted to produce
> on your roof?
>
> Tell me, just how much solar (area) do you need, to replace the current
> world's consumption of approx 81 MILLION barrels of oil, PER DAY, with
> "H2-PV"???
>
> Hmmmm.......Quick BOTE calc....
> ( 1,700 kWh/barrel * 81,000,000 = 139,060,800,000 kWh/day)
81 million barrels per day unsupported. 1700 kWh/barrel commonly
accepted equivilence (50.8 kg H2/barrel).
> Say approx 164 watts per square meter average insolation, per 24 hour day@
> 15% efficiency = ~25 watts/square meter/24 hours net production.
This number is bogus.
Nothing past this point in your spew is considered. Go back and reuse
real world PV output figures (and support your 81 megabarrel/day thesis
while you are at it). Then come back with corrected and supported
numbers and start over.
Your solar numbers may be applicable at the north pole in mid-winter.
Elsewhere the numbers vary from 1.35kw per meter^2 to 0.95 kw per m^2
in Germany. An average of 1kw per m^2 is the peak daytime figures
averaged through the temperate zones. Depending on microclimate
cloudiness, the daily insolation may be 5 to 7 peak hours per day year
around averaged to a daily quantity. Say 6 peak sunny hours through
most of the USA.
The raw solar power incoming is 6 KWHs per m^2 per day. Of that total
69% can be beneficially harvested using combined solar heating and
power (CHAPS) using known proven technology -- for 4.14 KWHs per day
per meter. Of that 4.14 KWHs, 25% is net PV DC electricity, and the
remainder is harvested heat energy.
Concentrating heat in the same manner, except reversed, used for
concentrating cold temperatures, plus and minus extremes can be
achieved.
Concentrations to 3,000 degrees C have been achieved in heliostat
furnaces. Dish-Sterling systems often produce point focal spot
temperatures of 3000 degrees. The working gas in the Sterling engine is
usually Hydrogen.
There are a large number of means to dissociate water into H2 + O2:
Thermolysis, Catalysis, Photolysis, Biolysis, Electrolysis. Heat
facilitates the process of electrolysis, which is why HTE is being
commercially explored in the US, Germany and elsewhere. Catalysis
usually requires heat to regenerate the catalysts. Electrolysis is
endothermic, involving adsorption of heat energy to charge the H2 + O2
molecules with chemical energy required for the subsequent exothermic
chemical reaction of combustion.
To disregard the heat component is deliberate fraud.
Since the CHAPS process concentrates sunlight, using troughs, to 25
suns, inefficient 13% solar cells produce electricity at 25%, because
the Silicon is not optimized for normal earth surface insolation
levels. By working with light concentrations more optimum for the Si,
less actual Si is required and of a lower grade of Si.
This PV energy is generated at a DC output voltage virtually ideal for
electrolysis. It is corrupt and fraudulent to factor in conversion to
AC then reconvert to DC again for electrolysis. Again and again the
fraud and corruption of the H2-PV haters is exposed.
The current state of the art consists of many hundreds, uncounted and
uncountable (because of the myriads of patents on alloys, electrodes,
etc), patents which teach multiple routes of economy applicable to the
H2-PV world.
----------------
United States Patent 4,184,931
Inoue January 22, 1980
Method of electrolytically generating hydrogen and oxygen for use in a
torch or the like
----------------
United States Patent 4,369,737
Sanders , et al. January 25, 1983
Hydrogen-oxygen generator
----------------
United States Patent 5,632,870
Kucherov May 27, 1997
Energy generation apparatus
----------------
United States Patent 6,126,794
Chambers October 3, 2000
Apparatus for producing orthohydrogen and/or parahydrogen
----------------
United States Patent 3,954,592
Horvath May 4, 1976
Electrolysis apparatus
----------------
United States Patent 4,078,984
Strewe March 14, 1978
Circuit of monopolar electrolytic cells
----------------
United States Patent 3,930,978
Strewe , et al. January 6, 1976
Circuit of electrolytic cells
----------------
United States Patent 6,468,499
Balachandran , et al. October 22, 2002
Method of generating hydrogen by catalytic decomposition of water
----------------
United States Patent 6,235,417
Wachsman , et al. May 22, 2001
Two-phase hydrogen permeation membrane
----------------
United States Patent 5,318,684
Cameron June 7, 1994
Systems for the decomposition of water
----------------
United States Patent 4,889,604
Khan , et al. December 26, 1989
Process for the photocatalytic decomposition of water into hydrogen and
oxygen
----------------
United States Patent 4,544,459
Struck , et al. October 1, 1985
Process for obtaining hydrogen and oxygen from water
----------------
United States Patent 4,342,738
Burgund August 3, 1982
Hydrogen generation as fuel by use of solar ultraviolet light process
----------------
United States Patent 4,254,086
Sanders March 3, 1981
Endothermal water decomposition unit for producing hydrogen and oxygen
----------------
United States Patent 4,207,095
Anderson June 10, 1980
Material and method for obtaining hydrogen by dissociation of water
----------------
Nobody ever counts the economic value of the OXYGEN product which is
itself half as much volume as the H2 product.
Half the patents in the USPTO files on H2O-lysis are presented as
inventions to achieve commercial valuable OXYGEN, discarding the H2
product.
Taking the unsupported 81 megabarrels of oil:
http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/webonly/webex324.html
... The first fuel, called HE-15, could probably be used in the engine
of almost any current transportation vehicle without modification of
its engine. It consists of 0.85 lb. pound of oil (containing 15,335
BTUs) to which we add enough hydrogen (0.0523 lb.) to supply the energy
of the missing 0.15 lb. of oil (2,705 BTUs). After hydrogenation, we
have 0.9023 lb. of this new HE-15 fuel containing 18,040 BTUs. Hence,
the specific energy content of HE-15 fuel is 19,995 BTUs/lb. The
percentages of total energy coming from oil and hydrogen are 85 percent
and 15 percent, respectively. The percentages of materials by weight
are 94.2 percent oil and 5.8 percent hydrogen.
The second hydrogen-enhanced fuel, called HE-30, consists of 0.85 lb.
of oil to which we add enough hydrogen to supply the energy of the
missing 0.15 lb. of crude oil, as well as an equal amount of hydrogen
to provide an additional 15 percent energy, or 2,705 BTUs. After
hydrogenation, we have 0.9546 lb. of this new HE-30 fuel containing
20,745 BTUs. Hence, the specific energy content of HE-30 fuel is 21,730
BTUs per pound. The percentages of total energy coming from oil and
hydrogen are 73.92 percent and 26.08 percent, respectively. The
percentages of materials by weight are 89.0 percent oil and 11.0
percent hydrogen. To use HE-30 fuel, transportation vehicles may need
some modifications or computer control of their engines of the type
used on some premium vehicles today. The properties of HE-15 and HE-30
fuels are summarized in Table 1. ...
... Crude Oil Savings
By using HE-15 and HE-30 fuels, we can replace 15.0 percent and 26.1
percent, respectively, of the energy of the crude oil with the energy
of hydrogen, thus saving 15.0 and 26.1 percent of the crude oil
previously used. If the energy of half of the 19 million barrels of oil
per day used in the United States were replaced with energy from HE-15
or HE-30 fuels, the reduction in crude oil required would be 1.40
million barrels a day (the amount of oil the U.S. imports from Saudi
Arabia) for HE-15 fuel and 2.48 million barrels a day (the amount of
crude oil imported from the whole Middle East) for HE-30 fuel.
-------------------
So the actual space required for H2-PV to be successful requires a more
mature analysis than is given by H2-PV haters.
Ultimately all of the carbon fuels could be replaces with renewables,
green, clean energy.
Along the way other environmental problems need to be solved, cannot
remain unsolved, and the solution to these problems changes all the
parameters of arguments.
http://tinyurl.com/7sdz3
180 mpg PHEV Toyota Prius+ exists today. We are not interested in
finding out how much land has to be paved with PV to preserve failed
20th century lifestyles for LUDDITES who won't change. They will change
when enough people go to H2 that the economics for gasoline filling
stations breaks.
The whole world is changing. No vehicle that gets less than 100mpg will
even be sold. Then what is the number needed of barrels of oil
equivilent???
Meanwhile, the world is changing -- I hope you like the color BLUE
(although PV can now be made in most colors and even transparent or
translucent colorless).
H2-PV NOW
CONGRADULATIONS. You finally got it right!
Be sure to do your reading assignment before you go to bed tonight...
http://tinyurl.com/blhf5
Taming liquid hydrogen: The Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002
(Unknown Binding)
by Virginia P Dawson
4 used & new available from $47.00
# Unknown Binding
# Publisher: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2003)
# Language: English
# ASIN: B0006S3BGG
http://tinyurl.com/979hr
Plunkett's Renewable, Alternative & Hydrogen Energy Industry Almanac:
The Only Complete Guide To The Business Of Renewable, Alternative And
Hydrogen Energy ... & Hydrogen Energy Industry Almanac) (Paperback)
by Jack W. Plunkett
List Price: $249.99
# Paperback: 355 pages
# Publisher: Plunkett Research (November 10, 2004)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 159392013X
http://tinyurl.com/cadke
Hydrogen Storage Materials (Materials Science Forum,) (Paperback)
by R. G. Barnes (Editor)
2 used & new available from $185.84
# Paperback: 350 pages
# Publisher: Trans Tech Publications (July, 1988)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 087849572X
http://tinyurl.com/899fs
Hydrogen and Its Future As a Transportation Fuel (Pt (Series)
(Warrendale, Pa.), 95.) (Paperback)
by Daniel J. Holt (Editor), Society of Automotive Engineers (Corporate
Author)
List Price: $99.95
# Paperback: 411 pages
# Publisher: Society of Automotive Engineers (January, 2003)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0768011280
http://tinyurl.com/c4v2k
Ultrafast Hydrogen Bonding Dynamics and Proton Transfer Processes in
the Condensed Phase (Understanding Chemical Reactivity) (Hardcover)
by T.H. Elsaesser (Editor), H.J. Bakker (Editor)
26 used & new available from $40.00
# Hardcover: 200 pages
# Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (December 31, 2002)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 1402010931
http://tinyurl.com/duwdd
Hydrogen in Metals III: Properties and Applications (Topics in Applied
Physics) (Hardcover)
by H. Wipf (Editor), R. G. Barnes (Editor), P. Dantzer (Editor), H.
Grabert (Editor), D. K. Ross (Editor), H. R. Schober (Editor), H.
Vehoff (Editor)
1 used & new available from $121.25
# Hardcover: 348 pages
# Publisher: Springer (March, 1997)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 354061639X
http://tinyurl.com/cnseo
Hydrogen As an Energy Carrier: Technologies, Systems, Economy
(Hardcover)
by Carl Jochen Winter, Joachim Nitsch (Editor)
4 used & new available from $50.00
# Hardcover: 377 pages
# Publisher: Springer (December, 1988)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0387188967
http://tinyurl.com/ceozy
Nickel-Hydrogen Life Cycle Testing: Review and Analysis (Paperback)
by Lawrence H. Thaller, Albert H. Zimmerman
# Paperback: 196 pages
# Publisher: AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics & Ast (June, 2003)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 1884989136
http://tinyurl.com/cx53h
Hydrogen Aircraft Technology (Hardcover)
by G. Daniel Brewer
# Hardcover: 448 pages
# Publisher: CRC Press (June 4, 1991)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0849358388
http://tinyurl.com/axgkn
Models and Modelers of Hydrogen: Thales, Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Goudsmit, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Sallhofer
(Hardcover)
by Akhlesh Lakhtakia (Editor) "The wave-particle dilemma of today's
quantum physics and contemporary natural philosophy has its roots in
the thinking of the pre-Socratic natural philosophers of Greece..."
