Grant Awarded for Solar Hydrogen Generation
Science Cop
Grant Awarded for Solar Hydrogen Generation
October 17, 2005
Guildford, UK [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] The BOC Foundation awarded
funding to Hydrogen Solar Ltd. to develop and demonstrate a scalable
system that will produce carbon-free, sustainable hydrogen directly
from sunlight and water using the Hydrogen Solar Tandem Cell array. The
project is due to be up and running in the UK next summer, with the
contract lasting to October 2007.
The Tandem Cell is a self-contained single unit that directly splits
water molecules into high-purity hydrogen and oxygen using the energy
from sunlight. No external electricity is required. The process is
renewable, produces no carbon dioxide or other emissions. By using a
modular design, the array can be built to an infinite variety of sizes,
making it suitable for a wide range of industrial and energy
applications.
In the first phase, Hydrogen Solar will design, build and install a
100-m2 array of Tandem Cells to generate high-purity hydrogen.
"This project will validate the Tandem Cell as a viable, low cost and
environmentally friendly method of generating hydrogen for both today's
industrial markets and for the future hydrogen-energy economy," said
David Auty, Hydrogen Solar Ltd., Chief Executive.
The BOC Group will provide engineering safety expertise, compression
units and engineering support during the installation.
"Economic production of hydrogen from renewables is key in turning the
hydrogen energy vision into reality. Projects such as the Tandem Cell
are vital stepping stones to the commercial deployment of hydrogen
energy," said John Carolin, BOC Group, Global Director, Sustainable
Energy.
The second phase will demonstrate the Tandem Cell array over a
six-month period at the Beacon Energy Ltd. site at West Beacon Farm,
Leicestershire. The system will provide hydrogen for fuel cell
applications, to provide electricity for recharging electric vehicles,
and for heat and power for various buildings.
"The prospect of a panel on the roof of a house to produce
emission-free motoring is a fantastic vision towards a zero carbon
society, and the BOC Foundation's foresight is a catalyst for this
vision," said Prof Tony Marmont, Beacon Energy Ltd., Director.
For further Information
* Hydrogen Solar Ltd.
http://www.hydrogensolar.com/
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Melchizedek
Bret Cahill wrote:
> First thing they need to post is the initial cost and output/m^2-day.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
What for. It's clearly labelled a RESEARCH PROJECT, which is never
intended to be profitmaking other than if you consider
knowledge-advancement "profits".
You H2-Haters can't stop for one minute. How much "profit" was there
developing nukes for the first 10 years?
Satellites were the first applications of PV in space, how much profit
did they make for the first 20 years?
How much profits have the PV powered Mars Rovers made?
Don Lancaster
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>>First thing they need to post is the initial cost and output/m^2-day.
>>
>>
>>Bret Cahill
>
>
> What for. It's clearly labelled a RESEARCH PROJECT, which is never
> intended to be profitmaking
Virtually all high bucks RESEARCH PROJECTS are intended to profit by
scamming the government funding.
The subject matter is of no consequence whatsoever.
--
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
Melchizedek
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Melchizedek wrote:
> > Bret Cahill wrote:
> >
> >>First thing they need to post is the initial cost and output/m^2-day.
> >>
> >>
> >>Bret Cahill
> >
> >
> > What for. It's clearly labelled a RESEARCH PROJECT, which is never
> > intended to be profitmaking
>
>
> Virtually all high bucks RESEARCH PROJECTS are intended to profit by
> scamming the government funding.
>
> The subject matter is of no consequence whatsoever.
If it wasn't for these scams you would not have satellite
communications, microwave telephone circuits, or fiber optics to spread
your SPAM all over the world through the internet you wouldn't have
either.
Republican LUDDITES wanting to keep us in the dark ages are always
spamming their complaints about science investments. "Only
industrialists should have money" is the core of their belief system.
Good thing for most of inventions history your kind didn't hold
political power -- now that you do we can finally see the "experiment"
of what society looks like when research comes to a halt (in this
country).
Don Lancaster
>
> If it wasn't for these scams you would not have satellite
> communications,
invented by a science fiction author
microwave telephone circuits,
privately funded by BTL
or fiber optics
Largely uselessly obsolete and outrageously expensive;
cannot even give the stuff away on eBay.
to spread
> your SPAM all over the world through the internet
which would not have existed if I had not invented Al Gore.
you wouldn't have
> either.
>
Spamming the internet is a thankless task, but sombody has got to do it.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/marcia.pdf
H2-PV
> Melchizedek wrote:
>
> >
> > If it wasn't for these scams you would not have satellite
> > communications,
>
> invented by a science fiction author
So you are claiming that satellite communications was totally financed
by Arthur C. Clark? <snicker at the dimbulb fool>
> microwave telephone circuits,
>
> privately funded by BTL
So there was never any public funding of microwaves? <snicker at
blithering drunk fool>
>
> or fiber optics
>
> Largely uselessly obsolete and outrageously expensive;
> cannot even give the stuff away on eBay.
So no internet backbones are made of high volume fiber optic cables?
<snicker at jibbering idiot fool>
> to spread
> > your SPAM all over the world through the internet
>
> which would not have existed if I had not invented Al Gore.
What rightard would have committed to connecting every school and
library and local government to the internet by 2000? What rightard
would have originated and pushed through the construction of
hurricane-proof internet backbones designed to withstand 'nukular'
strikes? <snicker at alcohol-soaked Lancaster>
> you wouldn't have
> > either.
>
> Spamming the internet is a thankless task, but sombody has got to do it.
You can stop now. Your 5000 anti-hydrogen posts recorded by google show
you hold the world's record for ant-hydrogen posts. Your record is safe
-- nobody in the history of humanity will ever post nearly half so many
anti-hydrogen posts. Nobody else is getting paid to do so.
fkasner
I see now what drives your fuzzy thinking. You actually believe that
those of us who have derided your strange commitment are "hydrogen
haters". Actually that is not so. It is far from the truth. This NG has
a fairly long history. Those you now defame were in the beginning very
open minded to many schemes that purported to produce a hydrogen source
for fuel use. However as we saw repeatedly one scheme after another that
was either a direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics (they are
not guide-line they really are laws of nature) we became rather jaded.
We don't totally denigrate the value of hydrogen as a fuel. I even
suggested to one former poster that his scheme for making hydrogen
available via NaH (sodium hydride and water) would be a decent storage
fuel device for special outboard motors and on shipboard life boats. The
needed water would always be available and the trail of dead fish behind
the lifeboat (due to the sodium hydroxide dumped overboard) would help
show where they went when searchers came along. But only limited niche
uses for such devices based on hydrogen are practicable at present. If
you are a good enough engineer you might find some way to increase the
efficiency of such devices to enlarge the number of niche uses. But it
is clearly *not* a solution to the CO2 pollution problem. Talk sense and
not invective and we will listen and present critiques when needed.
FK
LongmuirG
> But it [hydrogen] is clearly *not* a solution to the
> CO2 pollution problem.
Not to detract from your reasoned critique of hydrogen as an energy
carrier -- but CO2 is not (repeat NOT) "pollution".
CO2 is plant food. All life on this planet depends on the presence of
CO2 in the atmosphere. Check out "carbon cycle".
fkasner
Clearly you are the one who is the paid propagandist. Scientists and
engineers took their vows of poverty when they entered the fields of
technology. Only those who flack purported new schemes of energy
production are the tru scammers who get paid by fleecing suckers with
their blue sky schemes.
FK
Don Lancaster
The recent dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of
global warming.
At present it is the WORST pollutant and clearly needs the MOST
attention given it.
Roy. Just Roy.
> scamming the government funding.
I agree, Don. Spending a billion a day occupying Iraq is MUCH better
use of government funding than actually seeking out alternative fuel
sources. How dare they waste money that could go into building better
smart bombs!
/Roy
Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com
fkasner wrote:
> Melchizedek wrote:
> > Bret Cahill wrote:
> >
> >>First thing they need to post is the initial cost and output/m^2-day.
> >>
> >>
> >>Bret Cahill
> >
> >
> > What for. It's clearly labelled a RESEARCH PROJECT, which is never
> > intended to be profitmaking other than if you consider
> > knowledge-advancement "profits".
> >
> > You H2-Haters can't stop for one minute. How much "profit" was there
> > developing nukes for the first 10 years?
> >
> > Satellites were the first applications of PV in space, how much profit
> > did they make for the first 20 years?
> >
> > How much profits have the PV powered Mars Rovers made?
> >
>
> I see now what drives your fuzzy thinking. You actually believe that
> those of us who have derided your strange commitment are "hydrogen
> haters". Actually that is not so. It is far from the truth.
Explain how many hours of your life you actually spent debunking the
Hydrogen-Hater Lies.
> This NG has
> a fairly long history.
Yes it does have a long history and it includes at least one person who
willfully engages in preditated felony violation of federa laws by
maliciously sending viruses and Denial-of-Service attacks on people who
don't know that the newsgroup is stalked by one or more
professional-level criminals. Only the H2-Haters survive perpetually to
sandbag with well-honed lies that baffle newbies into believing the
bullcrap.
> Those you now defame were in the beginning very
> open minded to many schemes that purported to produce a hydrogen source
> for fuel use. However as we saw repeatedly one scheme after another that
> was either a direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics (they are
> not guide-line they really are laws of nature) we became rather jaded.
The laws of physics, thermodynamics included, were not violated when
rockets were launched into space using H2 as fuel. That should have
been a clue about what the universe permits.
The laws of physics, thermodynamics included, were not violated when
Mars Rovers are powered by Solar PV panels. That should have been a
clue about what the universe permits.
So, some people had cracket-pot ideas that would never work -- that
cannot undermine reality of what you have seen work. It's not about
thermodynamics now, but all about making it work within a skewed
economy biased towards Oil Plutocrats interests. That's a harder
problem to solve, but smart guys can do it, using EMC SoG Si PV and
Geopolymer H2 containments. Smart guys have already done it, and it
broke no laws of thermodynamics.
> We don't totally denigrate the value of hydrogen as a fuel. I even
> suggested to one former poster that his scheme for making hydrogen
> available via NaH (sodium hydride and water) would be a decent storage
> fuel device for special outboard motors and on shipboard life boats. The
> needed water would always be available and the trail of dead fish behind
> the lifeboat (due to the sodium hydroxide dumped overboard) would help
> show where they went when searchers came along. But only limited niche
> uses for such devices based on hydrogen are practicable at present. If
> you are a good enough engineer you might find some way to increase the
> efficiency of such devices to enlarge the number of niche uses. But it
> is clearly *not* a solution to the CO2 pollution problem. Talk sense and
> not invective and we will listen and present critiques when needed.
> FK
THE CO2 Problem, the one that will continue inflicting damages, killing
cities, killing people, killing enonomic stability, does not even begin
to subside until after H2-PV is installed worldwide.
The last time the world saw such a drunken party binge of hydrocarbon
exhaust was WWII which took a few years for the CO2 sinks to get filled
to capacity, to overcapacity, and the hurricanes to increase in
intensity. 1950-1959 is the second worst 10-year stretch in weather
history for our records, 1960-1969 was third worst as the damages
tapered off over 20 years. 1996-2005 beats them all for vicious
disruptive weather -- and it will take 20 years or more for nature to
eat your crap.
This is not a good time in history to lie about alternative to CO2
pollution -- a jury from New Orleans might put you on the gallows for
accessory to mass murder.
Anything that exists is not against the laws of thermodynamics. Just
because some dildo advocates colonizing the sun, it does not disprove
that humans have colonized the earth. Same with scatterbrained H2 or PV
suggestions -- if they exist alreadty they do not defy the laws of
thermodynmics no matter how you weasle about your obstructionism.
Don Lancaster
first place.
Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com
Don Lancaster wrote:
> > Not to detract from your reasoned critique of hydrogen as an energy
> > carrier -- but CO2 is not (repeat NOT) "pollution".
> >
> > CO2 is plant food. All life on this planet depends on the presence of
> > CO2 in the atmosphere. Check out "carbon cycle".
> >
>
> The recent dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of
> global warming.
>
> At present it is the WORST pollutant and clearly needs the MOST
> attention given it.
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
WHO ARE YOU? And what have you done with the real Don Lancaster?
Nanook
In a balanced cycle where as much CO2 gets taken out of the atmosphere
as puts in it, you are correct.
But presently we do NOT have a balanced cycle, CO2 has gone from
about 230 ppm a hundred years ago to close 340 ppm today. It >IS< pollution.
Even if you don't believe in global warming, here is something to
consider. Hemoglobin in our blood has a much higher affinitity for CO2 than
O2. The reason it releases CO2 in the lungs and picks up O2 is because the
partial pressure of O2 is MUCH greater. However, if we change this enough
that won't be the case anymore.
There is a reason they have to have CO2 scrubbers on spacecraft and
airplanes.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Shells, Web Hosting, 56K/ISDN/DSL, 2-Week Trial!
Internet access with real toll-free human help as low as $9.00 / month!
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
A faint wind, blowing from World's End
> In article <1130794076.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "LongmuirG" <Long...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>FK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But it [hydrogen] is clearly *not* a solution to the
>>>CO2 pollution problem.
>>
>>Not to detract from your reasoned critique of hydrogen as an energy
>>carrier -- but CO2 is not (repeat NOT) "pollution".
>>
>>CO2 is plant food. All life on this planet depends on the presence of
>>CO2 in the atmosphere. Check out "carbon cycle".
>>
>
>
>
> In a balanced cycle where as much CO2 gets taken out of the atmosphere
> as puts in it, you are correct.
>
> But presently we do NOT have a balanced cycle, CO2 has gone from
> about 230 ppm a hundred years ago to close 340 ppm today. It >IS< pollution.
>
> Even if you don't believe in global warming, here is something to
> consider. Hemoglobin in our blood has a much higher affinitity for CO2 than
> O2. The reason it releases CO2 in the lungs and picks up O2 is because the
> partial pressure of O2 is MUCH greater. However, if we change this enough
> that won't be the case anymore.
>
> There is a reason they have to have CO2 scrubbers on spacecraft and
> airplanes.
>
let's see, Oyxgen is what: about 20 %, and CO2 is 340 ppm ( 0.034%)
at what level is CO2 toxic or harmful?
I believe it is around 10 % level
we have a ways to go yet.
j.
as to whether carbon dioxide is reponsible for global warming, I think
we have a ways to go before we can DEFINITELY say that.
j.
Arnold walker
On the Rovers ,PV was good was good until something else was available.
The next mission will use heavy water nuke batteries......more reliable.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dan Bloomquist
A faint wind, blowing from World's End wrote:
>
> I believe it is around 10 % level
NIOSH's recommended exposure limit for 15 minutes is 3 percent. A level
of 4 percent is designated by NIOSH as "immediately dangerous to life or
health."
>
> we have a ways to go yet.
couple of magnitudes so this is irrelevant.
> as to whether carbon dioxide is reponsible for global warming, I think
> we have a ways to go before we can DEFINITELY say that.
Yep. Don't know if the road ends at a cliff up ahead, so keep the peddle
to the metal...
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
Nanook
For healthy individuals not stressed, at 7-10% unconciousness results
in several minutes.
But when you've got someone not healthy, say suffering with pneumonia
or reduced lung function to do other health conditions, even a very small
increase can tip the balance.
Also, way before you reach unconciousness, it stimulates breathing and
anxiety.
All in all, mucking with a natural balance that we've evolved to exist
in for millions of years isn't something we should do haphazardously.
fkasner
So, it now appears that you throw a pile of excrement at this news group
because you don't like the people here. Facts be damned (all that stuff
about DoS and such) which I have never experienced nor has any other
denizen herein reported it. You appear to fail to understand the use of
hydrogen for one of a kind system where energy to mass ratio is most
important. The CO2 created when producing the H2 that runs a rocket of a
planetary rover remains here on earth. You can't (to this date) find a
way of making H2 short of nuclear reactors to provide electricity for
electrolysis. And the energy used to create a nuclear reactor and its
fuel produces considerable amounts of CO2. But then again, you
foul-mouthed cretin, that doesn't deter you one whit.
False posting under another's name can get your ISP top pull your
account. But the difference between you and me is one of civility and
tolerance of those who disagree with me, no matter how despicably they
behave.
FK
James Rapier @UselessBastard.net
Any mail to my mailbox reaches me. Does yours?
Hydrogen is pulled apart from water with 1.25 volts in electrolysis.
H2O does not care where that electricity comes from. Frankly, it's
brain is no larger than yours, and it can't tell the difference any
better than you can. H2O has no way of knowing if it received the
splitting voltage from PV or nukes, from hydro or natural gas or
geothermal or wind.
All anybody can prove for sure is that H2 says sayonora to O2 whenever
1.25 volts is present in its proximity. That means that if you are
smart enough to make 1.25 volts by any means known to the human race,
then you can make H2 out of water.
Some things are true no matter how many guys say they are not. A D-cell
battery can prove that H2 can be made from water, with very little
effort or expense.
You don't like the idea that this is true and throw crap on the
statements that it is true, but complain about foul-mouths.
Just because you have never been pregnant is not proof that human birth
does not exist. People throwing crap on H2-PV do not experience the
criminal attacks, but that does not constitute proof that criminals do
not monitor the newsgroups and attack people who propose the opposite.
In short, you decree that only your predjudices and experiences are
valid and everything else is false.
Don Lancaster
> Hydrogen is pulled apart from water with 1.25 volts in electrolysis.
> H2O does not care where that electricity comes from. Frankly, it's
> brain is no larger than yours, and it can't tell the difference any
> better than you can. H2O has no way of knowing if it received the
> splitting voltage from PV or nukes, from hydro or natural gas or
> geothermal or wind.
>
The dilemma is that if the measured VALUE of the electricity
significantly EXCEEDS the energy VALUE of the unstored hydrogen gas,
then the electrolysis process is clearly and utterly worthless.
Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
and seeing how much you get back.
The best published IJHE figures are 13 percent exergy which is
ludicrously low compared to the alternatives. Besides that 13 percent
being absurdly overoptimistic, that 13 percent clearly does NOT include
proper full burdened amortization.
Thus, electrolysis from high value sources such as grid or solar pv is
pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. The
value destruction is instantaneous and irrecoverable.
Should the price of electricity drop, then other alternatives (such as
aluminum smelting or copper refining) step in to still GUARANTEE that
electrolysis as a bulk hydrogen source flat out ain't gonna happen.
Virtually ALL significant hydrogen production comes from the reformation
of methane. Electrolysis is useful only when the value of the on-demand
hydeogen SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS ITS ENERGY VALUE.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed tutorial.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
H2-PV
> James Rapier @UselessBastard.net wrote:
>
> > Hydrogen is pulled apart from water with 1.25 volts in electrolysis.
> > H2O does not care where that electricity comes from. Frankly, it's
> > brain is no larger than yours, and it can't tell the difference any
> > better than you can. H2O has no way of knowing if it received the
> > splitting voltage from PV or nukes, from hydro or natural gas or
> > geothermal or wind.
> >
>
>
> The dilemma is that if the measured VALUE of the electricity
> significantly EXCEEDS the energy VALUE of the unstored hydrogen gas,
> then the electrolysis process is clearly and utterly worthless.
Under what conditions is this always true? Under what conditions is
this always false?
For example, in time of war when energy disruptions can occur via
broken extended transport lines through submarine and cruise missle
picket lines, what is the exact value of gasoline trapped behind enemy
lines when your tank is empty?
If a power plant is currently producing 100MWs but demand has fallen to
90MWs at the instant, what is the value of the 10 surplus MWs? Unless
it is stored it evaporates -- poof -- into nothingness, not even a
shadow left behind.
That exact same question applies to your rooftop with sunlight in
Arizona typically providing 7 KWHs of electrical potential per sunny
day. If you do not capture that and save it -- POOF -- it evaporates
into nothingness.
The cost of capturing it and storing it should be "fully-burdened
accounting" and "amortized", but so must the alternatives you use right
now. What is the fully-burdened accounting on the military budget to
protect your middle-east supply lines? What is the amortization on an
aircraft carrier battle group of 30 ships and hundreds of aircraft?
What is the fully-burdened accounting of pumping CO2 into the air past
the RED ZONE limits?
What is the VALUE of US electricity to 1,400 Guatamalan mayan indians
buried under 20 feet of mud by hurricane Stan? What is the value of
electricity to New Orleans residents whose houses were destroyed by
Katrina and have no walls to hook a meter onto?
Who makes these rules? Do they come out of some lost chapter of the
Bible? Are they derived from physical laws provable through experiment
to be true in all times and places (say just as true 10,000,000 years
ago as 10,000,000 years from now? Physics is assumed invarient over
time -- are these rules of value invarient, or are they locally
magically pulled out of the buttocks of a financial priesthood class?
Who gets to make these rules? And how do they get to make the reules
that say only they can make the rules?
Suppose, for instance, I make the rule that all night casinos in Las
Vegas are not a high VALUE for use of electricity? Why can't I make
that rule?
> Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
> thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
> electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
> and seeing how much you get back.
You can measure sunlight ---> PV ---> electricity ---> motor fuel and
compare it to sunlight ---> trashcan, and see where the EXERGY is to be
found in this picture.
>
> The best published IJHE figures are 13 percent exergy which is
> ludicrously low compared to the alternatives. Besides that 13 percent
> being absurdly overoptimistic, that 13 percent clearly does NOT include
> proper full burdened amortization.
Nor does the alternative account for 2000 funerals from Iraq-Serving
National Guards who signed up to do help during disasters in their
states, and reserve in valid wars over something not lies. Who has
MORTIZED these soldiers?
> Thus, electrolysis from high value sources such as grid or solar pv is
> pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. The
> value destruction is instantaneous and irrecoverable.
There you go again. Electricity has no value if it is not used
instantaneously or saved for later. All saved-for-later energy is 100%
efficient, because it represents 100% of energy you otherwise would
have lost 100%. Whether it is used to compress gas or raise water or
spin flywheels or charge batteries or electrolyze water into H2, any
electricity that you save has value that is 100% efficient.
Sunlight hitting your rooftop that is not saved is lost forever.
Capturing any amount in the form of H2 stored for later has VALUE.
H2 is a product itself with value, too expensive for lots of people to
buy with pesos or dollars. Refineries are the world's largest buyers,
using H2 to crack oil into gasoline and fuel oil. Part of every
dollar's or Peso's value of gasoline is the xcontribution of H2 in
there. H2 which does not come from oil or gas means that more oil or
gas exists for other uses.
Frankly you can't afford to buy H2 because the present pricing
structure puts it more valuable than dollars or pesos. You don't have
the jingle in your pocket to buy H2. Anybody spending their coin to
research ways to get more cheaer H2 is in your benefit because it will
ultimately make it affordable to people like you.
> Should the price of electricity drop, then other alternatives (such as
> aluminum smelting or copper refining) step in to still GUARANTEE that
> electrolysis as a bulk hydrogen source flat out ain't gonna happen.
Solar energy is the path to cheap electricity. Just like you don't get
aluminum just because electricity is cheap -- there has to be aluminum
smelter capacity ready to use the cheap electricity. By installing a
vast PV infrastructure the aluminum and copper smelters know exactly
how much electricity they can count on. The PV come first in the value
chain.
Because you only knw a few things about a few thinks, you cannot
visualize the whole value chain. Electrolysis of seawater produces H2 +
O2, bnoth of which have industrial and commercial value. It also
produces Na + Cl + Mg + Au. The reduction of volume in enclosed
impounded seawater eventually produces NaCl deposits and the reddish
concentrate liquor is dense witn MgCl which is used as a valuable
cement substitute in some applications.
All you ever do is look at the worst case, which does not match
standard operating procedures of maximizing pprofit centers from
synergistic investments.
Cities pay a good price to haul away and dispose recycled glass frit
far in excess of market demand. Here is you semi-prerefined Si
stockpiles with transportation already paid for to where the population
centers are with the mix of skills to do useful things with that
Silicon. In your world you would price sand in Death Valley (SiO2) to
metallic grade Si refiners, and the cost of transportation in your
fraudulent "fully-burdened accounting" would never price the fact that
cities PAY to haul away the glass wastes. In many places cities would
donate land to a clean industry that can hire locals and take off their
hands the ever-growing mountains of glass (SiO2).