(more)
9 used & new available from $52.50
# Hardcover: 424 pages
# Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Company (June, 1996)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 9810223021
http://tinyurl.com/8j2v9
Hydrogen Effects in Catalysis (Chemical Industries) (Hardcover)
by Zoltan Paal, P. G. Menon (Editor)
2 used & new available from $235.85
# Hardcover: 784 pages
# Publisher: Marcel Dekker (November 6, 1987)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0824777743
http://tinyurl.com/7ld7l
Materials for the hydrogen economy: ninety papers presented over three
days from Sept. 26 to 28 will cover hydrogen production, hydrogen
storage, fuel ... article from: Advanced Materials & Processes [HTML]
# Format: HTML
# Printable: Yes
# Mac OS Compatible: Yes
# Windows Compatible: Yes
# Handheld Compatible: Yes
# Digital: 8 pages
# Publisher: ASM International; ISBN: B000B7V5U6; (August 1, 2005)
http://tinyurl.com/co5q2
Defects in Silicon: Hydrogen (European Materials Research Society
Symposia Proceedings) (Hardcover)
by J. Weber, A. Mesli
List Price: $136.95
# Hardcover: 198 pages
# Publisher: Elsevier Science (April 1, 1999)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 008043603X
http://tinyurl.com/b49zr
Hydrogen Energy and Power Generation (Energy and Environmental
Progress-I) (Hardcover)
by T. Nejat Veziroglu (Editor)
List Price: $220.00
# Hardcover: 599 pages
# Publisher: Nova Science Publishers (August, 1991)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0941743993
http://tinyurl.com/czn88
Spectrum of Atomic Hydrogen: Advances : A Collection of Progress
Reports by Experts (Hardcover)
by G. W. Series (Editor)
4 used & new available from $39.50
# Hardcover: 512 pages
# Publisher: World Scientific Pub Co Inc (September, 1988)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 9971502615
Bill Ward
<H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
>stinkeroo wrote:
>> Religions don't have to be reality based. That's the beauty. And if
>> you don't see it you're part of George Bush's global warming right wing
>> nazis.
>
>CONGRADULATIONS. You finally got it right!
>
>Be sure to do your reading assignment before you go to bed tonight...
>
<snip list of books he hasn't read and can't understand>
Snippy, you just don't get it.
You have to actually _read_ books to learn anything. Being
able to find them with Google is a start, but it's not quite
enough. If you actually understood the material you've been
cutting and pasting, you would see why everyone is laughing
at you.
But don't stop, we need the comic relief.
Regards,
Bill Ward
K. Jones
From: "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: Lithium Economy -- Why hydrogen might not power future vehicles
and lithium-based batteries might.
>
> K. Jones wrote:
> > "Sparky @zig-zag.net" <Spa...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
> > news:1132778691....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > K. Jones wrote:
> > > > For all these hydrogen schemes "Where are we going to get the
hydrogen
> > > > from?"
> > >
> > > Water and solar. The short name is H2-PV.
> >
> > LOL! Funny guy.
> >
> > You don't seem to understand the concept of energy density. Remember the
> > thousands of square meters needed to produce the 10Mw you wanted to
produce
> > on your roof?
> >
> > Tell me, just how much solar (area) do you need, to replace the current
> > world's consumption of approx 81 MILLION barrels of oil, PER DAY, with
> > "H2-PV"???
> >
> > Hmmmm.......Quick BOTE calc....
> > ( 1,700 kWh/barrel * 81,000,000 = 139,060,800,000 kWh/day)
>
> 81 million barrels per day unsupported. 1700 kWh/barrel commonly
> accepted equivilence (50.8 kg H2/barrel).
LOL!
Well now Sparky, YOUR own POSTS have included figures such as this.
Are you telling me you've been posting "bogus" and "unsupported" numbers?
Or is it that you simply don't read, or comprehend, the stuff you post?
You have included articles stating the US consumption of oil is 19 million
barrels a day, and that this is approx 25% of the worlds consumption.
19million * 4 = 76million barrels/day -which is not too far from the 81
million barrels/day I found.
Chances are the 81 million number is more current for world use, since
consumption elsewhere in the world is increasing rapidly.
> > Say approx 164 watts per square meter average insolation, per 24 hour
day@
> > 15% efficiency = ~25 watts/square meter/24 hours net production.
>
> This number is bogus.
>
> Nothing past this point in your spew is considered. Go back and reuse
> real world PV output figures (and support your 81 megabarrel/day thesis
> while you are at it). Then come back with corrected and supported
> numbers and start over.
YOU posted an article about a solar PV system being installed in a winery.
The numbers in that post were 34,625 ft^2 of panels, expected to produce
411kW of electricity. This is about 127 watts/m^2...in "sunny California".
Using your Quote: "say 6 hours" (quote included below) production, this is
762 watts/m^2. Since a day is, 24 hours, that averages out to 31.75
watts/meter^2/hour/day. Since you likely can't fit all your panels in the
entire US, let alone "sunny California", your average world output is going
to be somewhat less. Take into account cloudy days, less than "ideal"
locations, dirty panels, etc....my "real world", 25watts/meter^2/hour, over
24 hours average, was being somewhat generous. Again, I was being generous,
in using a "continuous output average", (over 24 hours), so you didn't have
to take a further efficiency hit on trying to produce/store all this
electricity in your 6hr time window, per day....you'd have to litter most of
the planet with these things, with a significant portion being dark, while a
portion was generating power.....thus the *average* output, per 24 hour day,
of ~25watts/meter^2 Unless you think you can produce the worlds daily
consumption of energy in 6 hour shots each day. Factor in your electrolyzer
inefficiency, you're down to 18 watts/meter^2. If you want to factor in
*storing* either the electricity, or the hydrogen produced, your number is
going to be significantly less than the 18watts/meter^2 number. If "real
world" numbers (like the ones YOU supplied) don't jive with your H2-PV
fantasy world, that's your problem.... you supplied roughly the same numbers
in your huge volumes of posts. Reality bites.
<snipped Sparky's attempt at misdirection with solar thermal babble>
I am pretty well versed with solar thermal. I own a 6 panel Norsun solar
thermal system. Furthermore, I hope to be installing a wind turbine in the
next year or so. With all your insults about "sucking big oil", and crap,
you fail to realize many people you are ranting at, are DOING far more, to
reduce energy consumption, and utilize renewable energies, that you will
probably ever do in your lifetime. They've been
studying/reading/building/using/experimenting with all kinds of renewable
energies/energy savings/waste reduction for dozens of years before you
showed up here screaming your insults. For some of us, finding ways to
reduce energy usage/reduce environmental impact/capture-reuse otherwise
waste "energy", is what we do for a living.....This is _part_ of what I
_currently_ do for a living. Apparently most of this is new to you, but is
not new to many here, at all. You post in groups which tend to attract
people who have a higher than average, interest in reducing the use of
non-renewable fossil fuels, reducing environmental impacts (i.e.,
alt.energy, sci.energy.hydrogen, talk.environment, sci.environment,
sci.energy) et al, and come of like some "Holier than thou" that's "gunna
edumakate the dumb masses that are in the pockets of "big oil"". Many are
contradicting your sometimes completely asinine postulations, not because
they're stupid, or they don't care about the things you claim to, or because
they're "hooked on big oil". More often, they've likely
researched/understand many of the issues far better than you've
demonstrated. Part of the reason they *are* in these groups.
BTW, what kind of solar thermal system do you have?
> So the actual space required for H2-PV to be successful requires a more
> mature analysis than is given by H2-PV haters.
Our future energy needs requires a much more "mature analysis" than the
grade school approach you are taking. There are many easier, more
cost-effective ("low hanging fruit") methods, to reduce energy demands by
that much, and more, available right now, without mucking about with
"H2-PV"........but bear in mind, industry requires intense energy density to
produce...you've got to look at a far bigger picture than simple "H2-PV".
You are right on one count though, I would prefer all the money/time/effort
being poured into something as stupid and unworkable as a "hydrogen
economy", was spent on useful near-term research, development/infrastructure
into things more likely to bear fruit, and make a real difference, both
economically and environmentally. You talk about stuff like reducing oil
demand by 15% by some complicated H2-PV scheme with H2 injection, etc. If
the same money was simply dumped into solar thermal, reducing heating/hot
water energy costs, superior building insulation, capturing waste heat from
industrial processes, etc, you'd make far bigger "real", "right NOW"
reductions in energy usage. Electric cars will be far more efficient that
any hydrogen scheme is likely to become. The more *efficient* a process, the
less energy "wasted", the less environmental impact, the better the future
that is left for my kids, and their kids, and so on.
> Ultimately all of the carbon fuels could be replaces with renewables,
> green, clean energy.
>
> Along the way other environmental problems need to be solved, cannot
> remain unsolved, and the solution to these problems changes all the
> parameters of arguments.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7sdz3
> 180 mpg PHEV Toyota Prius+ exists today. We are not interested in
> finding out how much land has to be paved with PV to preserve failed
> 20th century lifestyles for LUDDITES who won't change. They will change
> when enough people go to H2 that the economics for gasoline filling
> stations breaks.
>
> The whole world is changing. No vehicle that gets less than 100mpg will
> even be sold. Then what is the number needed of barrels of oil
> equivilent???
>
>
> Meanwhile, the world is changing -- I hope you like the color BLUE
> (although PV can now be made in most colors and even transparent or
> translucent colorless).
>
> http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/photos/index.htm
Ya know Sparky, you ought to spend more time reading and understanding some
of the articles you post, than just pasting volumes of crap you've copied
from your google searches (without even reading, or understanding them).
There are readers/posters here that work for some of the companies mentioned
in your articles, there are people here who are actively involved in working
with, or researching and developing the technologies you're pretending to
understand. You might have figured some of this out on your own, with your
experience in pretending to be an authority on grid operations, for example.