So your math is always bogus. You never fully account for your
alternatives, but malicously distort the economics of competitors to
your sweetheart schemes.
Glass takes 2000°C to melt, unlike SoG Si at 1414°C. You know what
that means? That means the heat from the glass operation in its
cooldown phase is more than adequate to cast SoG Si PV in one
integrated operation -- a two-fer-one deal.
What's your fully burdened accounting (without you being the monkey on
the back burden) say about that? H2 + O2 is an ideal gas for melting
SiO2 @ 2000°C.
Electricity is just what you want for electrolysis of SiO2, just like
you want it for H2O. Anybody have the release energy data for
electrolyzing SiO2? I looked and its not found on the net wading
through thousands of chaff sites of irrelevency. Why don't YOU have
this data after being an expert on PV for so many years -- you claim to
know everything about Si from sand through Balance of Systems?
Unknown to lots of people, Si in the molten state is an excellent
conductor -- its merely a semiconductor in the solid form. Electrolysis
of the B + P is impeded by the thick viscosity, but bubbling H2 through
the Si has shown to take out a lot of impurities, although H2 itself is
an impurity to take out.
You are meddling in technical stuff far beyond your self-education. You
need to back off while we solve the problems you have no solutions for.
> Virtually ALL significant hydrogen production comes from the reformation
> of methane. Electrolysis is useful only when the value of the on-demand
> hydogen SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS ITS ENERGY VALUE.
So what. That was then. This is now. Get your brainbanks updated with
current info.
Electrolysis is useful whenever anyone wants clean H2 from water.
Period. End of argument.
It is not you who gets to define value. Battery-bank electric cars are
super-expensive, heavy, short-range. Batteries need replacement every
five years. H2 internal combustion engines run cleaner than gasoline
and last longer, go farther between rebuilds. Electricity does not make
good transportation fuel -- H2 does. It's one third the weight of
gasoline for the same mileage BTUs, and H2 + carbon-fiver-&-Aramid
tanks are bullet-proof and have bursting strengths into 500,000 pounds.
fiber-wrapped tanks are always lighter than steel gasoline tanks and
compressed H2 @ 10ksi is only triple the volume = 3 large suitcases
full to go the same distance as one suitcase-sized gasoline tank (no
big deal).
Bill Ward
<H2...@whythefucknot.com> wrote:
>Don Lancaster wrote:
>> James Rapier @UselessBastard.net wrote:
>>
>> > Hydrogen is pulled apart from water with 1.25 volts in electrolysis.
>> > H2O does not care where that electricity comes from. Frankly, it's
>> > brain is no larger than yours, and it can't tell the difference any
>> > better than you can. H2O has no way of knowing if it received the
>> > splitting voltage from PV or nukes, from hydro or natural gas or
>> > geothermal or wind.
>> >
>>
>>
>> The dilemma is that if the measured VALUE of the electricity
>> significantly EXCEEDS the energy VALUE of the unstored hydrogen gas,
>> then the electrolysis process is clearly and utterly worthless.
>
>Under what conditions is this always true? Under what conditions is
>this always false?
>
>For example, in time of war when energy disruptions can occur via
>broken extended transport lines through submarine and cruise missle
>picket lines, what is the exact value of gasoline trapped behind enemy
>lines when your tank is empty?
>
>If a power plant is currently producing 100MWs but demand has fallen to
>90MWs at the instant, what is the value of the 10 surplus MWs? Unless
>it is stored it evaporates -- poof -- into nothingness, not even a
>shadow left behind.
That is not correct. Until you understand why, you have
zero credibility..
>
>That exact same question applies to your rooftop with sunlight in
>Arizona typically providing 7 KWHs of electrical potential per sunny
>day. If you do not capture that and save it -- POOF -- it evaporates
>into nothingness.
>
>The cost of capturing it and storing it should be "fully-burdened
>accounting" and "amortized", but so must the alternatives you use right
>now. What is the fully-burdened accounting on the military budget to
>protect your middle-east supply lines? What is the amortization on an
>aircraft carrier battle group of 30 ships and hundreds of aircraft?
>
>What is the fully-burdened accounting of pumping CO2 into the air past
>the RED ZONE limits?
>
>What is the VALUE of US electricity to 1,400 Guatamalan mayan indians
>buried under 20 feet of mud by hurricane Stan? What is the value of
>electricity to New Orleans residents whose houses were destroyed by
>Katrina and have no walls to hook a meter onto?
>
>Who makes these rules?
The "laws" of science are not "made", they are discovered.
>Do they come out of some lost chapter of the Bible?
No.
>Are they derived from physical laws provable through experiment
>to be true in all times and places (say just as true 10,000,000 years
>ago as 10,000,000 years from now?
Yes.
>Physics is assumed invarient over time -- are these rules of value
>invarient,
They are rules of physics, not rules of value, so they are
in fact invarient over time.
>or are they locally magically pulled out of the buttocks
>of a financial priesthood class?
No, but you can keep looking there, if it floats your boat.
>
>Who gets to make these rules? And how do they get to make the reules
>that say only they can make the rules?
Who or what made the rules of physics is a matter of faith,
not science.
>
>Suppose, for instance, I make the rule that all night casinos in Las
>Vegas are not a high VALUE for use of electricity? Why can't I make
>that rule?
Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
>
>> Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
>> thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
>> electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
>> and seeing how much you get back.
>
>You can measure sunlight ---> PV ---> electricity ---> motor fuel and
>compare it to sunlight ---> trashcan, and see where the EXERGY is to be
>found in this picture.
The point is that the value that made the PV array first had
to go to the trashcan before you could produce any
electricity. It takes a long time to recover that value. No
one is stopping you from buying a PV system, yet you
apparently don't have one, do you?
Would you mind terribly if I agree with you and force you to
invest in your own private PV system to independently
provide all your own power?
After you have spent a few tens of thousands of dollars to
do so, you might have enough credibility to persuade someone
to follow your lead. At present, you seem to be incredibly
ignorant of even the most basic principles, and must resort
to insults and irrational emotionality, convincing few, if
any.
>
>>
>> The best published IJHE figures are 13 percent exergy which is
>> ludicrously low compared to the alternatives. Besides that 13 percent
>> being absurdly overoptimistic, that 13 percent clearly does NOT include
>> proper full burdened amortization.
>
>Nor does the alternative account for 2000 funerals from Iraq-Serving
>National Guards who signed up to do help during disasters in their
>states, and reserve in valid wars over something not lies. Who has
>MORTIZED these soldiers?
>
>
>> Thus, electrolysis from high value sources such as grid or solar pv is
>> pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. The
>> value destruction is instantaneous and irrecoverable.
>
>There you go again. Electricity has no value if it is not used
>instantaneously or saved for later. All saved-for-later energy is 100%
>efficient, because it represents 100% of energy you otherwise would
>have lost 100%. Whether it is used to compress gas or raise water or
>spin flywheels or charge batteries or electrolyze water into H2, any
>electricity that you save has value that is 100% efficient.
Why don't you voluntarily do that, instead of whining and
complaining that the government isn't forcing you to do it?
If you are right and it's profitable, you will be rich and
famous. If not, perhaps you will better understand why
others are not convinced.
Either way, the noise level in the NG would improve.
>
>Sunlight hitting your rooftop that is not saved is lost forever.
>Capturing any amount in the form of H2 stored for later has VALUE.
>
>H2 is a product itself with value, too expensive for lots of people to
>buy with pesos or dollars. Refineries are the world's largest buyers,
>using H2 to crack oil into gasoline and fuel oil. Part of every
>dollar's or Peso's value of gasoline is the xcontribution of H2 in
>there. H2 which does not come from oil or gas means that more oil or
>gas exists for other uses.
>
>Frankly you can't afford to buy H2 because the present pricing
>structure puts it more valuable than dollars or pesos. You don't have
>the jingle in your pocket to buy H2. Anybody spending their coin to
>research ways to get more cheaer H2 is in your benefit because it will
>ultimately make it affordable to people like you.
You don't seem to understand. It's not the H2 that's
expensive, it's the energy required to make it. If you have
the energy available, you lose value by converting it to H2,
unless you need specific chemical or physical properties of
H2.
>Glass takes 2000=B0C to melt, unlike SoG Si at 1414=B0C. You know what
>that means? That means the heat from the glass operation in its
>cooldown phase is more than adequate to cast SoG Si PV in one
>integrated operation -- a two-fer-one deal.
>
>What's your fully burdened accounting (without you being the monkey on
>the back burden) say about that? H2 + O2 is an ideal gas for melting
>SiO2 @ 2000=B0C.
>
>Electricity is just what you want for electrolysis of SiO2, just like
>you want it for H2O. Anybody have the release energy data for
>electrolyzing SiO2? I looked and its not found on the net wading
>through thousands of chaff sites of irrelevency. Why don't YOU have
>this data after being an expert on PV for so many years -- you claim to
>know everything about Si from sand through Balance of Systems?
>
>Unknown to lots of people, Si in the molten state is an excellent
>conductor -- its merely a semiconductor in the solid form. Electrolysis
>of the B + P is impeded by the thick viscosity, but bubbling H2 through
>the Si has shown to take out a lot of impurities, although H2 itself is
>an impurity to take out.
>
>You are meddling in technical stuff far beyond your self-education. You
>need to back off while we solve the problems you have no solutions for.
>
>
>
>> Virtually ALL significant hydrogen production comes from the reformation
>> of methane. Electrolysis is useful only when the value of the on-demand
>> hydogen SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS ITS ENERGY VALUE.
>
>So what. That was then. This is now. Get your brainbanks updated with
>current info.
>
>Electrolysis is useful whenever anyone wants clean H2 from water.
>Period. End of argument.
>
>It is not you who gets to define value.
Actually, it is. We all determine what's valuable for
ourselves. Some, unlike you, actually tackle the practical
problems of installing and using PV and other renewable
power sources. In addition to the power, they get
independence and hands-on experience, which makes the extra
cost worthwhile to them.
I respect their choice and salute them for their
contributions.
You, on the other hand, refuse to understand even your
meager cut-and-paste knowledge, instead trying to force
those who do understand to do your bidding. You are both
pathetic and irritating, a poor combination to attract
knowledgeable followers.
>Battery-bank electric cars are
>super-expensive, heavy, short-range. Batteries need replacement every
>five years. H2 internal combustion engines run cleaner than gasoline
>and last longer, go farther between rebuilds. Electricity does not make
>good transportation fuel -- H2 does. It's one third the weight of
>gasoline for the same mileage BTUs, and H2 + carbon-fiver-&-Aramid
>tanks are bullet-proof and have bursting strengths into 500,000 pounds.
>fiber-wrapped tanks are always lighter than steel gasoline tanks and
>compressed H2 @ 10ksi is only triple the volume =3D 3 large suitcases
>full to go the same distance as one suitcase-sized gasoline tank (no
>big deal).
All that knowledge, yet you aren't actually doing anything
but bitching and moaning about the fact most other people
don't agree with your values. Show us something, don't just
complain.
Think carefully about your current unusual, but appropriate,
domain name. Are your posts an unconscious call for help?
Perhaps a sci.psych group would be more appropriate.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Astrologer Steve Schulin @goofyfucker.com
So, you are saying the "Laws of Thermodynamics" makes my electric bill
$0.11 per kwh this year, but that for some reason the laws of physics
were different last year and they made my bill $0.13 kwh, yet before
BUsh was president my kwhs were only $0.07. What changed the LAWS of
THERMODYNAMICS?
Or rather, who "discovered" that kwhs were $0.11 this year, besides me
opening the envelop on the bill?
> >Do they come out of some lost chapter of the Bible?
>
> No.
>
> >Are they derived from physical laws provable through experiment
> >to be true in all times and places (say just as true 10,000,000 years
> >ago as 10,000,000 years from now?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Physics is assumed invarient over time -- are these rules of value
> >invarient,
>
> They are rules of physics, not rules of value, so they are
> in fact invarient over time.
You mean to say that kwhs of electricity had exactly the same value to
cavemen as they do today... $0.11 kwh?
> >or are they locally magically pulled out of the buttocks
> >of a financial priesthood class?