You'd do far better off posting an article you find interesting, and then
asking for comments about the technology, etc, than screaming at everyone
that "This is the way, and the only way to go". You might learn a lot more
that way. Many professionals in the field simply won't be dragged into some
mud-slinging, argumentative discussion with you. Change your approach, and
you might get some quality "real world" insights into these things. There
are thousands here with far more technical expertise in many of these areas
than I have, but here's one example. You've posted a couple of articles
about current automotive fuel cell technology that was/is being developed by
my current employer....I've had a chance to review the information, in much
more detail, over many more years, than the media fluff you've cut and
pasted from your google searches, I've got to talk "face to face" with heads
of these departments, etc......but I'll be damned if I'm going to get into
discussion in those areas with you, because of your posting
history/style....and it sure wouldn't make my employer happy to see
discussions of their technology slammed around in a world-wide forum, by an
uninformed wing-nut like you. Raising public awareness about renewable
energy systems is good, but you do more "damage" to the industries you wish
to "promote" with your silly "pie-in-the-sky" claims, than any good you
accomplish. I point out your "delusions" with a H2-PV world (with current
technology), not because I don't "like" it, or that I'm not familiar with PV
technology. I've bought, and installed, a number of small PV systems for
industrial use, where they made sense, for remote pumping stations, remote
building lighting/12V power, and so on. I'm quite familiar with their
limitations, I'd continue to use them where they make sense. What is your
experience with it? I'm familiar with handling and storage of both liquid
and gaseous hydrogen, because I've worked directly with large volumes of the
stuff for many years, and have Hazmat Specialist/Fire/Incident command
experience as well. What's your experience with it?
Stop preaching like you are the one and only "True Believer"(tm), and you'd
get a lot better, more informed, discussion.
K. Jones
Nanook
No actually because these same batteries can recharge to 85% of their
capacity in 1 minute, 3 minutes for 100%. So if you're only doing a partial
recharge, the time is much LESS.
H2-PV NOW
OK. You have provided figures which you have derived from mutually
satisfactory sources. We have both accepted numbers on the table:
The number 81 megabarrels represents current wasteful and profligate
conversion to CO2 eco-death.
A commonly accepted energy equivilence factor represented in electrical
terms is 139,060,800,000 kWh/day.
That's one whole 24-hour day, not one 24th of one day.
139060800000 / 24hours = 5794200000 kWh per hour, if you like the
hourly rate of conversion of oil into waste products. Then we can
compare your hourly electricity to hourly oil consumption over 24 hours
on a fair and equal basis.
Since PV panels are rated in watts per meter, not kilowatts, we need to
multiply your figure of KILO-watt hours by 1000 to obtain watt-hours.
5,794,200,000 x 1000 = 5,794,200,000,000 watt-hours.
I believe that you will agree that is a fairly derived number from
sources mutually agreed upon. That number is energy currently being
mined from the oil deposits, brought to the surface, refined into motor
fuels and assorted petrochemicals such as plastics. It does not
represent coal or natural gas or other carbon fuels and carbon-emission
sources such as methane from bio-decay products. It does not represent
natural carbon emissions from volcanic sources.
Dealing with the numbers provided, let's look at the first pass, first
approximation of what they represent in solar insolation from
conventional PV devices.
> Since a day is, 24 hours, that averages out to 31.75
> watts/meter^2/hour/day.
You produced a pro-rata hourly figure of 31.75 watts from a source
acceptable to you. But your numbers are defective. 31.75 watts are not
obtained at midnight, so we can't get 31.75 watts out every hour of the
day. That's why we need to use my original numbers of peak watts per
average of six hours per day. Instead of 31.75 watts per hour, there
are six hours of peak production.
You computed a figure acceptable to you of 175 watts per meter, per
peak hour. That's higher than the 130 watts figure I typically use, but
I compute based on muticrystalline PV @ 13% output DC measured at the
output. The winery may be using higher grade PV of 17% efficiency.
Using your number there are 1,050 total watts DC per m^2 per day. There
are not 31.75 watts at midnight and 31.75 watts at noon. This makes a
big difference in accounting for area consumed. 1 KWH takes one meter
using my measurements and it takes 33 square meters using your numbers.
Going back to the mutually-agreed upon figures, 139,060,800,000
kWh/day, each KWH needs roughly one square meter of PV.
In each square mile there are 2,589,988 square meters. 139,060,800,000
divided by 2,589,988 = 53,692 square miles. That number represents a
square in the Sahara desert of 232 miles on a side, and conveniently,
the Silica for PV is abundant at that location.
http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nv_geography.htm
Total Area: Nevada covers 110,567 square miles, making it the 7th
largest of the 50 states.
Nevada covers about twice the land area required to equal the present
total global oil daily consumption, based on commercially produced PV
panels, using numbers you have shown you are accepting.
What has not been done has been the full accounting, by me or by you.
You rejected the heat energy also available while harvesting solar PV
from the same site. The ANU CHAPS trough systems have demonstrated
several years of monitered production with efficiencies in the range of
25% PV and 44% thermal energy from the exact same square meters of real
estate.
The Si has not changed: 13% Si operates to produce the equivilence of
25% conversion by increasing the lux on the cells. The increased lux
requires heat exchangers to cool the Si or it burns out, so they make
lemonade from the lemons, and find uses for heat.
H2-PV only works if there are several things present all at the same
time.
* It requires light part of the day.
* It requires energy storage for non-light parts of the day.
* It requires deep reductions in costs in all aspecs of PV
manufacture.
* It requires counting calories and making every calorie count.
Anyone who tries to analyze H2-PV atomistically is doomed to failure
because H2-PV is a synergetic set of interrelated systems. The winery's
PV numbers do not add up, because they went with flat collectors on
existing roofs without thermal collectors (because if you read the
article, they were in a hurry to cash in on a decreasing subsidy rebate
offer, and had to pick fast from existing off-the-shelf modules before
a looming deadline changed the costs).
H2-PV assumes no subsidies or rebates. It is designed to be PV Breeder
operations which must exist in a hostile environment during the
transition process. It is designed to take wastes with low social value
and transform them into functional units, and accomplish this in
decentralized facilities autonmously regardless of the sucesses or
failures of other facilities with other local geopolitical barriers and
handicaps elsewhere.
H2-PV has been handed a lot of lemons. There's going to be a glut of
lemonade.
Unlike you, I don't see it as a virtue to slap bandaids on hemorrhages.
The 20th century lifestyle experiments failed, and they failed
completely, dramatically, undeniably, massively and conspicuously.
Anybody still trying to salvage that mess gets no respect from me.
You produced the numbers: 81 gigabarrels of oil per day required (not
counting coal, gas, biomass, volcanos) feeding the hurricane-factories,
spreading the oceanic dead zones, exterminating 50,000 species per
year.
Katrina not only exposed the oil dependency, but the layers of
corruption feeding off the centralized oil dependency. You saw the
layers of government, each too corrupt to care that the dead zone off
New Orleans was the first and has always been the worst. Katrina gave
everybody a glimpse of why Louisiana has the highest cancer rate in the
country. It took a Global Warming payback storm to open up one ugly can
of worms after another, until anybody wants to retch at the mess
exposed.
H2-PV says that filling stations are obsolete. H2-PV says that
petrodollars are not concentrating into few hands of known corrupting
tendencies. H2-PV says there is no brandname on H2 fuels -- they are
produced at every single building every single day. H2-PV says that the
large corporations do not dictate the energy choices, and do not
dictate the political choices.
H2-PV is only part of a larger picture of the 21st century lifestyles
which have learned what is useful from the failed lifestyles of the
20th century.
There's only three states which border on Louisiana, and some adult
Katrina evacuees who had lived in Louisiana their entire lifetime did
not know where Arkansaw was when told they were going to be evacuated
to there. This is not a lifestyle needing perpetuation and bandages on
its hemorrhages. We are expeditiously going to evacuate the failed
lifestyles of the 20th century. H2-PV is one of three ARKs now loading
up passengers to take them into the third millenium. You are going to
be carried to a new world where there are no ocean dead zones.
Not everybody is going to make it to the other side. Get on board or
drown in your Global Warming tsunami. Some people don't know where
Arkansaw is, and we pity them (almost as much as we pity those who live
in Arkansaw). Some people don't know where the 21st century is, and I
pity them more. You have to leave the past if you want a future. H2-PV
is not designed as a lifeboat for those who want to keep burning 81
megabarrels of carbon-pollution per day.
Alex Terrell
> http://www.degerenergie.de/pdf/Referenzen.pdf
Typical installation produce 800-1100 kWh/KWp/a, tracking systems go up
to 1700 kwh/KWp/a.
That's about 12% utilisation. Assuming you get about 140W / m2, that
would average about 16W / m2, or perhaps 30W for a tracking system.
A light weight (1 ton) electric vehilce does 10km/KWh (battery power),
at best.
1m2 of PV will produce about 140KWhrs / year. That will produce about
100KWHrs in the battery, enough to drive 1,000km.
A typical car does about 10,000km per year in England (I suspect more
in the USA), so would need at least 10m2 of solar PV.
So 30 million cars in the UK would need at least 300km2 of solar PV.
150 million US cars would need about 2,500km2. If for some strange
reason you decide to convert electricty to hydrogen, and then back to
eletricity, you probably need to double or treble this figure.
If the car battery problem can be solved, cars are easy, since internal
combustion is very inefficient compared to electric power. Much harder
is to replace domestic heating, since this already converts fossil fuel
to domestic heat at about 65-95% efficiency.
tkgo...@ktcnslt.com
In whose universe??? You consume 10 to 20% of it just getting Oil out
of the ground.
And what power plant has 100% conversion efficiency?
> >
> > LOL!
> > Well now Sparky, YOUR own POSTS have included figures such as this.
> > Are you telling me you've been posting "bogus" and "unsupported" numbers?
> > Or is it that you simply don't read, or comprehend, the stuff you post?
> >
> > You have included articles stating the US consumption of oil is 19 million
> > barrels a day, and that this is approx 25% of the worlds consumption.
> > 19million * 4 = 76million barrels/day -which is not too far from the 81
> > million barrels/day I found.
> > Chances are the 81 million number is more current for world use, since
> > consumption elsewhere in the world is increasing rapidly.
> >
> > > > Say approx 164 watts per square meter average insolation, per 24 hour
> > day@
> > > > 15% efficiency = ~25 watts/square meter/24 hours net production.
> > >
> > > This number is bogus.
> > >
> > > Nothing past this point in your spew is considered. Go back and reuse
> > > real world PV output figures (and support your 81 megabarrel/day thesis
> > > while you are at it). Then come back with corrected and supported
> > > numbers and start over.
Bzzzt.. RED HERRING alert.. see below...
P.S. I love to see you try to convert 81MB of oil into 139B kWh..
Answer.... Ain't going to happen...
Don't forget to subtract out at least 20% (of your oil resource) as
overhead just to get the oil out of the ground, transported, and and
refinied into something useful.
> >
> > YOU posted an article about a solar PV system being installed in a winery.
> > The numbers in that post were 34,625 ft^2 of panels, expected to produce
> > 411kW of electricity. This is about 127 watts/m^2...in "sunny California".
> > Using your Quote: "say 6 hours" (quote included below) production, this is
> > 762 watts/m^2.
>
> OK. You have provided figures which you have derived from mutually
> satisfactory sources. We have both accepted numbers on the table:
>
> The number 81 megabarrels represents current wasteful and profligate
> conversion to CO2 eco-death.
> A commonly accepted energy equivilence factor represented in electrical
> terms is 139,060,800,000 kWh/day.
A vast majority(>80%) of the chemical energy stored in oil is wasted
during various phases of drilling, transportation, refining and
chemical conversion to more useful forms of energy. Note: Current
crop of autos are less the 10% efficient.
P.S. Throw in DOD resources(300B$/yr) needed to stabilize trade
routes and Oil producing regions and the average loss probably
increases into 90%+ range.