>
> No, but you can keep looking there, if it floats your boat.
> >
> >Who gets to make these rules? And how do they get to make the reules
> >that say only they can make the rules?
>
> Who or what made the rules of physics is a matter of faith,
> not science.
> >
> >Suppose, for instance, I make the rule that all night casinos in Las
> >Vegas are not a high VALUE for use of electricity? Why can't I make
> >that rule?
>
> Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
> you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
> yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
> except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
Oh, good one. I must save that and use against rightards pushing their
dictatorship.
> >> Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
> >> thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
> >> electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
> >> and seeing how much you get back.
> >
> >You can measure sunlight ---> PV ---> electricity ---> motor fuel and
> >compare it to sunlight ---> trashcan, and see where the EXERGY is to be
> >found in this picture.
>
> The point is that the value that made the PV array first had
> to go to the trashcan before you could produce any
> electricity. It takes a long time to recover that value. No
> one is stopping you from buying a PV system, yet you
> apparently don't have one, do you?
I have vested interest in several. The closest power utilities to me on
the Grid are (1) Solar PV (65 miles), (2) Wind (85 miles) and Hydro
(140 miles). mY electric bill goes most likely to the closest source,
PV grid power, at a rate of $0.11 kwh.
> Would you mind terribly if I agree with you and force you to
> invest in your own private PV system to independently
> provide all your own power?
Time to use my saved up charm to WARD off evil:
Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
> After you have spent a few tens of thousands of dollars to
> do so, you might have enough credibility to persuade someone
> to follow your lead. At present, you seem to be incredibly
> ignorant of even the most basic principles, and must resort
> to insults and irrational emotionality, convincing few, if
> any.
But you are so inviting of insults, who could resist?
> >> The best published IJHE figures are 13 percent exergy which is
> >> ludicrously low compared to the alternatives. Besides that 13 percent
> >> being absurdly overoptimistic, that 13 percent clearly does NOT include
> >> proper full burdened amortization.
> >
> >Nor does the alternative account for 2000 funerals from Iraq-Serving
> >National Guards who signed up to do help during disasters in their
> >states, and reserve in valid wars over something not lies. Who has
> >MORTIZED these soldiers?
> >
> >
> >> Thus, electrolysis from high value sources such as grid or solar pv is
> >> pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. The
> >> value destruction is instantaneous and irrecoverable.
> >
> >There you go again. Electricity has no value if it is not used
> >instantaneously or saved for later. All saved-for-later energy is 100%
> >efficient, because it represents 100% of energy you otherwise would
> >have lost 100%. Whether it is used to compress gas or raise water or
> >spin flywheels or charge batteries or electrolyze water into H2, any
> >electricity that you save has value that is 100% efficient.
>
> Why don't you voluntarily do that, instead of whining and
> complaining that the government isn't forcing you to do it?
> If you are right and it's profitable, you will be rich and
> famous. If not, perhaps you will better understand why
> others are not convinced.
>
> Either way, the noise level in the NG would improve.
But you are the one making noise. I already am rich and famous. Surely
you head of me. I clean bad radiation off nukular wates by washing it
in the blood of the lamb. So get convinced already.
> >Sunlight hitting your rooftop that is not saved is lost forever.
> >Capturing any amount in the form of H2 stored for later has VALUE.
> >
> >H2 is a product itself with value, too expensive for lots of people to
> >buy with pesos or dollars. Refineries are the world's largest buyers,
> >using H2 to crack oil into gasoline and fuel oil. Part of every
> >dollar's or Peso's value of gasoline is the xcontribution of H2 in
> >there. H2 which does not come from oil or gas means that more oil or
> >gas exists for other uses.
> >
> >Frankly you can't afford to buy H2 because the present pricing
> >structure puts it more valuable than dollars or pesos. You don't have
> >the jingle in your pocket to buy H2. Anybody spending their coin to
> >research ways to get more cheaer H2 is in your benefit because it will
> >ultimately make it affordable to people like you.
>
> You don't seem to understand. It's not the H2 that's
> expensive, it's the energy required to make it. If you have
> the energy available, you lose value by converting it to H2,
> unless you need specific chemical or physical properties of
> H2.
I am so freaking rich I used 226,622.2 kwhs of sunlight on the 8 acres
today just for illumination alone. It would have cost me $24,928.442 to
buy that light from the grid, not to mention the costs of bulbs.
Actually I got hands on experience installing solar water heater panel
on a roof. I was only helping the contracter though who has installed
2000 of them in his career up until then.
>
> I respect their choice and salute them for their
> contributions.
>
> You, on the other hand, refuse to understand even your
> meager cut-and-paste knowledge, instead trying to force
> those who do understand to do your bidding. You are both
> pathetic and irritating, a poor combination to attract
> knowledgeable followers.
>
> >Battery-bank electric cars are
> >super-expensive, heavy, short-range. Batteries need replacement every
> >five years. H2 internal combustion engines run cleaner than gasoline
> >and last longer, go farther between rebuilds. Electricity does not make
> >good transportation fuel -- H2 does. It's one third the weight of
> >gasoline for the same mileage BTUs, and H2 + carbon-fiver-&-Aramid
> >tanks are bullet-proof and have bursting strengths into 500,000 pounds.
> >fiber-wrapped tanks are always lighter than steel gasoline tanks and
> >compressed H2 @ 10ksi is only triple the volume =3D 3 large suitcases
> >full to go the same distance as one suitcase-sized gasoline tank (no
> >big deal).
>
> All that knowledge, yet you aren't actually doing anything
> but bitching and moaning about the fact most other people
> don't agree with your values. Show us something, don't just
> complain.
Actually posting things on usenet is a useful thing to do. It counters
dirty liars who deny that solar power works or deny that electrolysis
works or deny that H2_PV can be combined. No sense in letting THEM take
over the newsgroups and only have their lies posted.
> Think carefully about your current unusual, but appropriate,
> domain name. Are your posts an unconscious call for help?
Mail me. My domain name adress actually gets mail, unlike the many
phoney handles and nyms in circulation. Why would a domain-name be a
cry for help? Usually they are unique alphanumerics which allow
specific mnemonics for easy rememberence. You remember my domain-name?
Than it worked. Sorry, I can't remember yours.
> Perhaps a sci.psych group would be more appropriate.
Are they into Hydrogen made from PV?
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward
Bill Ward
@goofyfucker.com" <Steve....@goofyfucker.com> wrote:
The laws of thermodynamics are invarient and included in the
laws of economics, but there are other important parameters
such as supply, demand, and government interference that
vary with popular attitudes.
Please do, if you find any pushing dictatorship as opposed
to just disagreeing with you.
>
>
>> >> Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
>> >> thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
>> >> electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
>> >> and seeing how much you get back.
>> >
>> >You can measure sunlight ---> PV ---> electricity ---> motor fuel and
>> >compare it to sunlight ---> trashcan, and see where the EXERGY is to be
>> >found in this picture.
>>
>> The point is that the value that made the PV array first had
>> to go to the trashcan before you could produce any
>> electricity. It takes a long time to recover that value. No
>> one is stopping you from buying a PV system, yet you
>> apparently don't have one, do you?
>
>I have vested interest in several. The closest power utilities to me on
>the Grid are (1) Solar PV (65 miles), (2) Wind (85 miles) and Hydro
>(140 miles). mY electric bill goes most likely to the closest source,
>PV grid power, at a rate of $0.11 kwh.
I'm talking about a personal, private PV-H2 system that
independently supplies your power requirements. You are
just whining that other people won't do what you want.
You didn't have to lift a finger to get that "vested
interest". You need to design, buy, install and debug the
system you describe. It would be an expensive, but
unforgettable, education for you. No one who knows what
he's doing will do it for you.
>
>
>> Would you mind terribly if I agree with you and force you to
>> invest in your own private PV system to independently
>> provide all your own power?
>
>Time to use my saved up charm to WARD off evil:
>Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
>you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
>yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
>except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
Good, maybe you are finally learning something.
You seem disturbed. Is it because you do not always get
your way?
>
>
>> >Sunlight hitting your rooftop that is not saved is lost forever.
>> >Capturing any amount in the form of H2 stored for later has VALUE.
>> >
>> >H2 is a product itself with value, too expensive for lots of people to
>> >buy with pesos or dollars. Refineries are the world's largest buyers,
>> >using H2 to crack oil into gasoline and fuel oil. Part of every
>> >dollar's or Peso's value of gasoline is the xcontribution of H2 in
>> >there. H2 which does not come from oil or gas means that more oil or
>> >gas exists for other uses.
>> >
>> >Frankly you can't afford to buy H2 because the present pricing
>> >structure puts it more valuable than dollars or pesos. You don't have
>> >the jingle in your pocket to buy H2. Anybody spending their coin to
>> >research ways to get more cheaer H2 is in your benefit because it will
>> >ultimately make it affordable to people like you.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand. It's not the H2 that's
>> expensive, it's the energy required to make it. If you have
>> the energy available, you lose value by converting it to H2,
>> unless you need specific chemical or physical properties of
>> H2.
>
>I am so freaking rich I used 226,622.2 kwhs of sunlight on the 8 acres
>today just for illumination alone. It would have cost me $24,928.442 to
>buy that light from the grid, not to mention the costs of bulbs.
How much would it cost to _sell_ the power to the grid? If
you had the courage of your convictions, you would already
have installed a private PV system, and proven your new
version of the laws of economics by profiting handsomely.
Wow.
Calling someone a "dirty liar" because you are incapable of
understanding basic principles is a particularly weak
position. You should know by now you are not fooling anyone.
You claim PV-H2 works great, but then you refuse to learn
enough about it to demonstrate it, or even talk coherently
about it. Put your money where your mouth is, or you look
like a hypocrite.
>
>
>> Think carefully about your current unusual, but appropriate,
>> domain name. Are your posts an unconscious call for help?
>
>Mail me. My domain name adress actually gets mail, unlike the many
>phoney handles and nyms in circulation. Why would a domain-name be a
>cry for help? Usually they are unique alphanumerics which allow
>specific mnemonics for easy rememberence. You remember my domain-name?
>Than it worked. Sorry, I can't remember yours.
Don't you notice an uncannily appropriate theme running
through your DNs?
>
>> Perhaps a sci.psych group would be more appropriate.
>
>Are they into Hydrogen made from PV?
No, but apparently neither are you when push comes to shove.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Bill Ward, Who Kills Babies in Guatamala with his deadly Hurricane
How are the laws of thermodynamics included in "laws" of economics? If
the laws of thermodynamics says that it costs less total energy
consumption to go with H2-PV instead of building a trillion-dollar
military pressense to insure oil flow, that Bush and the Republicans
would go with the laws of thermodynamics to the lower-energy pathway to
energy security?
Is there ANY possibility at all that the people who put up
$200,000,000.00 campaign contributions to Bush before the Repub
Convention might influence economics to go in a direction favorable to
their present investments regardless of what the laws of thermodynamics
proved in total energy consumption?
> >Or rather, who "discovered" that kwhs were $0.11 this year, besides me
> >opening the envelop on the bill?
> >
> >
> >> >Do they come out of some lost chapter of the Bible?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> >Are they derived from physical laws provable through experiment
> >> >to be true in all times and places (say just as true 10,000,000 years
> >> >ago as 10,000,000 years from now?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >Physics is assumed invarient over time -- are these rules of value
> >> >invarient,
> >>
> >> They are rules of physics, not rules of value, so they are
> >> in fact invarient over time.
> >
> >You mean to say that kwhs of electricity had exactly the same value to
> >cavemen as they do today... $0.11 kwh?
What? no answer? The Laws of Economics being invarient over time,
electricity 1,000,000 years ago had precisely the same value to cavemen
that it has to you today?
> >> >or are they locally magically pulled out of the buttocks
> >> >of a financial priesthood class?
> >>
> >> No, but you can keep looking there, if it floats your boat.
> >> >
> >> >Who gets to make these rules? And how do they get to make the reules
> >> >that say only they can make the rules?
> >>
> >> Who or what made the rules of physics is a matter of faith,
> >> not science.
But we are talking about rules of economics. If they are "laws" they
have universal truth.. If they are not true 1,000,000 years agos same
as today, they are not "laws" but only belief systems made up to suit
the winners of a game of power over others to rule and make rules.
> >> >Suppose, for instance, I make the rule that all night casinos in Las
> >> >Vegas are not a high VALUE for use of electricity? Why can't I make
> >> >that rule?
> >>
> >> Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
> >> you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
> >> yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
> >> except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
> >
> >Oh, good one. I must save that and use against rightards pushing their
> >dictatorship.
>
> Please do, if you find any pushing dictatorship as opposed
> to just disagreeing with you.
It's not just disagreeing, but making "Rules" about what can be posted,
and conditions on posting. For example the "rule" that anyone
discussing H2-PV must be an industrialist making H2-PV does not seem to
apply, say when somebody discusses gasoline or cars. How many people
here make cars and own a refinery? Yet they have unimpeded freedom to
discuss cars and gasoline, despite their hypocrisy of not making cars
and not making gasoline, while discussants of H2-PV are sneered and
smeared for not owning a pV factory and a H2 factory at the same time.
Isn't that a dictatorship? Rules for discussing H2-PV are being
dictated by people who don't follow their own rules. If the rule is you
have to be an industrialist to discuss ANYTHING, you violate that rule
all the time, you fascist dictator.
Suppose I don't want to discuss with you? Why should you force yourself
into a discussion where you have no interest and have no real knowledge
and have no interest in gaining knowledge?
What is your purpose in injecting yourself where you hate the subject
matter?
> >> >> Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
> >> >> thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
> >> >> electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
> >> >> and seeing how much you get back.
> >> >
> >> >You can measure sunlight ---> PV ---> electricity ---> motor fuel and
> >> >compare it to sunlight ---> trashcan, and see where the EXERGY is to be
> >> >found in this picture.
> >>
> >> The point is that the value that made the PV array first had
> >> to go to the trashcan before you could produce any
> >> electricity. It takes a long time to recover that value. No
> >> one is stopping you from buying a PV system, yet you
> >> apparently don't have one, do you?
Be a lot more specific than that. How long exactly does it take to
recover value making PV? Versus recovering value from making a
trilliondollar military to protect oil logistics lines?
> >I have vested interest in several. The closest power utilities to me on
> >the Grid are (1) Solar PV (65 miles), (2) Wind (85 miles) and Hydro
> >(140 miles). mY electric bill goes most likely to the closest source,
> >PV grid power, at a rate of $0.11 kwh.
>
> I'm talking about a personal, private PV-H2 system that
> independently supplies your power requirements. You are
> just whining that other people won't do what you want.
Why do you get to make up all the rules, dictator? Who made you
dictator?
Let me have unimpeded conversation with people who like H2-PV and look
on without you butting in. Later you can tell me if I made anybody do
anything they didn't want to do.
Complaining about sabotage of the basic right to hold discussions in
America is legal. I believe I have a constitutionally guaranteed right
to freedom to assemble and petition grievences. In short, complaints
are constitutionally protected, but bullying self-appointed dictators
are UN-American. Aren't you ashamed of yourself, fascist pig?
> You didn't have to lift a finger to get that "vested
> interest". You need to design, buy, install and debug the
> system you describe.
Stop dictating rules on me, fascist pig.
First, I am going to hold discussions with like interested parties.
Unlike you, I don't rush into things before investigating the facts. So
far no factual basis for you claims has been introduced. You just say
unsubstantiated opinions and make dictatorial demands, whining when
people don't do what you want.
> It would be an expensive, but
> unforgettable, education for you. No one who knows what
> he's doing will do it for you.
> >> Would you mind terribly if I agree with you and force you to
> >> invest in your own private PV system to independently
> >> provide all your own power?
Don't make any kind of aggressive threat in a public forum. Premptive
neutralization of threat has been demonstrated by this Bush
Administration as the "American Way".
> >Time to use my saved up charm to WARD off evil:
> >Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
> >you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
> >yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
> >except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
>
> Good, maybe you are finally learning something.
>
> >
> >> After you have spent a few tens of thousands of dollars to
> >> do so, you might have enough credibility to persuade someone
> >> to follow your lead. At present, you seem to be incredibly
> >> ignorant of even the most basic principles, and must resort
> >> to insults and irrational emotionality, convincing few, if
> >> any.
> >
> >But you are so inviting of insults, who could resist?
> >
> >
> >> >> The best published IJHE figures are 13 percent exergy which is
> >> >> ludicrously low compared to the alternatives. Besides that 13 percent
> >> >> being absurdly overoptimistic, that 13 percent clearly does NOT include
> >> >> proper full burdened amortization.
> >> >
> >> >Nor does the alternative account for 2000 funerals from Iraq-Serving
> >> >National Guards who signed up to do help during disasters in their
> >> >states, and reserve in valid wars over something not lies. Who has
> >> >MORTIZED these soldiers?
You didn't address the ground up human bones and blood in every tankful
of gas you consume. Why not?
> >> >> Thus, electrolysis from high value sources such as grid or solar pv is
> >> >> pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. The
> >> >> value destruction is instantaneous and irrecoverable.
> >> >
> >> >There you go again. Electricity has no value if it is not used
> >> >instantaneously or saved for later. All saved-for-later energy is 100%
> >> >efficient, because it represents 100% of energy you otherwise would
> >> >have lost 100%. Whether it is used to compress gas or raise water or
> >> >spin flywheels or charge batteries or electrolyze water into H2, any
> >> >electricity that you save has value that is 100% efficient.
> >>
> >> Why don't you voluntarily do that, instead of whining and
> >> complaining that the government isn't forcing you to do it?
> >> If you are right and it's profitable, you will be rich and
> >> famous. If not, perhaps you will better understand why
> >> others are not convinced.
> >>
> >> Either way, the noise level in the NG would improve.
> >
> >But you are the one making noise. I already am rich and famous. Surely
> >you head of me. I clean bad radiation off nukular wates by washing it
> >in the blood of the lamb. So get convinced already.
>
> You seem disturbed. Is it because you do not always get
> your way?
I got my way.
Courage of convictions is not an issue here. A discussion is proposed.
Not an investment nor a factory. A discussion. You should make a
gasoline refinery and make a car factory before suggesting I make a
H2-PV factory, if you had any honesty and integrity.
It's you dictatorially imposing the rules that one must build a factory
before discussing a technology. You obey your own rules, then come back
and talk.
So how many gallons of gas did you refine? How many tires have you
made? How exactly do you make your sparkplugs? In fact, if you made
your own windshields you would be better informed to participate in a
discussion involving molten Silicon. So how many car windows have you
made? How many gas pumps? How many catalytic converters?
> >> I respect their choice and salute them for their
> >> contributions.
> >>
> >> You, on the other hand, refuse to understand even your
> >> meager cut-and-paste knowledge, instead trying to force
> >> those who do understand to do your bidding. You are both
> >> pathetic and irritating, a poor combination to attract
> >> knowledgeable followers.
Cite some example of anybody (other than yourself, fascist pig) who
tries to impose their will on others.
Holding a discussion and teaching technology is only "forcing people"
to do biding in the mind of a demented paranoid.
You really do HATE AMERICAN FREEDOMS, like freedom of speech, don't
you?
> >> >Battery-bank electric cars are
> >> >super-expensive, heavy, short-range. Batteries need replacement every
> >> >five years. H2 internal combustion engines run cleaner than gasoline
> >> >and last longer, go farther between rebuilds. Electricity does not make
> >> >good transportation fuel -- H2 does. It's one third the weight of
> >> >gasoline for the same mileage BTUs, and H2 + carbon-fiver-&-Aramid
> >> >tanks are bullet-proof and have bursting strengths into 500,000 pounds.
> >> >fiber-wrapped tanks are always lighter than steel gasoline tanks and
> >> >compressed H2 @ 10ksi is only triple the volume =3D 3 large suitcases
> >> >full to go the same distance as one suitcase-sized gasoline tank (no
> >> >big deal).
> >>
> >> All that knowledge, yet you aren't actually doing anything
> >> but bitching and moaning about the fact most other people
> >> don't agree with your values. Show us something, don't just
> >> complain.
It appears that you are the one doing all the complaining. You were
shown something: KNOWLEDGE you previously did not possess.
> >Actually posting things on usenet is a useful thing to do. It counters
> >dirty liars who deny that solar power works or deny that electrolysis
> >works or deny that H2_PV can be combined. No sense in letting THEM take
> >over the newsgroups and only have their lies posted.
>
> Calling someone a "dirty liar" because you are incapable of
> understanding basic principles is a particularly weak
> position. You should know by now you are not fooling anyone.
You're a dirty liar. You're a dirty liar. You're a dirty liar. You're a
dirty liar.
I'm fooling you into giving up part of your life into making an azz of
yourself. Now THAT'S enetertainment!!!
> You claim PV-H2 works great, but then you refuse to learn
> enough about it to demonstrate it, or even talk coherently
> about it. Put your money where your mouth is, or you look
> like a hypocrite.
Come back and talk when you have made your first gallon of 84 octane
gasoline, punk.
> >> Think carefully about your current unusual, but appropriate,
> >> domain name. Are your posts an unconscious call for help?
> >
> >Mail me. My domain name adress actually gets mail, unlike the many
> >phoney handles and nyms in circulation. Why would a domain-name be a
> >cry for help? Usually they are unique alphanumerics which allow
> >specific mnemonics for easy rememberence. You remember my domain-name?
> >Than it worked. Sorry, I can't remember yours.
>
> Don't you notice an uncannily appropriate theme running
> through your DNs?
Yup.
> >> Perhaps a sci.psych group would be more appropriate.
> >
> >Are they into Hydrogen made from PV?
>
> No, but apparently neither are you when push comes to shove.
Come back after you have smelted the steel to make your own car
chassis, hypocrite.
Come back after you have made your own turbine for your grid
electricity.
Come back after you have made your own fiber-optics internet backbone
cables.
Come back after you have made your own Pentium Chips, hypocrite liar.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Bill Ward, Who Kills Babies in Guatamala with his deadly Hurricane
How are the laws of thermodynamics included in "laws" of economics? If
the laws of thermodynamics says that it costs less total energy
consumption to go with H2-PV instead of building a trillion-dollar
military pressense to insure oil flow, that Bush and the Republicans
would go with the laws of thermodynamics to the lower-energy pathway to
energy security?
Is there ANY possibility at all that the people who put up
$200,000,000.00 campaign contributions to Bush before the Repub
Convention might influence economics to go in a direction favorable to
their present investments regardless of what the laws of thermodynamics
proved in total energy consumption?
> >Or rather, who "discovered" that kwhs were $0.11 this year, besides me
> >opening the envelop on the bill?
> >
> >
> >> >Do they come out of some lost chapter of the Bible?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> >Are they derived from physical laws provable through experiment
> >> >to be true in all times and places (say just as true 10,000,000 years
> >> >ago as 10,000,000 years from now?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >Physics is assumed invarient over time -- are these rules of value
> >> >invarient,
> >>
> >> They are rules of physics, not rules of value, so they are
> >> in fact invarient over time.
> >
> >You mean to say that kwhs of electricity had exactly the same value to
> >cavemen as they do today... $0.11 kwh?
What? no answer? The Laws of Economics being invarient over time,
electricity 1,000,000 years ago had precisely the same value to cavemen
that it has to you today?
> >> >or are they locally magically pulled out of the buttocks
> >> >of a financial priesthood class?
> >>
> >> No, but you can keep looking there, if it floats your boat.
> >> >
> >> >Who gets to make these rules? And how do they get to make the reules
> >> >that say only they can make the rules?
> >>
> >> Who or what made the rules of physics is a matter of faith,
> >> not science.
But we are talking about rules of economics. If they are "laws" they
have universal truth.. If they are not true 1,000,000 years agos same
as today, they are not "laws" but only belief systems made up to suit
the winners of a game of power over others to rule and make rules.
> >> >Suppose, for instance, I make the rule that all night casinos in Las
> >> >Vegas are not a high VALUE for use of electricity? Why can't I make
> >> >that rule?
> >>
> >> Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
> >> you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
> >> yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
> >> except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
> >
> >Oh, good one. I must save that and use against rightards pushing their
> >dictatorship.
>
> Please do, if you find any pushing dictatorship as opposed
> to just disagreeing with you.