Using a straight apples to apples comparison of PV output verses
Oil is a RED HERRING. Electrical energy is a higher order energy with
superior conversion efficiencies.
===============
Snip... most of overly long post... using some invalid assumptions..
Low cost Si tech quickly approaching 20% conversion efficiencies...
with commercial modules avail in the 16-17% range..
http://www.sanyo.com/aboutsanyo/press_releases_detail.cfm?id=154
"SANYO Introduces 195 Watt Solar Panel for North America"
"Cell efficiency is 19.0% and module efficiency is 16.5%. The HIT-195W
is available in limited quantities from SANYO's authorized
representatives."
and
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNATE28.htm
"March 22, 2005"
"Tokyo, Japan: SANYO Develops 21.6% Efficient HIT Solar Cell "
==========
Second, I see no reason why the US should bear the burden of
supplying the replacement energy source for the whole WORLD! The US
does NOT have a monoploy on solar flux falling on the earth.
FYI... Most Oil is a form of stored solar energy. Captured and
stored at very low efficiencies. A 0.0000001% conversion efficiency
would be overly optimistic.
Partially convering a small faction of our deserts yeild's
sufficient energy to displace most of the US's dependency on fossil
fuels.
==========
stuff worth repeating..
>Unlike you, I don't see it as a virtue to slap bandaids on hemorrhages.
>The 20th century lifestyle experiments failed, and they failed
>completely, dramatically, undeniably, massively and conspicuously.
>Anybody still trying to salvage that mess gets no respect from me.
>
>You produced the numbers: 81 gigabarrels of oil per day required (not
>counting coal, gas, biomass, volcanos) feeding the hurricane-factories,
>spreading the oceanic dead zones, exterminating 50,000 species per
>year.
Note: it's 83MBpd. for the whole world.. US consumption is around
21MBpd..
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/h1tab.html
Fortunately.
H2 based fuel cells will not be part of a wide scale transportation
solution. As there are several lower cost alternatives which result in
far less energy loss. Additionally, pure H2 is just too hazardous to
be widely deployed. (Suicide bombers would love H2 powered autos. )
Any H2 produced using surplus PV, and Wind capacity has better uses
elsewhere. Mix H2 with NG to temporarily increase gas supplies, (5 to
10%). Store H2 in depleted NG fields and then use it to power modern
Combined Cycle power plants (>60% eff) when needed. Use H2 as
feedstock to improve efficiency of biomass reactors, etc..
H2-PV NOW
Germany is mostly northwards of the US state of Maine.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/maps/2000s/2004world.jpg
http://faculty.washington.edu/rcolven/Colven_SAfrica/world-map-country-names.gif
http://staff.washington.edu/aganse/references/map.world.gif
The further polewards you go away from the equator, the lower total
insolation you can get per year. Germany gets 0.95 KWH peak, versus
1.35 KWH peak at the equator. If you are trying to commit a fraud,
looking for data which lies about PV energy around the world, why then
you look for examples where the performance is worst, as you just did.
> Typical installation produce 800-1100 kWh/KWp/a, tracking systems go up
> to 1700 kwh/KWp/a.
>
> That's about 12% utilisation. Assuming you get about 140W / m2, that
> would average about 16W / m2, or perhaps 30W for a tracking system.
>
> A light weight (1 ton) electric vehilce does 10km/KWh (battery power),
> at best.
Show me where on your birth certificate you are guaranteed lifetime
priviledeges of hauling around a ton or two of metal every time you
want to go someplace? Why should MY world be injured because you are
stupid about YOUR world?
Decades ago composite materials with 1/4 the weight of steel but all
the same tensile strength were introduced. Race cars in the Indy500
commonly uses composite auto bodies instead of steel -- why don't you
learn something from these professionals? Surely you cannot be claiming
you are driving under more hazardous conditions than they are? That you
need heavy steel (but they don't) for safety reasons?
We have already established you are a liar.
Now we have established you are stupid too.
> 1m2 of PV will produce about 140KWhrs / year. That will produce about
> 100KWHrs in the battery, enough to drive 1,000km.
>
> A typical car does about 10,000km per year in England (I suspect more
> in the USA), so would need at least 10m2 of solar PV.
Here we establish you are are a wasteful glutton.
Because electricity flows through wires great distances, it can be
transported from where it is easier to make it to where it is desired
to be bought, instead of making it where it is hard to produce.
A combination Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) can go 180 miles
on a gallon of gasoline. For ordinary commutes, PHEV can use battery
power alone for the first 50 or 60 miles. While sunlight is scarce in
Germany, wind and hydro are abundant at more northerly latitudes.
Most trips are made with one person onboard. What we need is one-seater
commute vehicles and centrally convenient rental agencies offering an
assortment of larger vehicles for uncommon trips. Rental agencies turn
over their fleets more often than private owners, and maintain them to
high standards of professionalism.
> So 30 million cars in the UK would need at least 300km2 of solar PV.
No they don't. We need brain transplant operations for those
unfortunates who believe they have a right to perpetuate a known
polluting technology in a massively wasteful manner. Once you get a
working brain you will see things a lot differently.
> 150 million US cars would need about 2,500km2. If for some strange
> reason you decide to convert electricty to hydrogen, and then back to
> eletricity, you probably need to double or treble this figure.
There's nothing strange about elimination of carbon emissions. What is
strange is those people who want to keep pouroing them out when they
have been informed of the negative consequences of that behavior.
Solar is inherently intermittant. It must be stored somehow to be
useful energy when the sun is not powering the system. In addition,
total vehicle efficiency needs require some chemical fuel onboard.
Hydrogen is the future fuel for these and other reasons -- every nation
on earth with research capability is studying how best to incorporate
hydrogen as a central feature of their future energy security.
We have determined that you are a liar, stupid, wasteful glutton, and
now a traitor to your people. Energy security is a centrally-important
reason to study hydrogen solution, because petro-fuels render nations
dependant on despotic and tyrannical regimes. This is not tolerable by
free people.
> If the car battery problem can be solved, cars are easy, since internal
> combustion is very inefficient compared to electric power. Much harder
> is to replace domestic heating, since this already converts fossil fuel
> to domestic heat at about 65-95% efficiency.
Carbon-fuels are off the table from consideration. Figure out the
energy system that serves your needs without carbon-fuels. Hydrogen
fuel cells deliver heat, some as hot as 800oC, other at temperatures
convenient for domestic hot water at 70-80oC.
Don't use our time with any more of your lying, stupid, wasteful
gluttony treason.
Bret Cahill
< mile range requires 7.5 gallons of gasoline. Convert the
< BTUs in gasoline to electrical equivilent potental energy:
< (112,000 BTUs/gal x 7.5 = 840,000 BTUs = 246.1797
< KWHs.
So far so good . . .
< Pump 246.1797 KWHs into batteries in 3 minutes = (20 x 246.1797 KWHs)
= 4923.594 KW
Ok, we're still talking . . .
< in 3 minutes = 1641.198 KW per minute
WHAT in the @^%$#!(!@! is a kW per minute?
The slope of a line?
< = 1,641,198 watts per minute
You should have stopped back at 5 megawatts.
Now everyone knows you ain't no EE.
Bret Cahill
boB_K7IQ
K. Jones
Before I reply, looking back at my previous post, I erred in:
(i) taking 15% of 164 watts/meter, when I should have been taking 15% of
1kW.
(ii) dividing 1 hours production by 24, instead of 6 hours production by 24
The land-use figures were way too high as a result. My apologies.
"H2-PV NOW" wrote:
> OK. You have provided figures which you have derived from mutually
> satisfactory sources. We have both accepted numbers on the table:
>
> The number 81 megabarrels represents current wasteful and profligate
> conversion to CO2 eco-death.
> A commonly accepted energy equivilence factor represented in electrical
> terms is 139,060,800,000 kWh/day.
>
> That's one whole 24-hour day, not one 24th of one day.
> 139060800000 / 24hours = 5794200000 kWh per hour, if you like the
> hourly rate of conversion of oil into waste products. Then we can
> compare your hourly electricity to hourly oil consumption over 24 hours
> on a fair and equal basis.
>
> Since PV panels are rated in watts per meter, not kilowatts, we need to
> multiply your figure of KILO-watt hours by 1000 to obtain watt-hours.
> 5,794,200,000 x 1000 = 5,794,200,000,000 watt-hours.
Ok so far.
> I believe that you will agree that is a fairly derived number from
> sources mutually agreed upon. That number is energy currently being
> mined from the oil deposits, brought to the surface, refined into motor
> fuels and assorted petrochemicals such as plastics. It does not
> represent coal or natural gas or other carbon fuels and carbon-emission
> sources such as methane from bio-decay products. It does not represent
> natural carbon emissions from volcanic sources.
>
> Dealing with the numbers provided, let's look at the first pass, first
> approximation of what they represent in solar insolation from
> conventional PV devices.
<snip off track>
> That's why we need to use my original numbers of peak watts per
> average of six hours per day. Instead of 31.75 watts per hour, there
> are six hours of peak production.
> You computed a figure acceptable to you of 175 watts per meter, per
> peak hour. That's higher than the 130 watts figure I typically use, but
> I compute based on muticrystalline PV @ 13% output DC measured at the
> output. The winery may be using higher grade PV of 17% efficiency.
No. 175 watts/m^2 is off by 72.5%.
Please re-read the paragraph about the winery
I got 127 watts/m^2, based on your article.
But I'm ok with "the 130 watts figure you typically use".
> Using your number there are 1,050 total watts DC per m^2 per day.
You didn't get that from me, that's not "my number".
Please re-read the paragraph. I got 762 watts/m^2, based on your 6 hours
production/day.
Using your 130 watts/m^2 * 6 hours = 780 watt-hours.
>There
> are not 31.75 watts at midnight and 31.75 watts at noon. This makes a
> big difference in accounting for area consumed. 1 KWH takes one meter
> using my measurements and it takes 33 square meters using your numbers.
Wait a minute. According to you Quote: "the 130 watts figure I typically
use".
You are contradicting yourself....you're now claiming a 769% increase over
your own number.
If you want to use kWh, then *your* 130 watts becomes 0.13kW/m^2
> Going back to the mutually-agreed upon figures, 139,060,800,000
> kWh/day, each KWH needs roughly one square meter of PV.
No, using your numbers, (130 watts/m^2), each kW requires 7.69 m^2
> In each square mile there are 2,589,988 square meters. 139,060,800,000
> divided by 2,589,988 = 53,692 square miles.
You agreed with 139,060,800,000kWh for 81,000,000 barrels oil/day
You said you "typically use" 130 watts/m^2 (0.13kW/m^2/hour or 0.78kW
produced in 6 hours)
139,060,800,000kWh divided by 0.78kW/sq.meter/day = 178,283,076,923 m^2
Take the efficiency of electrolysis, compressing the hydrogen, and less
than "ideal" output,
and you are looking at roughly 350,000km^2.
Or by your numbers, paving an area 1.5 times the size of the state of Nevada
with PV panels.
Enviros are going to love your plan (tongue firmly in cheek)
That's just for the PV panels, now you can start building your electrolysis
machines, compressors,
storage tanks, etc. Shipping 9 billion lbs H2 around the world, every day?