It's not just disagreeing, but making "Rules" about what can be posted,
and conditions on posting. For example the "rule" that anyone
discussing H2-PV must be an industrialist making H2-PV does not seem to
apply, say when somebody discusses gasoline or cars. How many people
here make cars and own a refinery? Yet they have unimpeded freedom to
discuss cars and gasoline, despite their hypocrisy of not making cars
and not making gasoline, while discussants of H2-PV are sneered and
smeared for not owning a pV factory and a H2 factory at the same time.
Isn't that a dictatorship? Rules for discussing H2-PV are being
dictated by people who don't follow their own rules. If the rule is you
have to be an industrialist to discuss ANYTHING, you violate that rule
all the time, you fascist dictator.
Suppose I don't want to discuss with you? Why should you force yourself
into a discussion where you have no interest and have no real knowledge
and have no interest in gaining knowledge?
What is your purpose in injecting yourself where you hate the subject
matter?
> >> >> Exergy is a measure of energy quality. Specifically its
> >> >> thermodynamically reversible recovery fraction. You can measure
> >> >> electrolysis exergy by going electricity ---> hydrogen ---> electricity
> >> >> and seeing how much you get back.
> >> >
> >> >You can measure sunlight ---> PV ---> electricity ---> motor fuel and
> >> >compare it to sunlight ---> trashcan, and see where the EXERGY is to be
> >> >found in this picture.
> >>
> >> The point is that the value that made the PV array first had
> >> to go to the trashcan before you could produce any
> >> electricity. It takes a long time to recover that value. No
> >> one is stopping you from buying a PV system, yet you
> >> apparently don't have one, do you?
Be a lot more specific than that. How long exactly does it take to
recover value making PV? Versus recovering value from making a
trilliondollar military to protect oil logistics lines?
> >I have vested interest in several. The closest power utilities to me on
> >the Grid are (1) Solar PV (65 miles), (2) Wind (85 miles) and Hydro
> >(140 miles). mY electric bill goes most likely to the closest source,
> >PV grid power, at a rate of $0.11 kwh.
>
> I'm talking about a personal, private PV-H2 system that
> independently supplies your power requirements. You are
> just whining that other people won't do what you want.
Why do you get to make up all the rules, dictator? Who made you
dictator?
Let me have unimpeded conversation with people who like H2-PV and look
on without you butting in. Later you can tell me if I made anybody do
anything they didn't want to do.
Complaining about sabotage of the basic right to hold discussions in
America is legal. I believe I have a constitutionally guaranteed right
to freedom to assemble and petition grievences. In short, complaints
are constitutionally protected, but bullying self-appointed dictators
are UN-American. Aren't you ashamed of yourself, fascist pig?
> You didn't have to lift a finger to get that "vested
> interest". You need to design, buy, install and debug the
> system you describe.
Stop dictating rules on me, fascist pig.
First, I am going to hold discussions with like interested parties.
Unlike you, I don't rush into things before investigating the facts. So
far no factual basis for you claims has been introduced. You just say
unsubstantiated opinions and make dictatorial demands, whining when
people don't do what you want.
> It would be an expensive, but
> unforgettable, education for you. No one who knows what
> he's doing will do it for you.
> >> Would you mind terribly if I agree with you and force you to
> >> invest in your own private PV system to independently
> >> provide all your own power?
Don't make any kind of aggressive threat in a public forum. Premptive
neutralization of threat has been demonstrated by this Bush
Administration as the "American Way".
> >Time to use my saved up charm to WARD off evil:
> >Because the country has not yet fallen into the dictatorship
> >you seem to crave. You can make rules of value only for
> >yourself. You may not inflict rules of value on others
> >except with due process as provided by the Constitution.
>
> Good, maybe you are finally learning something.
>
> >
> >> After you have spent a few tens of thousands of dollars to
> >> do so, you might have enough credibility to persuade someone
> >> to follow your lead. At present, you seem to be incredibly
> >> ignorant of even the most basic principles, and must resort
> >> to insults and irrational emotionality, convincing few, if
> >> any.
> >
> >But you are so inviting of insults, who could resist?
> >
> >
> >> >> The best published IJHE figures are 13 percent exergy which is
> >> >> ludicrously low compared to the alternatives. Besides that 13 percent
> >> >> being absurdly overoptimistic, that 13 percent clearly does NOT include
> >> >> proper full burdened amortization.
> >> >
> >> >Nor does the alternative account for 2000 funerals from Iraq-Serving
> >> >National Guards who signed up to do help during disasters in their
> >> >states, and reserve in valid wars over something not lies. Who has
> >> >MORTIZED these soldiers?
You didn't address the ground up human bones and blood in every tankful
of gas you consume. Why not?
> >> >> Thus, electrolysis from high value sources such as grid or solar pv is
> >> >> pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. The
> >> >> value destruction is instantaneous and irrecoverable.
> >> >
> >> >There you go again. Electricity has no value if it is not used
> >> >instantaneously or saved for later. All saved-for-later energy is 100%
> >> >efficient, because it represents 100% of energy you otherwise would
> >> >have lost 100%. Whether it is used to compress gas or raise water or
> >> >spin flywheels or charge batteries or electrolyze water into H2, any
> >> >electricity that you save has value that is 100% efficient.
> >>
> >> Why don't you voluntarily do that, instead of whining and
> >> complaining that the government isn't forcing you to do it?
> >> If you are right and it's profitable, you will be rich and
> >> famous. If not, perhaps you will better understand why
> >> others are not convinced.
> >>
> >> Either way, the noise level in the NG would improve.
> >
> >But you are the one making noise. I already am rich and famous. Surely
> >you head of me. I clean bad radiation off nukular wates by washing it
> >in the blood of the lamb. So get convinced already.
>
> You seem disturbed. Is it because you do not always get
> your way?
I got my way.
Courage of convictions is not an issue here. A discussion is proposed.
Not an investment nor a factory. A discussion. You should make a
gasoline refinery and make a car factory before suggesting I make a
H2-PV factory, if you had any honesty and integrity.
It's you dictatorially imposing the rules that one must build a factory
before discussing a technology. You obey your own rules, then come back
and talk.
> >> >> Should the price of electricity drop, then other alternatives (such as
So how many gallons of gas did you refine? How many tires have you
made? How exactly do you make your sparkplugs? In fact, if you made
your own windshields you would be better informed to participate in a
discussion involving molten Silicon. So how many car windows have you
made? How many gas pumps? How many catalytic converters?
> >> I respect their choice and salute them for their
> >> contributions.
> >>
> >> You, on the other hand, refuse to understand even your
> >> meager cut-and-paste knowledge, instead trying to force
> >> those who do understand to do your bidding. You are both
> >> pathetic and irritating, a poor combination to attract
> >> knowledgeable followers.
Cite some example of anybody (other than yourself, fascist pig) who
tries to impose their will on others.
Holding a discussion and teaching technology is only "forcing people"
to do biding in the mind of a demented paranoid.
You really do HATE AMERICAN FREEDOMS, like freedom of speech, don't
you?
> >> >Battery-bank electric cars are
> >> >super-expensive, heavy, short-range. Batteries need replacement every
> >> >five years. H2 internal combustion engines run cleaner than gasoline
> >> >and last longer, go farther between rebuilds. Electricity does not make
> >> >good transportation fuel -- H2 does. It's one third the weight of
> >> >gasoline for the same mileage BTUs, and H2 + carbon-fiver-&-Aramid
> >> >tanks are bullet-proof and have bursting strengths into 500,000 pounds.
> >> >fiber-wrapped tanks are always lighter than steel gasoline tanks and
> >> >compressed H2 @ 10ksi is only triple the volume =3D 3 large suitcases
> >> >full to go the same distance as one suitcase-sized gasoline tank (no
> >> >big deal).
> >>
> >> All that knowledge, yet you aren't actually doing anything
> >> but bitching and moaning about the fact most other people
> >> don't agree with your values. Show us something, don't just
> >> complain.
It appears that you are the one doing all the complaining. You were
shown something: KNOWLEDGE you previously did not possess.
> >Actually posting things on usenet is a useful thing to do. It counters
> >dirty liars who deny that solar power works or deny that electrolysis
> >works or deny that H2_PV can be combined. No sense in letting THEM take
> >over the newsgroups and only have their lies posted.
>
> Calling someone a "dirty liar" because you are incapable of
> understanding basic principles is a particularly weak
> position. You should know by now you are not fooling anyone.
You're a dirty liar. You're a dirty liar. You're a dirty liar. You're a
dirty liar.
I'm fooling you into giving up part of your life into making an azz of
yourself. Now THAT'S enetertainment!!!
> You claim PV-H2 works great, but then you refuse to learn
> enough about it to demonstrate it, or even talk coherently
> about it. Put your money where your mouth is, or you look
> like a hypocrite.
Come back and talk when you have made your first gallon of 84 octane
gasoline, punk.
> >> Think carefully about your current unusual, but appropriate,
> >> domain name. Are your posts an unconscious call for help?
> >
> >Mail me. My domain name adress actually gets mail, unlike the many
> >phoney handles and nyms in circulation. Why would a domain-name be a
> >cry for help? Usually they are unique alphanumerics which allow
> >specific mnemonics for easy rememberence. You remember my domain-name?
> >Than it worked. Sorry, I can't remember yours.
>
> Don't you notice an uncannily appropriate theme running
> through your DNs?
Yup.
> >> Perhaps a sci.psych group would be more appropriate.
> >
> >Are they into Hydrogen made from PV?
>
> No, but apparently neither are you when push comes to shove.
Come back after you have smelted the steel to make your own car
Bill Ward
<Global....@ARMY.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Ward, Who Kills Babies in Guatamala with his deadly Hurricane
>Tailpipe Gases, wrote:
>> On 2 Nov 2005 21:45:28 -0800, "Astrologer Steve Schulin
>> @goofyfucker.com" <Steve....@goofyfucker.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bill Ward wrote:
>> >> On 2 Nov 2005 18:12:12 -0800, "H2-PV"
>> >> <H2...@whythefucknot.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Don Lancaster wrote:
>> >> >> James Rapier @UselessBastard.net wrote:
<snip sincere but futile attempt to reason with this troll>
>
>> >Actually posting things on usenet is a useful thing to do. It counters
>> >dirty liars who deny that solar power works or deny that electrolysis
>> >works or deny that H2_PV can be combined. No sense in letting THEM take
>> >over the newsgroups and only have their lies posted.
>>
>> Calling someone a "dirty liar" because you are incapable of
>> understanding basic principles is a particularly weak
>> position. You should know by now you are not fooling anyone.
>
>You're a dirty liar. You're a dirty liar. You're a dirty liar. You're a
>dirty liar.
>
>I'm fooling you into giving up part of your life into making an azz of
>yourself. Now THAT'S enetertainment!!!
>
OK, you got me there.
You have the right to be stupid.
Apparently you're stuck there and like it.
Take your best shot, troll. I'm outta here.
K. Jones
"H2-PV" <H2...@whythefucknot.com> wrote in message
news:1130983931.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>If a power plant is currently producing 100MWs but demand has fallen to
>90MWs at the instant, what is the value of the 10 surplus MWs? Unless
>it is stored it evaporates -- poof -- into nothingness, not even a
>shadow left behind.
You've demonstrated that you do not grasp the concept, with that statement.
There are no "10 surplus MWs" . Generation follows demand.
If "demand has fallen to 90MWs at the instant", generation will be 90Mw.
There is no "evaporates" no "poof -- into nothingness"
Best go do a little learning, and come back when you have a better
understanding of what your are talking about.
K. Jones
H2-PV NOW
K. Jones wrote:
> "H2-PV" <H2...@whythefucknot.com> wrote in message
> news:1130983931.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >If a power plant is currently producing 100MWs but demand has fallen to
> >90MWs at the instant, what is the value of the 10 surplus MWs? Unless
> >it is stored it evaporates -- poof -- into nothingness, not even a
> >shadow left behind.
>
> You've demonstrated that you do not grasp the concept, with that statement.
>
> There are no "10 surplus MWs" . Generation follows demand.
> If "demand has fallen to 90MWs at the instant", generation will be 90Mw.