Does this seem plausible, or economically feasible, to you?
There is no one "right answer". The worlds future supplies of energy are
going to have to come from a diverse mix of sources, and "first world"
nations are going to have to cut their per capita consumption sharply.
The most efficient, and economically viable methods will win out.....and a
"H2-PV" world, isn't it.
> http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nv_geography.htm
> Total Area: Nevada covers 110,567 square miles, making it the 7th
> largest of the 50 states.
>
> Nevada covers about twice the land area required to equal the present
> total global oil daily consumption, based on commercially produced PV
> panels, using numbers you have shown you are accepting.
>
> What has not been done has been the full accounting, by me or by you.
Agreed, it doesn't even scratch the surface, it's a grade-school approach to
a very complex problem.
Just an exercise to stimulate thought about the magnitude of the situation
we will be facing soon enough.
Hopefully towards more sensible routes than this "hydrogen" economy "no
show".
<snip>
> Unlike you, I don't see it as a virtue to slap bandaids on hemorrhages.
> The 20th century lifestyle experiments failed, and they failed
> completely, dramatically, undeniably, massively and conspicuously.
> Anybody still trying to salvage that mess gets no respect from me.
Who suggested we should continue to piss massive amounts of energy away?
Conserving fossil-fuel derived energy is "slapping Band-Aids on", to you?
If we don't, the "patient" will bleed this planet to death before the cure
is found.
Renewable energies are diffuse, and a valuable resource.
Pretty silly to piss half it away as waste. Conserve first.
Low hanging fruit example. Solar Thermal. Easy, and economically
viable...today....decent payback period.
If you call reducing world oil consumption by a billion barrels a year,
*right now*, "slapping Band Aids", so be it.
<snipped some kind of US-centric political rant>
I'm not from the US. This is not a "US" forum, but a world-wide forum.
(Thus the discussion on the "world's" energy needs, as apposed to only the
USA's energy needs.
This is a global problem, not confined to Nevada, Kentucky, or the USA)
Whatever local political rant about Louisiana, or Kansas, or whatever that
was, I snipped, unread, has no place here.
K. Jones
K. Jones
<tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1132935220.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > K. Jones wrote:
> > > > > Hmmmm.......Quick BOTE calc....
> > > > > ( 1,700 kWh/barrel * 81,000,000 = 139,060,800,000 kWh/day)
> > > >H2-PV wrote:
> > > > 81 million barrels per day unsupported. 1700 kWh/barrel commonly
> > > > accepted equivilence (50.8 kg H2/barrel).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tkgoogle wrote:
> In whose universe??? You consume 10 to 20% of it just getting Oil out
> of the ground.
> And what power plant has 100% conversion efficiency?
I was under the impression that is barrels of oil "delivered"
The question is how much PV is required to produce an equivilent energy in
hydrogen, to those barrels, be it contained btu's, kWh's, whatever.
<snip>
> > > > Nothing past this point in your spew is considered. Go back and
reuse
> > > > real world PV output figures (and support your 81 megabarrel/day
thesis
> > > > while you are at it). Then come back with corrected and supported
> > > > numbers and start over.
>
> Bzzzt.. RED HERRING alert.. see below...
>
> P.S. I love to see you try to convert 81MB of oil into 139B kWh..
> Answer.... Ain't going to happen...
>
> Don't forget to subtract out at least 20% (of your oil resource) as
> overhead just to get the oil out of the ground, transported, and and
> refinied into something useful.
The question wasn't about converting the oil or hydrogen into anything.
kWh was a convienent method of comparing the energy content of the barrels
to an equivilent amount of hydrogen, and how much solar PV would be required
to do it. A barrel of oil has 'x' energy content, which is equivilent to
the energy content in 'y' m^3 of hydrogen. Like comparing Natural Gas to
say, Diesel fuel.
<snip>
> A vast majority(>80%) of the chemical energy stored in oil is wasted
> during various phases of drilling, transportation, refining and
> chemical conversion to more useful forms of energy. Note: Current
> crop of autos are less the 10% efficient.
>
> P.S. Throw in DOD resources(300B$/yr) needed to stabilize trade
> routes and Oil producing regions and the average loss probably
> increases into 90%+ range.
>
> Using a straight apples to apples comparison of PV output verses
> Oil is a RED HERRING. Electrical energy is a higher order energy with
> superior conversion efficiencies.
Converting various energy sources to a particular measuring system (be it
BTU's, kWh's, calories, whatever) is pretty standard practice.
i.e, if I want to heat 'x' quantity of water, I can do it with either say
39 ft^3 of natural gas, or about 1 litre of oil.
I know this because I did an equivilent energy content of the fuels. This
is not a "red herring", it is useful. I can now compare my costs, as well.
We know oil is used for many things besides heating water, but it's suitable
for the purposes of the discussion.
>
>
> ===============
>
> Snip... most of overly long post... using some invalid assumptions..
>
> Low cost Si tech quickly approaching 20% conversion efficiencies...
> with commercial modules avail in the 16-17% range..
>
> http://www.sanyo.com/aboutsanyo/press_releases_detail.cfm?id=154
>
> "SANYO Introduces 195 Watt Solar Panel for North America"
> "Cell efficiency is 19.0% and module efficiency is 16.5%. The HIT-195W
> is available in limited quantities from SANYO's authorized
> representatives."
>
> and
>
> http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNATE28.htm
> "March 22, 2005"
> "Tokyo, Japan: SANYO Develops 21.6% Efficient HIT Solar Cell "
>
>
> ==========
>
> Second, I see no reason why the US should bear the burden of
> supplying the replacement energy source for the whole WORLD! The US
> does NOT have a monoploy on solar flux falling on the earth.
No one was suggesting that the burden falls upon the US. The land areas
(ie, that's as big as (insert known geographic area here)), was simply to
get a feel for the size of the land mass we are talking about. It could
have been some state in Africa, Europe, Middle East, wherever. Pick any
place you like, makes no difference.
K. Jones
Nanook
> I like Wireless Transmitted Fusion myself. Use it all the time.
> www.wirelessfusion.org
That's a cute way of presenting PV solar; yes I like it too but there is
an energy density issue that limits it's scalability unless you go to things
like satellite based systems beaming energy down via microwaves. I'm a little
concerned that such a system could readily be converted into a weapons system.
An interesting side note; I once possessed an original hand-written
(Slavic) book of Tesla's. Unfortunately, it was removed (stolen) from a
storage locker in an Apartment I was living at at the time.
Not speaking the language I couldn't understand the text, but the
drawings were interesting.
H2-PV
news:dm8vok$lau$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com:
> In article <4fqfo1lfbeaj5jfqq...@4ax.com>, boB_K7IQ
> <boB> writes:
>> I like Wireless Transmitted Fusion myself. Use it all the time.
>> www.wirelessfusion.org
>
> That's a cute way of presenting PV solar; yes I like it too but
> there is
> an energy density issue that limits it's scalability unless you go to
> things like satellite based systems beaming energy down via
> microwaves. I'm a little concerned that such a system could readily
> be converted into a weapons system.
>
> An interesting side note; I once possessed an original
> hand-written
> (Slavic) book of Tesla's. Unfortunately, it was removed (stolen) from
> a storage locker in an Apartment I was living at at the time.
>
> Not speaking the language I couldn't understand the text, but the
> drawings were interesting.
>
Basic facts.
* Solar insolation varies from the equator to the poles, but is
averaged at 1 KWH peak in the mid temperate zones.
* Daily clear skies varies by location. Peak hours range from 5 to 7,
(more in summer, less in winter,) averaged at 6 daily peak hours around the
year.
* PV may be assumed at 13% efficiency DC electricity measured at panel
outputs. This is rated at 780 watts-hours DC per day per meter square in
electrical energy. ANU CHAPS system has increased this by using trough
reflectors to attain 25% efficiency DC (1500 watt-hours per m^2 daily) plus
44% efficiency heat energy capture (2,640 watt-hours thermal = 9000 BTUs
daily) per meter squared, for combined energy harvest efficiency of 69% per
meter squared.
* Electrolysis occurs with theoretical voltage of 1.25V DC, but in
practice ranges from 1.7V to 2.2V DC. The reason for higher than
theoretical voltages mostly centers around electrically-charged gas bubbles
sticking to electrodes causing additional resistence voltage drop across
the bubbles.
* Silicon PV generates 1.74V DC on average.
* Hydrogen has approximate equivilent energy contents of 1 kg H2 = 1
gallon gasoline = 122,000 BTU = 35 KWHs.
* One mole of liquid water (18 grams, 18 cc = 1.2 tablespoons) expands
to 22 liters of H2 (5.8 gallons) and 11 liters of O2. In closed pressure
vessels this is self-pressurizing as the reaction proceeds: each liter of
water expands to 1222 liters of H2 gas volume (and 611 liters of O2 gas
volume).
* Several kinds of fuel cells are reversable: they consume electricity
and produce H2 + O2 in one mode, consume H2 + O2 and produce electricty in
another mode, at high rates of system efficiency.
* High Temperature Electrolysis (HTE) operates at nearly perfect
matched temperatures to high-temperature fuel cells. Molten carbonate fuel
cells operate at 650°C, Solid oxide fuel cells around 1000°C
* PV is a near perfect match for low temperature water electrolysis.
Electrolysis systems need to be specified as to the energy input
specifications -- merely giving "efficiency" numbers without specifying if
this is rectified AC stepped down from higher voltages, or PV DC is useless
information at best, misleading or deceptive information at worst.
From these facts additional facts can be derived.
Multicrystalline PV 13% efficiency:
* It takes an ideal 270 m^2 one hour to produce 1 kg H2. (35000 whr /
130 w @ 13% DC efficiency PV).
* Practically, with 60% efficiency electrolysis, it takes 450 m^ per 1
kg per hour @ 13% efficiency PV.
* One acre makes 54 kg per six-hour day @ 13% PV, 60% electrolysis.
* One acre makes 19,710 kg H2 per year.
CHAPS (Combined Heat and Power Solar) = 25% PV & 44% Heat
* Ideally, 140 m^2 = 1 kg H2 from PV per hour, 81.3 m^ per kg H2
equivilent BTUs from solar thermal per hour.
* Realistically 233 m^2 per hour @ 13% PV, 60% electrolysis.
* Solar Thermal converted to steam power AC electricity @ 90%, then
60% efficiency electrolysis = 150 m^2 per kg per hour.
* One acre of CHAPS produces 17.4 kg H2 per hour, 104 kg per six hour
day from 25% efficiency PV.
* One acre of CHAPS produces 27 kg H2 per hour, 162 kg per six hour
day thermal --> AC --> electrolysis.
* CHAPS = 17.4 + 27 = 44.4 kg H2 per hour per acre, 266.4 kg H2 per
day, 97,236 kg H2 per year.
* There continues to be useful amounts of concentrated thermal energy
left after the outlet side of the steam generation, available for process
energy where atmospheric pressure steam or hot water is valued (space-
heating co-gen, cannery, laundry etc.)