> There is no "evaporates" no "poof -- into nothingness"
YOU don't understand power generation. The equipment of base-production
cannot start-stop on a fraction of a second. Even peak demand
equipment, which is fast starting takes minutes to power up and power
down. It would require TOP ASTROLOGERS like Nancy Reagan hired to help
her already senescent hubby to predict in advance peak baseload and
peak-peakload demands. There is ALWAYS some surplus unless the utility
imposes brownouts of reduced supply. Electronics sensors can detect the
surplus at near speed of light and shunt tha power into some saving
scheme. H2 is one of many possible savings schemes for unused kWs, but
no savings means 100% lost.
Since you have no concept of saving surplus power whhatsoever, you are
hardly qualified to participate in any discussion of the merits and
demerits of various electricity storage options.
> Best go do a little learning, and come back when you have a better
> understanding of what your are talking about.
>
> K. Jones
You are the one who needs to go finish your education. Come back when
you understand why electrical generation systems are designed to
provide a daytime baseline power supply which is always higher than the
nighttime demand, and why they give lower rates at night to encourage
demand shifting to the power surplus period.
Every surplus Kilowatt not saved is 100% lost. Every surplus kilowatt
save is 100% efficient compared to 100% lost.
Hydrogen's scarcity makes it far more valuable than kilowatts.
Kilowatts sold on the market are higher value than the kws that made
it. H2 is a product -- get used to it.
fkasner
I do see what your trouble is. You have close to zero knowledge of
chemistry and physics. 1.25 volts will get you nothing no matter what
you want to do with it. 1.25 volts is a potential. The name is well
chosen. It is potential. It does nothing. A volt is a potential amount
of energy. Potential does not produce electrolysis. Electric current
produces electrolysis. However the potential without a current does
nothing. We had another idiot on this NG years ago who insisted that
potential measured in electron volts (that is NOT a potential it is an
energy) could be used to make hydrogen without any appreciable current.
He was wrong. You are wrong. Without an electric current there is no
electrolysis. The amount of hydrogen you get, and you really do not
something more than 1.25 volts (cf. overvoltsage) and considerable
current. Why? Because what you need is the necessary total charge
(current times time) that is passed through the electrolyte. The amount
of current you can get out of a dry cell is pathetically small and so
will produce so little amount of hydrogen as to be essentially useless
for any commercial process.
I taught a lot of college students about electrolysis and the chemistry
associated with it. You would do well to do some serious study (you are
able to read I presume) before you pontificate about a subjec on which
you are so clearly ignorant.
FK
Dan Bloomquist
H2-PV NOW wrote:
>
> YOU don't understand power generation. The equipment of base-production
> cannot start-stop on a fraction of a second. Even peak demand
> equipment, which is fast starting takes minutes to power up and power
> down. It would require TOP ASTROLOGERS like Nancy Reagan hired to help
> her already senescent hubby to predict in advance peak baseload and
> peak-peakload demands. There is ALWAYS some surplus unless the utility
> imposes brownouts of reduced supply. Electronics sensors can detect the
> surplus at near speed of light and shunt tha power into some saving
> scheme. H2 is one of many possible savings schemes for unused kWs, but
> no savings means 100% lost.
Just in case anyone believes this stuff, it just ain't so. The only
required surplus is 'capacity', not production. The fastest responder on
the grid is hydro. That is used to tweak the frequency of the grid.
Spare capacity is brought on line or taken off as needed. There is no
need to know the next second's demand as is claimed above.
K Jones is experienced in the industry. H2-PV NOW has no clue.
I'll repost this again:
Producers push on the grid if you'd like. The grid is like a massive
flywheel. Producers push to keep it turning. It has a friction pad that
represents the consumers. If someone turns a light out, then the
flywheel will tend to turn faster. The fastest responder to a change in
speed, (frequency), is hydro. So as the increase in frequency is
detected this hydro cuts back on production. Likewise, if the frequency
drops, more power is brought on line. There is no such thing as excess
energy. Producers only supply what is demanded.
Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com
MORON. PV puts out sufficient volts and sufficient cuttent. Ohm's law:
volts times amps (current) equals watts. PV is commonly referred to as
watts output not as volts times current.
you are deliberately acting stupid to hinder a discussion which does
not need you and does not want you. You hate PV and you hate HYDROGEN,
so buzz off.
You have not made one useful contribution on this subject in history.
People electrolyze water with electricty. FACT.
H2O doesn't care where the electricity comes from but it prefers DC for
electrolysis. FACT.
PV provided DC electricity naturally without conversion losses to
electrolyze water. FACT.
PV provides sufficient VOLTS and CURRENT to electrolyze water. FACT.
People have done it. FACT.
PV electrolysis of water breaks no physics laws. FACT.
PV to H2 is the cleanest, fastest, least pollution, cheapest route to
obtain H2. FACT.
Nothing else comes close to PV for producing H2 from water when all the
accounting is equally dilligent. FACT.
PV does not leave toxic wastes for 20,000 generations like nukes. FACT.
H2 produces no hurricane-spawning, global warming, carbon gases. FACT.
PV produces enough energy to power furnaces to produce more PV. FACT.
PV-H2 can be deployed worldwide in ten years to totally replace carbon
fuels in ever POWER application. FACT.
H2-PV NOW
> H2-PV NOW wrote:
> >
> > YOU don't understand power generation. The equipment of base-production
> > cannot start-stop on a fraction of a second. Even peak demand
> > equipment, which is fast starting takes minutes to power up and power
> > down. It would require TOP ASTROLOGERS like Nancy Reagan hired to help
> > her already senescent hubby to predict in advance peak baseload and
> > peak-peakload demands. There is ALWAYS some surplus unless the utility
> > imposes brownouts of reduced supply. Electronics sensors can detect the
> > surplus at near speed of light and shunt tha power into some saving
> > scheme. H2 is one of many possible savings schemes for unused kWs, but
> > no savings means 100% lost.
>
> Just in case anyone believes this stuff, it just ain't so. The only
> required surplus is 'capacity', not production. The fastest responder on
> the grid is hydro.
The grid frequency is 60 hz. They go to great lengths to condition the
power to 60 hz. You can set your clock by it, it is so exact. In facts
electric clocks do keep time by detecting it's beats, 60 per second,
exactly, unvarying.
Hydro can increase power by increasing the number of turbines online.
When less turbines are needed, the water flow is shut down to some of
them. The full throttle hydro is the base energy, the cheapest energy.
It is not instant on-off, but depends on the water flowing through
turbines and the number of turbines operating. Because power needs by
consumers cannot ever be predicted perfectly, there are peaks and
valleys inside the power availability of the hydro generation.
Gas turbines provide surplus energy above the hydro base production.
> That is used to tweak the frequency of the grid.
> Spare capacity is brought on line or taken off as needed. There is no
> need to know the next second's demand as is claimed above.
Unless there is spare production at the instant a consumer turns on the
elevator, the machine doesn't move. To prevent that there is always a
bit of spare production on hand.
When demand exceeds the supply, the grid goes into brownout, providing
less than the standard voltage. To avoid brownouts, whenever the base
production is nearing maximum consumption the expensive peak power
generators are fired up.
Grids can move electricity from one producer to another, but these are
"leaky buckets". The further electricity travels the more it loses in
wire resistence. A leaky bucket can carry some water only so far before
it is empty. In order to provide local needs more leaky buckets have to
be used if the surplus is travelling long distances.
It was computed as far back as 1973 in cover story of January edition
of the Scientific American that the tradeoff point is 800 miles where
it is more efficient to electrolyze water into H2, pipeline it the 800
miles and burn it to power a local turbine than to sent the high
voltage through wires 800 miles. The efficiency of copper has not
improved in 32 years but the efficiency of electrolysis has.
Any surplus electricity sensed by electronics at near the speed of
light which is not stored is 100% lost. FACT.
> K Jones is experienced in the industry. H2-PV NOW has no clue.
I am so happy for K Jones career as a meter-reader.
>
> I'll repost this again:
> Producers push on the grid if you'd like. The grid is like a massive
> flywheel.
Don't use babytalk. There are NO FLYWHEELS attached to the grid. THere
are nukes, which are very slow responders as the fuel has to be more
exposed to increase heat to make more steam to power more turbines.
Coal generation requires fueling more coal into more furnaces to boil
more water to make more steam to power more turbines. It is a slow
responder.
Natural gas is a fast responder. No steam. Direct fuel fire expansion
propels turbines within minutes. Very expensive, reserved for high cost
peak demand.
Hydro is slow responder, requires opening more gates to more turbines.
Grid shunting from other utility districts is fast responder, leaky
bucket, wasting more energy than any other means.
The USA with only three hours time difference experiences peak demands
at mid-day simultaneously across the country, and off-peaks
simultaneously across the country. Nowhere has peak baseline while
elsewhere ha off-peak demands to grid-shunt spare baseline capacity.
Nightime has baselines below demand coast to coast. Particularly hydro
and nuclear can be generating H2-PV at this time period.
> Producers push to keep it turning. It has a friction pad that
> represents the consumers. If someone turns a light out, then the
> flywheel will tend to turn faster.
There are no flywheels -- this is intewntionally decetive to fool
people too lazy to look up energy production methods and response times
to demands.
> The fastest responder to a change in
> speed, (frequency), is hydro.
FREQUENCY is 60hz coast to coast. It never intentionally changes.
Current is what changes, not frequency.
> So as the increase in frequency is
> detected this hydro cuts back on production. Likewise, if the frequency
> drops, more power is brought on line. There is no such thing as excess
> energy. Producers only supply what is demanded.
Producers can only do what the actual equipment permits them to do.
They have decades of experience telling them when to expect peaks and
lulls, and they power up or power down equipment to meet those peaks
and valleys, but they always carry a least a small suplus at every
minute of every day. Soimetimes the surplus can be quite large for some
periods of the day or night. The costs of wasting power never needed
are already paid for in your bill. Right now nobody is storing those
wastes, so they are 100% lost. Any saved is 100% efficiency saved
compared to 100% inefficiency of lost.
Dan Bloomquist
H2-PV NOW wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>H2-PV NOW wrote:
>>
>>>YOU don't understand power generation. The equipment of base-production
>>>cannot start-stop on a fraction of a second. Even peak demand
>>>equipment, which is fast starting takes minutes to power up and power
>>>down. It would require TOP ASTROLOGERS like Nancy Reagan hired to help
>>>her already senescent hubby to predict in advance peak baseload and
>>>peak-peakload demands. There is ALWAYS some surplus unless the utility
>>>imposes brownouts of reduced supply. Electronics sensors can detect the
>>>surplus at near speed of light and shunt tha power into some saving
>>>scheme. H2 is one of many possible savings schemes for unused kWs, but
>>>no savings means 100% lost.
>>
>>Just in case anyone believes this stuff, it just ain't so. The only
>>required surplus is 'capacity', not production. The fastest responder on
>>the grid is hydro.
>
>
> The grid frequency is 60 hz. They go to great lengths to condition the
> power to 60 hz. You can set your clock by it, it is so exact. In facts
> electric clocks do keep time by detecting it's beats, 60 per second,
> exactly, unvarying.
Impossible. Providers can only react to load. Your clock is right
because of the average correction over time makes it so.
> Hydro can increase power by increasing the number of turbines online.
> When less turbines are needed, the water flow is shut down to some of
> them. The full throttle hydro is the base energy, the cheapest energy.
Not true. Hydro is a limited resource. A lot of it is pumped storage. As
it seems you don't have a clue about pumped storage, I'd be happy to
explain. Base load is coal and nuclear.
> It is not instant on-off, but depends on the water flowing through
> turbines and the number of turbines operating. Because power needs by
> consumers cannot ever be predicted perfectly, there are peaks and
> valleys inside the power availability of the hydro generation.
So, does the frequency vary? I'll leave you to figure out why you can't
have your cake...
> Gas turbines provide surplus energy above the hydro base production.
Gas _and_ pumped storage are used for peaking.
>>That is used to tweak the frequency of the grid.
>>Spare capacity is brought on line or taken off as needed. There is no
>>need to know the next second's demand as is claimed above.
>
> Unless there is spare production at the instant a consumer turns on the
> elevator, the machine doesn't move.
It is called spare 'capacity', and yes, the elevator will move.