These are relatively conservative estimates. Dish-Sterling generates AC at
25% solar efficiency. Fresnel lenses concentrating on PV generate 25%-30%
efficiency. Solar Thermal devices capturing better than 60% total solar
energy exist. High Temperature Electrolysis gets higher efficiencies than
low temperature electrolysis.
Farmers get $30k per year raising premium high-value crops, sometimes as
low as $300/yr for hayfields or raising grass seed low-value crops, per
acre. It is easy to see that H2-PV returns higher value per acre.
H2-PV is predicated on low-cost multicrystalline PV produced in EMC
furnaces.
Another set of calculations will demonstrate the solar energy required to
produce the PV cells on a per acre basis.
* Again, starting with 13% mc PV, the wattage is 130 w per m^2.
* There are 4047 m^2 per acre.
* PV DC per acre is 526 KWHs per hour
Data taken from the website of the guy who patented EMC:
http://www.siliconsultant.com/SICompGr.htm
* 35 Width (cm)
* 400 Weight (kg)
* 1.5-2 Growth Rate (mm/min)
* 30 Growth Rate (kg/h)
* 600 Throughput (m2/day) -- Areal throughput for ingots assumes 20
wafers/cm
* 12 Energy Use (kWh/kg)
* 35 Energy Use (kWh/m2) -- Only the energy for growth is included
* <14, 16. Efficiency (Typical, best %)
Key points: an acre of PV is 4047 m^2. EMC production as high as 600 m^2
per day suggests that it takes 6.8 days to make a net acre of PV
waferstocks. However, further study of the figures shows that production
days are (400 kg / 30 kg/hr) 13.3 hours of production each day, which
exceeds pure solar energy as the power source at this rate of production.
360 KWHrs per hour are also required for this production rate.
* 360 KW x 13.3 hours = 1,188 KWH per day.
* 526 KWHs per hour x 6 peak hours = 3,156 KWHs PV DC per day per
acre.
On a theoretical basis, one acre of land can breed enough PV to cover
another acre of land with PV in 7 days. This number is theoretical, and
only applies to formation of crystalline ingots from SoG Si purified to 5-
nines purity (99.999%). In actuality, it represents about 40% of total
energy embodied in the final PV panels, therefore the energy requirement
from solar power to make an acre of solar panels is 2.5 times 7 days, or
17.5 days total.
One PV Breeder facility can generate 21 acres of PV panels per year from
one acre PV initial investment completely on H2-PV synergies.
H2-PV
news:mHRhf.33090$gK4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> <snip>
> Before I reply, looking back at my previous post, I erred in:
> (i) taking 15% of 164 watts/meter, when I should have been taking 15%
> of 1kW.
> (ii) dividing 1 hours production by 24, instead of 6 hours production
> by 24 The land-use figures were way too high as a result. My
> apologies.
OK. I make mistakes. As a type II diabetic my blood glucose swings widely,
and during hours of excess glucose causes a temporary state of something
like dyslexia. I make mistakes and so do others. I can respect anyone who
bothers to correct themself or accepts correction, and it's a standard I
follow myself. I try to write down the math as I go as memory jogs for
later, how I got the numbers I use.
OK. WE are in agreement on figures up to this point.
780 watt hours per 24 hour day = 0.78 KWH per day per m^2.
Reconstructiong the math:
* 139,060,800,000 kWh/day gasoline equivilent.
* 139,060,800,000 / 0.78 = 178283076923.077 m^2
* 1 mile = 2,589,988 m^2
* 178283076923.077 divided by 2589988 = 68835.5 miles^2
>> http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nv_geography.htm
>> Total Area: Nevada covers 110,567 square miles, making it the 7th
>> largest of the 50 states.
The numbers come closer to my original than any attempt you have so far
produced.
The ENTIRE global production of OIL energy-equivilent of the WHOLE WORLD'S
consumption (in a profligate wasteful manner) fits well inside the borders
of the state of Nevada a square whose sides are 262.4 miles on a side.
The USA share of that daily consumption represents 21% of the total:
* 68835.5 x 0.21 = 14,455.5 miles^2
A little bigger than Maryland, a lot smaller than West Virginia...
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml
West Virginia 24,231 square miles
Maryland 12,407 square miles
That is not what I advocate. That is simply rebuttal to your inflated
figures which go far out of bounds.
That is using 13% efficiency PV DC measured at the panels outputs. Using
ANU CHAPS the numbers are much better. Total efficiencies of 69% are
measured at the outputs, composed of 25% PV DC and 44% solar thermal useful
for high efficiency steam generation at about 90% net efficiency (that is
90% of 44%) = 39.6% AC measured at the outputs of the generator).
These numbers can be tweaked even better, but you like to throw in multiple
random factors which confuse the issues and belie the typical industry
level of competence.
Here's the next set of figures. Hopefully I have not gotten confused
anywhere in writing every step in the math down for verification.
One PV Breeder facility can generate 21 acres of PV panels per year from
one acre PV initial investment completely on H2-PV synergies.
One acre PV Breeder can output one breeder every 17.5 days. If each new
breeder them also breeds new breeders the number of acres established as
solar PV Breeders is 2,097,152 in one year (2^21st power). There are 640
acres per mile^2, so in one year, one acre can breed 3,276.8 square miles
of PV BREEDERS. It then takes FOUR MONTHS to finish the job of Breeding the
remainder of the 14,455.5 miles^2 to obtain 100% energy freedom from oil
monopoly despots and tyrants -- a grand total of 16 months from rollout to
completion.
H2-PV
news:ulmgo1pu12i9dfcfa...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:54:27 GMT, "H2-PV" <H2...@zig-zag.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
> snip of lots of interesting but not verified numbers
<snip useless commentary on the obvious>
All the facts are verifiable. Your problem is you don't have the skill
lever required to use google, or a decent cheap chinese import scientific
calculator (or even a free software calculator).
One PV Breeder facility can generate 21 acres of PV panels per year from
one acre PV initial investment completely on H2-PV synergies.
Basic facts.
*** Solar insolation varies from the equator to the poles, but is
averaged at 1 KWH peak in the mid temperate zones.
*** Daily clear skies varies by location. Peak hours range from 5 to 7,
(more in summer, less in winter,) averaged at 6 daily peak hours around the
year.
*** PV may be assumed at 13% efficiency DC electricity measured at panel
outputs. This is rated at 780 watts-hours DC per day per meter square in
electrical energy. ANU CHAPS system has increased this by using trough
reflectors to attain 25% efficiency DC (1500 watt-hours per m^2 daily) plus
44% efficiency heat energy capture (2,640 watt-hours thermal = 9000 BTUs
daily) per meter squared, for combined energy harvest efficiency of 69% per
meter squared.
*** Electrolysis occurs with theoretical voltage of 1.25V DC, but in
practice ranges from 1.7V to 2.2V DC. The reason for higher than
theoretical voltages mostly centers around electrically-charged gas bubbles
sticking to electrodes causing additional resistence voltage drop across
the bubbles.
*** Silicon PV generates 1.74V DC on average.
*** Hydrogen has approximate equivilent energy contents of 1 kg H2 = 1
gallon gasoline = 122,000 BTU = 35 KWHs.
*** One mole of liquid water (18 grams, 18 cc = 1.2 tablespoons) expands
to 22 liters of H2 (5.8 gallons) and 11 liters of O2. In closed pressure
vessels this is self-pressurizing as the reaction proceeds: each liter of
water expands to 1222 liters of H2 gas volume (and 611 liters of O2 gas
volume).
*** Several kinds of fuel cells are reversable: they consume electricity
and produce H2 + O2 in one mode, consume H2 + O2 and produce electricty in
another mode, at high rates of system efficiency.
*** High Temperature Electrolysis (HTE) operates at nearly perfect
matched temperatures to high-temperature fuel cells. Molten carbonate fuel
cells operate at 650°C, Solid oxide fuel cells around 1000°C
*** PV is a near perfect match for low temperature water electrolysis.
Electrolysis systems need to be specified as to the energy input
specifications -- merely giving "efficiency" numbers without specifying if
this is rectified AC stepped down from higher voltages, or PV DC is useless
information at best, misleading or deceptive information at worst.
From these facts additional facts can be derived.
Multicrystalline PV 13% efficiency:
*** It takes an ideal 270 m^2 one hour to produce 1 kg H2. (35000 whr /
130 w @ 13% DC efficiency PV).
*** Practically, with 60% efficiency electrolysis, it takes 450 m^ per 1
kg per hour @ 13% efficiency PV.
*** One acre makes 54 kg per six-hour day @ 13% PV, 60% electrolysis.
*** One acre makes 19,710 kg H2 per year.
CHAPS (Combined Heat and Power Solar) = 25% PV & 44% Heat
*** Ideally, 140 m^2 = 1 kg H2 from PV per hour, 81.3 m^ per kg H2
equivilent BTUs from solar thermal per hour.
*** Realistically 233 m^2 per hour @ 13% PV, 60% electrolysis.
*** Solar Thermal converted to steam power AC electricity @ 90%, then
60% efficiency electrolysis = 150 m^2 per kg per hour.
*** One acre of CHAPS produces 17.4 kg H2 per hour, 104 kg per six hour
day from 25% efficiency PV.
*** One acre of CHAPS produces 27 kg H2 per hour, 162 kg per six hour
day thermal --> AC --> electrolysis.
*** CHAPS = 17.4 + 27 = 44.4 kg H2 per hour per acre, 266.4 kg H2 per
day, 97,236 kg H2 per year.
*** There continues to be useful amounts of concentrated thermal energy
left after the outlet side of the steam generation, available for process
energy where atmospheric pressure steam or hot water is valued (space-
heating co-gen, cannery, laundry etc.)
These are relatively conservative estimates. Dish-Sterling generates AC at
25% solar efficiency. Fresnel lenses concentrating on PV generate 25%-30%
efficiency. Solar Thermal devices capturing better than 60% total solar
energy exist. High Temperature Electrolysis gets higher efficiencies than
low temperature electrolysis.
Farmers get $30k per year raising premium high-value crops, sometimes as
low as $300/yr for hayfields or raising grass seed low-value crops, per
acre. It is easy to see that H2-PV returns higher value per acre.
H2-PV is predicated on low-cost multicrystalline PV produced in EMC
furnaces.
Another set of calculations will demonstrate the solar energy required to
produce the PV cells on a per acre basis.
*** Again, starting with 13% mc PV, the wattage is 130 w per m^2.
*** There are 4047 m^2 per acre.
*** PV DC per acre is 526 KWHs per hour
Data taken from the website of the guy who patented EMC:
http://www.siliconsultant.com/SICompGr.htm
*** 35 Width (cm)
*** 400 Weight (kg)
*** 1.5-2 Growth Rate (mm/min)
*** 30 Growth Rate (kg/h)
*** 600 Throughput (m2/day) -- Areal throughput for ingots assumes 20
wafers/cm
*** 12 Energy Use (kWh/kg)
*** 35 Energy Use (kWh/m2) -- Only the energy for growth is included
*** <14, 16. Efficiency (Typical, best %)
Key points: an acre of PV is 4047 m^2. EMC production as high as 600 m^2
per day suggests that it takes 6.8 days to make a net acre of PV
waferstocks. However, further study of the figures shows that production
days are (400 kg / 30 kg/hr) 13.3 hours of production each day, which
exceeds pure solar energy as the power source at this rate of production.
360 KWHrs per hour are also required for this production rate.
*** 360 KW x 13.3 hours = 1,188 KWH per day.
*** 526 KWHs per hour x 6 peak hours = 3,156 KWHs PV DC per day per
acre.
On a theoretical basis, one acre of land can breed enough PV to cover
another acre of land with PV in 7 days. This number is theoretical, and
only applies to formation of crystalline ingots from SoG Si purified to 5-
nines purity (99.999%). In actuality, it represents about 40% of total
energy embodied in the final PV panels, therefore the energy requirement
from solar power to make an acre of solar panels is 2.5 times 7 days, or
17.5 days total.
One PV Breeder facility can generate 21 acres of PV panels per year from
one acre PV initial investment completely on H2-PV synergies.
Alex Terrell
H2-PV NOW
Alex Terrell wrote:
> You seem to have a problem
You're right. It's called Global Warming.
But I have the cure right here.
Basic facts.
valued (space-heating co-gen, cannery, laundry etc.)
5-nines purity (99.999%). In actuality, it represents about 40% of
tkgo...@ktcnslt.com
<shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
><tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
>news:1132935220.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > > K. Jones wrote:
>> > > > > Hmmmm.......Quick BOTE calc....
>> > > > > ( 1,700 kWh/barrel * 81,000,000 = 139,060,800,000 kWh/day)
>
>> > > >H2-PV wrote:
>> > > > 81 million barrels per day unsupported. 1700 kWh/barrel commonly
>> > > > accepted equivilence (50.8 kg H2/barrel).
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>tkgoogle wrote:
>> In whose universe??? You consume 10 to 20% of it just getting Oil out
>> of the ground.
>> And what power plant has 100% conversion efficiency?
>
>I was under the impression that is barrels of oil "delivered"
"delivered" from whom?? It might be factored in the price.. But it's
not part of normal conversion calculations..
Exactly how many barrels of Oil in Louisiana and Mississippi were
refined and delivered after Katrina and Rita stomped the power grid.
Answer Zero..
Heck they couldn't even pump oil out of strategic petroleum
reserve.. The Oil industry consumes copious amounts of external energy
input.
Super tankers consume a couple percent moving crude oil 1/2 around
the world..
How about the gasoline tanker fueling up you local service station?
They consume a gallon of diesel every couple of miles..
Who built and maintains all that infrastructure, pipelines, oil
rigs, well casings, refineries, super tankers, ports, service stations,
etc.. where did the energy come from?
Operating the refinery.. They don't refine a drop of crude without
external grid power.. Don't forget the refineries waste products and
other raw material inputs.
And the BIG one.. As cheap oil becomes depleted, the energy
consumption/net loss in the supply chain increases.
All that energy waste goes away once Oil is displaced by higher form
of energy(electrical).
>The question is how much PV is required to produce an equivilent energy in
>hydrogen, to those barrels, be it contained btu's, kWh's, whatever.
Why ??? That's a very dumb way to compare energy sources..
BTU's is a low grade heat measurement..
And what percentage of those barrels of oil end up as heating
fuel??
While you're comparing low grade heat sources, why not assume every
watt of PV electricity produced is used to drive a heat pump with a COP
of 3 or 4?
(3 to 4 watts pumped for each watt input. )
><snip>
>
>> > > > Nothing past this point in your spew is considered. Go back and
>reuse
>> > > > real world PV output figures (and support your 81 megabarrel/day
>thesis
>> > > > while you are at it). Then come back with corrected and supported
>> > > > numbers and start over.
>>
>> Bzzzt.. RED HERRING alert.. see below...
>>
>> P.S. I love to see you try to convert 81MB of oil into 139B kWh..
>> Answer.... Ain't going to happen...
>>
>> Don't forget to subtract out at least 20% (of your oil resource) as
>> overhead just to get the oil out of the ground, transported, and and
>> refinied into something useful.
>
>The question wasn't about converting the oil or hydrogen into anything.
>kWh was a convienent method of comparing the energy content of the barrels
>to an equivilent amount of hydrogen, and how much solar PV would be required
>to do it. A barrel of oil has 'x' energy content, which is equivilent to
No society is ever going waste energy like that...
thus your comparison is a non-sequitor..
>the energy content in 'y' m^3 of hydrogen. Like comparing Natural Gas to
>say, Diesel fuel.
You comparing different forms of energy.
Electricity is far more useful in it's original form..
><snip>
>
>> A vast majority(>80%) of the chemical energy stored in oil is wasted
>> during various phases of drilling, transportation, refining and
>> chemical conversion to more useful forms of energy. Note: Current
>> crop of autos are less the 10% efficient.
>>
>> P.S. Throw in DOD resources(300B$/yr) needed to stabilize trade
>> routes and Oil producing regions and the average loss probably
>> increases into 90%+ range.
>>
>> Using a straight apples to apples comparison of PV output verses
>> Oil is a RED HERRING. Electrical energy is a higher order energy with
>> superior conversion efficiencies.
>
>Converting various energy sources to a particular measuring system (be it
>BTU's, kWh's, calories, whatever) is pretty standard practice.
Sorry... But it's a totally silly practice..
Especially when 90% of the lessor potential energy source (Oil) is
wasted converting it from a low grade form of kinetic energy(Thermal)
in order to make a higher grade of Kinetic energy like Electrical or
Motion energy.
Electric energy can be stored (chemically) at much higher
efficiencies, like Li-ION bats.. 95% (input verses output), and then
delivered to wheels (Motion) in the 90% eff range.
>i.e, if I want to heat 'x' quantity of water, I can do it with either say
>39 ft^3 of natural gas, or about 1 litre of oil.
>I know this because I did an equivilent energy content of the fuels. This
>is not a "red herring", it is useful. I can now compare my costs, as well.
>We know oil is used for many things besides heating water, but it's suitable
>for the purposes of the discussion.
It's still a Red Herring..
Because ~90% of the potential energy is wasted in various
conversions to higher forms of Kinetic Energy.
snip... rest of post..
stinkeroo
But his example assumes 100% energy from the gasoline, which is wrong.
Only 20% say makes it to wheels.
320 mile tank = 8 gallons = 37 * 8 kwh = .2 * 37 * 8 or 60 kwh
electrical. ( or 5 miles per kwh electric).
To charge this in 1 hour would take 60 kw? That's a big charger. 3
minutes? I don't know how they'd do that.
I think the plug-in hybrid would use say 4-5 kwh per day and you could
recharge that in 20 minutes to an hour. Wouldn't work for everyone
obviously, you'd need a garage and a charger.
But it would be a large reduction in gasoline for those who DO use it.
K. Jones
"H2-PV" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9719F2E0...@207.115.17.102...
> >"K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote in
K. Jones wrote:
> > No. 175 watts/m^2 is off by 72.5%.
> > Please re-read the paragraph about the winery
> > I got 127 watts/m^2, based on your article.
> > But I'm ok with "the 130 watts figure you typically use".
Sparky wrote:
> >>Using your number there are 1,050 total watts DC per m^2 per day.
K. Jones wrote:
> > You didn't get that from me, that's not "my number".
> > Please re-read the paragraph. I got 762 watts/m^2, based on your 6
> > hours production/day.
> > Using your 130 watts/m^2 * 6 hours = 780 watt-hours.
Sparky snipped what K. Jones wrote,
then repeats it exactly as hisown, but falls short, and fails to follow
through with *any* hydrogen production :
> OK. WE are in agreement on figures up to this point.
>
> 780 watt hours per 24 hour day = 0.78 KWH per day per m^2.
>
> Reconstructiong the math:
>
> * 139,060,800,000 kWh/day gasoline equivilent.
> * 139,060,800,000 / 0.78 = 178283076923.077 m^2
> * 1 mile = 2,589,988 m^2
> * 178283076923.077 divided by 2589988 = 68835.5 miles^2
>
> >> http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nv_geography.htm
> >> Total Area: Nevada covers 110,567 square miles, making it the 7th
> >> largest of the 50 states.
Then Sparky spews this:
> The numbers come closer to my original than any attempt you have so far
> produced.
LOL! Ummmmm no, that would be incorrect Sparky.
Your number matches mine exactly, all you did was repeat what I did, then
you snipped what I wrote.
You apparently "came up" with : "* 139,060,800,000 / 0.78 = 178283076923.077
m^2"
I'll put back what you snipped from the post you replied to:
K. Jones wrote: "139,060,800,000kWh divided by 0.78kW/sq.meter/day =
178,283,076,923 m^2"
However, you failed to complete it. You still haven't produced 1 m^3 of
hydrogen.
Take 50% MORE losses through the remaining production infrastructure,
ie,electrolysis, compression, storage....
Now you're in the neighborhood of 350,000 km^2
Before you simply repeat what I wrote *again*, let me put back what you
snipped out:
K. Jones wrote : "you are looking at roughly 350,000km^2. Or by your
numbers, paving an area 1.5 times the size of the state of Nevada with PV
panels."
Then funny guy Sparky comes up with this gem:
> That is simply rebuttal to your inflated figures which go far out of
bounds.
Hmmm, my "inflated figures which go far out of bounds", matches exactly what
you "came up" with, in your REPLY.
So when I come up with the number, it's "inflated figures which go far out
of bounds",
When you snip my numbers from your REPLY, then repeat them exactly, they
become "yours", and they're "rebuttal".
LOL! What a load of crap....no wonder nobody takes you seriously.
I'm spitting the hook, Mr. Troll.
Good day.
K. Jones
z
It wouldn't be much use to be able to recharge batteries in 3 minutes;
the distribution grid right now can't handle the peak daytime loads in
the summer, as is, so you're not going to be recharging your vehicle at
the rest stop while you grab a coffee on the way to grammie's house on
your summer vacation. If you ask any electric company guy about
electric cars, as far as they're concerned you're going to be
recharging those babies overnight, and for the vast majority of
drivers, a 3 minute recharge will be just as useful as a 6 hour
recharge. In fact, they see electric cars as a way to get some use/$$
out of the excess distribution capacity which sits there idle at times
other than peak; they're not anxious to tie up even more cash by
building even more distribution capacity to handle even higher peaks
and sit there idle the rest of the time.
K. Jones
<tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1133094184....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:09:30 -0500, "K. Jones"
> <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >
> ><tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
> >news:1132935220.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > > > > K. Jones wrote:
> >> > > > > Hmmmm.......Quick BOTE calc....
> >> > > > > ( 1,700 kWh/barrel * 81,000,000 = 139,060,800,000 kWh/day)
> >
> >> > > >H2-PV wrote:
> >> > > > 81 million barrels per day unsupported. 1700 kWh/barrel commonly
> >> > > > accepted equivilence (50.8 kg H2/barrel).
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >>tkgoogle wrote:
> >> In whose universe??? You consume 10 to 20% of it just getting Oil out
> >> of the ground.
> >> And what power plant has 100% conversion efficiency?
> >
> >I was under the impression that is barrels of oil "delivered"
>
> "delivered" from whom?? It might be factored in the price.. But it's
> not part of normal conversion calculations..
Doesn't matter. It's like we're comparing the calories in a slice of Aunt
Susan's strawberrry cheescake to a slice of Aunt Betty's blueberry
pie.....and you want to know who is delivering the strawberries, and at what
price....We're simply talking about energy content, calories, kWh's, BTU,
and perhaps, how many blueberries you can get from an acre.
> Exactly how many barrels of Oil in Louisiana and Mississippi were
> refined and delivered after Katrina and Rita stomped the power grid.
> Answer Zero..
Again, that's like saying no strawberries were picked during the storms.
May affect the price of the strawberries, but it doesn't affect how many
calories are in that slice of cheescake.
> Heck they couldn't even pump oil out of strategic petroleum
> reserve.. The Oil industry consumes copious amounts of external energy
> input.
>
> Super tankers consume a couple percent moving crude oil 1/2 around
> the world..
>
> How about the gasoline tanker fueling up you local service station?
> They consume a gallon of diesel every couple of miles..
>
> Who built and maintains all that infrastructure, pipelines, oil
> rigs, well casings, refineries, super tankers, ports, service stations,
> etc.. where did the energy come from?
>
> Operating the refinery.. They don't refine a drop of crude without
> external grid power.. Don't forget the refineries waste products and
> other raw material inputs.
>
> And the BIG one.. As cheap oil becomes depleted, the energy
> consumption/net loss in the supply chain increases.
Again, all that is about how the strawberries are manufactured and
delivered...we're talking about calories in the "delivered", or finished
cheescake.
> All that energy waste goes away once Oil is displaced by higher form
> of energy(electrical).
>
>
> >The question is how much PV is required to produce an equivilent energy
in
> >hydrogen, to those barrels, be it contained btu's, kWh's, whatever.
>
> Why ??? That's a very dumb way to compare energy sources..
Why? Ummmmm.....because that was what this particular discussion you
joined, was about?
> BTU's is a low grade heat measurement..
> And what percentage of those barrels of oil end up as heating
> fuel??
How many strawberries ended up in Daquiris? Dunno, how does that affect the
number of calories in a slice of Aunt Susan's cheescake?
As for it being a "very dumb way" to compare energy *CONTENT*, that just
tells me you don't understand the basic concept. We're talking about energy
densities. Exactly like comparing the amount of calories (energy) present
in different foods, we're doing the same with fuels, by standard practices.
We many know that the foods ("fuels") hold other, differing properties, like
fat content, carbs, etc, for the purposes of the discussion, we've chosen to
compare "calories" (which can be converted to btu's, kWh's, whatever)
BTU is not a "low grade heat measurement". It is simply a unit of measure,
it hold no particular "quality", high/low, whatever. Much like say, 30 cm
is a measurement of length. It is not a "high grade" or "low grade"
measurement, it is simply a unit. Centimeters can be converted to feet,
furlongs, leagues, chains, whatever you like to use, much as BTU's can be
converted to calories, kWh's, whatever.
> While you're comparing low grade heat sources, why not assume every
> watt of PV electricity produced is used to drive a heat pump with a COP
> of 3 or 4?
> (3 to 4 watts pumped for each watt input. )
I dunno, as H2-PV............I was responding to his claims. "Why not"
compare cheescake to strudel? I dunno, because we were comparing strawberry
cheescake to blueberry pie?
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > > > Nothing past this point in your spew is considered. Go back and
> >reuse
> >> > > > real world PV output figures (and support your 81 megabarrel/day
> >thesis
> >> > > > while you are at it). Then come back with corrected and supported
> >> > > > numbers and start over.
> >>
> >> Bzzzt.. RED HERRING alert.. see below...
> >>
> >> P.S. I love to see you try to convert 81MB of oil into 139B kWh..
> >> Answer.... Ain't going to happen...
> >>
> >> Don't forget to subtract out at least 20% (of your oil resource) as
> >> overhead just to get the oil out of the ground, transported, and and
> >> refinied into something useful.
There is no point in "subtracting" how many strawberries were spoiled in
getting them to market, that's for a different discussion.
It doesn't affect how many calories are in that slice of cheescake.
> >The question wasn't about converting the oil or hydrogen into anything.
> >kWh was a convienent method of comparing the energy content of the
barrels
> >to an equivilent amount of hydrogen, and how much solar PV would be
required
> >to do it. A barrel of oil has 'x' energy content, which is equivilent to
>
> No society is ever going waste energy like that...
> thus your comparison is a non-sequitor..
Society wastes much energy on all kinds of things, some, IMHO, on more
useless things, but hey, I'm just talking about Aunt Susans strawberry
cheescake.
>
> >the energy content in 'y' m^3 of hydrogen. Like comparing Natural Gas to
> >say, Diesel fuel.
>
> You comparing different forms of energy.
Bingo! By Jove, I think you've got it.
> Electricity is far more useful in it's original form..
Strawberries may be "far more useful" in their original form. You can make
all kinds of things from the strawberries, but once you convert them into
cheescakes, they have suffered a form of entropy. But if our goal was to
make cheescakes, then we've accomplished our goal. Having the strawberries
and not doing anything with them, is kinda useless. You may prefer to make
daquris with them, but Aunt Susan makes a damn fine strawberry cheescake,
and as far as I'm concerned, they have more value as cheescake, than plain
strawberries.
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> A vast majority(>80%) of the chemical energy stored in oil is wasted
> >> during various phases of drilling, transportation, refining and
> >> chemical conversion to more useful forms of energy. Note: Current
> >> crop of autos are less the 10% efficient.
> >>
> >> P.S. Throw in DOD resources(300B$/yr) needed to stabilize trade
> >> routes and Oil producing regions and the average loss probably
> >> increases into 90%+ range.
> >>
> >> Using a straight apples to apples comparison of PV output verses
> >> Oil is a RED HERRING. Electrical energy is a higher order energy with
> >> superior conversion efficiencies.
Same with raw strawberries. But not much good to me, if I want cheescake,
now is it?
> >
> >Converting various energy sources to a particular measuring system (be it
> >BTU's, kWh's, calories, whatever) is pretty standard practice.
>
> Sorry... But it's a totally silly practice..
You are entitled to your opinion. However, "real-world" decisions based on
energy densities/costs every day, and it seems to work for industries that
use energy.
Believe it or not, there is more than one reference book published with
these same conversions.
Take an energy intensive industry like an aluminium foundry.....I need to
keep a holding furnace of molten aluminum at a specific temperature. I know
the rate of heat loss (convient to use BTU's to calculate that) from the
furnace. From there, I can take the energy content of natural gas, and
calculate how much gas/hour I would have to burn to equal the heat loss. I
can also calculate how much electricity would be required to accomplish the
same task (by converting the heat loss calculated in BTU's to kWh's). I
compare the costs of electricity (I know how many kW/h are required), and
natural gas (I know how many m^3 required), and use them as part of the data
in making my decision. Sorry, but I don't think the foundry would consider
those conversions a "totally silly practice". And the foundry isn't
concerned as to how many barrels of oil were consumed in the manufacture of
that gas, it's not thier concern, that is someone else's (the oil producers)
concern.....THEY (the oile producers) would be very interesed. What is
their (the foundry's) concern, is the energy content/price of that gas
*delivered* to them. Period. .....Or how many calories are in that slice
of cheescake, not how many strawberries were spoiled in getting them into
Aunt Susan's kitchen :)
<snip rest of post>
K. Jones
ronwagn
statiions , with quick charge capability. The electricity can be
generated on the spot with existing technology. No transmission loss or
high wire expense. Generators can be run from hydrogen, biomass,
natural gas, etc. A big advantage is you are not lugging around an
internal combustion engine.Another is ou don't have to have a
sophisticated hybrid engine for basic commuter vehicles.
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> What is needed is a system of self contained electric recharge
> statiions , with quick charge capability. The electricity can be
> generated on the spot with existing technology. No transmission loss or
> high wire expense.
Transmission loss today is much smaller than the loss it prevents,
namely, that which would arise from the use of small generators
rather than large ones.
-- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
gzuc...@snail-mail.net
But you know within 6 months somebody would be installing them on a
trailer for the car to pull around.
Don Lancaster
There is a fundamental economic absurdity in quick charge capability:
Unless the unit is run CONTINUOUSLY, its cost has to be duty cycle
amortized. Guaranteeing that it will NEVER pay for itself.
The amortized per-charge cost of a system run ten minutes a day will be
something like 144 TIMES higher than one run continuously.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Nanook
Even bringing the power to a recharge station via transmission lines,
I don't think it is that big of a problem. Consider UHF television stations
operate at power levels in the 2 megawatt range, the power companies seem
to be able to get electricity to their transmitters just fine.
Ron McNulty
Re your television example, I think you may have confused "effective
radiated power" (ERP) with watts RMS. The difference is due to effective
radiated power being referred back to a point source radiator that sprays
out signal equally in every direction.
A typical VHF station boasts "gains" of 20 decibels due to the radiation
pattern being intelligently shaped to avoid radiating into the ground, into
space and (for coastal statiions) out to sea. The higher the frequency, the
better the "gain" that can be acheived.
You may well find that a 2MW ERP UHF station is only feeding 50KW RMS,
(possibly less) into its aerial feeders. Given that modern FM transmitters
are likely to be 75% efficient or better, the AC power required is not huge,
and certainly nowhere near 2MW.
Regards
Ron
"Nanook" <nan...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:dmj7f6$is5$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
Nanook
> Hi Nanook
>
> Re your television example, I think you may have confused "effective
> radiated power" (ERP) with watts RMS. The difference is due to effective
> radiated power being referred back to a point source radiator that sprays
> out signal equally in every direction.
>
> A typical VHF station boasts "gains" of 20 decibels due to the radiation
> pattern being intelligently shaped to avoid radiating into the ground, into
> space and (for coastal statiions) out to sea. The higher the frequency, the
> better the "gain" that can be acheived.
>
> You may well find that a 2MW ERP UHF station is only feeding 50KW RMS,
> (possibly less) into its aerial feeders. Given that modern FM transmitters
> are likely to be 75% efficient or better, the AC power required is not huge,
> and certainly nowhere near 2MW.
>
> Regards
>
> Ron
Ron, first let me state my qualifications here; I obtained my first
class radio telephone operators license in 1976. I worked in the field of
broadcast engineering for some time.
A high end deep fringe VHF receiving antenna might have 20db of gain,
but omni-directional broadcast antennas typically have gains of 3-6db, and
they get that from having directivity in the verticle plain.
But I specifically mentioned UHF because the power levels used are much
higher than VHF, particularly in the higher band channels. We have several
that are in the vicinity of 2 megawatts, and to get 2 megawatts out with 6db
antenna gain, you're talking 500kw in, and also be aware that transmission
lines tend to be lossy at UHF frequencies so you need additional power to
overcome that loss.
And only the audio portion of television transmissions are FM in the
US and Canada. The FM transmitter can be reasonably effecient because it
can operate in class C; but the visual carrier is amplitude modulated, and
requires a linear final state which limits effeciencies generally to below
50%.
So you're still talking a megawatt+ input power. And that's before you
consider the AC necessary to remove all that waste heat, etc.