> To prevent that there is always a
> bit of spare production on hand.
Capacity.
> When demand exceeds the supply, the grid goes into brownout, providing
> less than the standard voltage. To avoid brownouts, whenever the base
> production is nearing maximum consumption the expensive peak power
> generators are fired up.
No kidding?
> Grids can move electricity from one producer to another, but these are
> "leaky buckets". The further electricity travels the more it loses in
> wire resistence. A leaky bucket can carry some water only so far before
> it is empty. In order to provide local needs more leaky buckets have to
> be used if the surplus is travelling long distances.
Gota say, 'leaky buckets' sounds dumb for line loss.
> It was computed as far back as 1973 in cover story of January edition
> of the Scientific American that the tradeoff point is 800 miles where
> it is more efficient to electrolyze water into H2, pipeline it the 800
> miles and burn it to power a local turbine than to sent the high
> voltage through wires 800 miles. The efficiency of copper has not
> improved in 32 years but the efficiency of electrolysis has.
Well, I'm not going to dig through my box of back issues on your say.
Got a link? At that, 800 miles is probably around an 8% loss. How could
you possibly get better than 50% with hydrogen storage?
> Any surplus electricity sensed by electronics at near the speed of
> light which is not stored is 100% lost. FACT.
You say 'FACT', therfor it is? Why don't you provide a link to back your
rhetoric?
>>K Jones is experienced in the industry. H2-PV NOW has no clue.
>
> I am so happy for K Jones career as a meter-reader.
ad hominem argument. So point goes to K.
>>I'll repost this again:
>>Producers push on the grid if you'd like. The grid is like a massive
>>flywheel.
>
> Don't use babytalk. There are NO FLYWHEELS attached to the grid. THere
> are nukes, which are very slow responders as the fuel has to be more
> exposed to increase heat to make more steam to power more turbines.
Well, if you can't understand baby talk, what will work? The grid is
full of inertia. But you don't get it.
> Coal generation requires fueling more coal into more furnaces to boil
> more water to make more steam to power more turbines. It is a slow
> responder.
Got numbers?
> Natural gas is a fast responder. No steam. Direct fuel fire expansion
> propels turbines within minutes. Very expensive, reserved for high cost
> peak demand.
So?
> Hydro is slow responder, requires opening more gates to more turbines.
Nope. The limitation to a turbine gate would be hammer. Otherwise they
are very fast. Have you ever been around hydraulics? Or do you think
those gates you see for bypass have something to do with a turbine gate?
> Grid shunting from other utility districts is fast responder, leaky
> bucket, wasting more energy than any other means.
??? I think you are quacking.
> The USA with only three hours time difference experiences peak demands
> at mid-day simultaneously across the country, and off-peaks
> simultaneously across the country. Nowhere has peak baseline while
> elsewhere ha off-peak demands to grid-shunt spare baseline capacity.
Now I know you are quacking.
> Nightime has baselines below demand coast to coast. Particularly hydro
> and nuclear can be generating H2-PV at this time period.
It is called baseload. And if you have spare capacity, you move that
energy to pumped storage. But what, you know more than everyone else in
the industry...
>>Producers push to keep it turning. It has a friction pad that
>>represents the consumers. If someone turns a light out, then the
>>flywheel will tend to turn faster.
>
> There are no flywheels -- this is intewntionally decetive to fool
> people too lazy to look up energy production methods and response times
> to demands.
Not my problem if you don't get it.
>>The fastest responder to a change in
>>speed, (frequency), is hydro.
>
> FREQUENCY is 60hz coast to coast. It never intentionally changes.
> Current is what changes, not frequency.
No, frequency and voltage are provided. Current is demand. They all change.
>>So as the increase in frequency is
>>detected this hydro cuts back on production. Likewise, if the frequency
>>drops, more power is brought on line. There is no such thing as excess
>>energy. Producers only supply what is demanded.
>
> Producers can only do what the actual equipment permits them to do.
> They have decades of experience telling them when to expect peaks and
> lulls, and they power up or power down equipment to meet those peaks
> and valleys, but they always carry a least a small suplus at every
> minute of every day.
A surplus of 'capacity'. Do you understand this?
> Soimetimes the surplus can be quite large for some
> periods of the day or night. The costs of wasting power never needed
> are already paid for in your bill. Right now nobody is storing those
> wastes, so they are 100% lost. Any saved is 100% efficiency saved
> compared to 100% inefficiency of lost.
The only waste is in your head. I'd call it a waste of space, but then I
degrees. Provide your link oh great one.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> H2-PV NOW wrote:
>>
>> The grid frequency is 60 hz. They go to great lengths to condition the
>> power to 60 hz. You can set your clock by it, it is so exact. In facts
>> electric clocks do keep time by detecting it's beats, 60 per second,
>> exactly, unvarying.
>
>
Not even wrong.
The rule is that the frequency AVERAGE has to be right on every thirty
days. Typical short time variation is typically a few tenths of a percent.
Which, when combined with ten percent voltage variation is enough time
for peaking and brokering sources to continuously adjust to demand.
There is NO wasted utility power generation. Anytime, ever.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
hanson
"Awe Shit", the castrati, aka Melchizedek who "Milkshisdick"
while he's going to sing his green Hydrogen aria for you in high
pitch as he hydrogenates full bore and with open throttle against
Fred Kasner "fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com> who wrote in
news:hPwaf.23803$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
after "Awe Shit" aka Melchizedek posted in here as
> James Rapier @UselessBastard.net who wrote as:
>>>Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com but really is:
Melchizedek who "Milkshisdick" again in his usual green foment
and does an excellent job making his environmentalists look
stupid... and helping class 2 enviro-cons siphoning money out
of the public trough, while he, Melchizedek remains poor and just
continues to "Milkshisdick" as he strokes himself cajoling.... :
>
["Awe Shit"]
> People electrolyze water with electricty. FACT.
>
::::: Bravo!... louder!, "Awe Shit", louder. Nobody knows that!
>
["Awe Shit"]
> H2O doesn't care where the electricity comes from but
> it prefers DC for electrolysis. FACT.
>
::::: Yeah, yeah! "Awe Shit" louder, AC/DC! & them preferences...
>
["Awe Shit"]
> PV provided DC electricity naturally without conversion losses to
> electrolyze water. FACT.
>
[hanson]
::::: ...naturally, "Awe Shit"... naturally.... CACT, cack, gack....
>
["Awe Shit"]
> H2 produces no hurricane-spawning, global warming, carbon gases. FACT.
> PV produces enough energy to power furnaces to produce more PV. FACT.
>
[hanson]
::::: ... so much, actually, until it spawns hurricanes, naturally, a CACT FACT.
>
["Awe Shit"]
> PV-H2 can be deployed worldwide in ten years to totally replace carbon
> fuels in ever POWER application. FACT.
>
[hanson]
"Awe Shit", your are one of them bad conservative deniers, when in
FACT, you full well know that, if left to their pinko green ways, enviros
would have deployed PV-H2 worldwide ten years AGO to totally
replace carbon fuels in ever POWER application as a CACT FACT...
with the ONLY real FACT remaining that all what the greenies did was
to advocate, promote, support, legalize, institute and extort the permit
charges, the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax,
all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
H2-PV NOW
Base load is whatever.
Whatever you have for your normal loads. Peak suppliments is whatever
else you have to have on standby when your base power is not enough.
Base load could be gas-fired turbines, with peak power from
battery-backup without violating the definitions.
In the USA there are large hydro dams that are base power for some
regions. The bulk of hydro is dams as base power. Some areas with
favorable topology can use pumped storage hydro, but it is a fraction
of the total hydro power. Hoover dam out-powers all trhe pumped storage
in the world.
Pumped storage is the stored system of use-it-or-lose-it that was
mentioned way back, disputed by Bloomquist's erupting sphinter full of
mythological flywheels.
> > It is not instant on-off, but depends on the water flowing through
> > turbines and the number of turbines operating. Because power needs by
> > consumers cannot ever be predicted perfectly, there are peaks and
> > valleys inside the power availability of the hydro generation.
>
> So, does the frequency vary? I'll leave you to figure out why you can't
> have your cake...
Frequency is conditioned before it leaves the power plant. It varies
far less than the pixels on your screen vary between typing identical
characterssssssss. There is more variance in the pixels of those "s"
characters than there is in most line voltages.
> > Gas turbines provide surplus energy above the hydro base production.
>
> Gas _and_ pumped storage are used for peaking.
>
> >>That is used to tweak the frequency of the grid.
> >>Spare capacity is brought on line or taken off as needed. There is no
> >>need to know the next second's demand as is claimed above.
> >
> > Unless there is spare production at the instant a consumer turns on the
> > elevator, the machine doesn't move.
>
> It is called spare 'capacity', and yes, the elevator will move.
That "spare capacity" is power not being bought until the elevator
button is pushed, and it goes poof into nothingness if the elevator
button is not pushed for minutes or hours. The energy was already
produced and is in the line at the button, but being poofed into
nowhere between pushes. There's no powerplant system on earth that can
suddeny put online kilowatts on demand -- there is always some spare
capacity being generated.
Pumped storage goes on, pumping water uphill during those lulls. Later
it will come downhill through turbines to make up a fraction of the
power used to get it up there. That fraction costs whatever the pumps
cost & wear and tear and maintenance, plus whatever the turbines cost,
etc. The energy has no other costs because it was going to go poof
anyway.
Electricity, all electromagnetic phenomena, moves at the speed of
light. Switches can decouple generators to freewheel, cut back the flow
of gas, shut off water flows, but nothing mechanical is at the speed of
light. There is always time intervals. The time intervals on nukes and
coal are very lengthy, on water a bit less, on gas less still, but
none-the-less still significant over daily cycles of peaks and valleys
of intermittant demand.
ONLY H2 electrolysis can be fast switched through solid-state circuitry
with no mechanical devices to use every fractional second of that
down-time of unused generation.
> > To prevent that there is always a
> > bit of spare production on hand.
>
> Capacity.
The capacity not only needs to be present, but it needs to be operating
or the elevator doesn't go when the button is pushed.
> > When demand exceeds the supply, the grid goes into brownout, providing
> > less than the standard voltage. To avoid brownouts, whenever the base
> > production is nearing maximum consumption the expensive peak power
> > generators are fired up.
>
> No kidding?
Is that you way of saying you couldn't figure out how to lie away this
statement, and therefore plead no contest?
> > Grids can move electricity from one producer to another, but these are
> > "leaky buckets". The further electricity travels the more it loses in
> > wire resistence. A leaky bucket can carry some water only so far before
> > it is empty. In order to provide local needs more leaky buckets have to
> > be used if the surplus is travelling long distances.
>
> Gota say, 'leaky buckets' sounds dumb for line loss.
It's an analogy that makes the invibility of line power and the
invisibility of infrared heat losses more visible to regular folks.
Everybody knows you can carry water some distance in a leaky bucket and
the closer you go with it the more water is left in the bucket when you
get there. At some distance the bucket is empty. Resistence is stealing
electricity over every inch of wire, just like water is leaking out of
a bucket over distance.
I like to use analogies that regular people can grok. The issues need
everybody to understand at least some of it, if they can't understand
all of it.
Even pretty smart people like Buckminster Fuller, who proposed a world
grid based on solar power never fully grasped how little electricity
arrive at a distant destination over a grid.
In January 1973 Scientific American ran a lead story about the Hydrogen
Economy -- 32 years ago. At that time they computed that line loses at
800 miles were so extreme that it was more efficient to electrolyze
water and pipeline it 800 miles and burn it to power a local turbine
than to send it by as electricity over wires. In 32 years copper
resistence has not changed, but water electrolysis has very much
improved. The distance of line-loss in transmission wires has to be
about half of what it was in 1973, or about 400 miles for breakeven
going H2. The other technical problems of 1973 have all been solved. H2
is ready when you are.
> > It was computed as far back as 1973 in cover story of January edition
> > of the Scientific American that the tradeoff point is 800 miles where
> > it is more efficient to electrolyze water into H2, pipeline it the 800
> > miles and burn it to power a local turbine than to sent the high
> > voltage through wires 800 miles. The efficiency of copper has not
> > improved in 32 years but the efficiency of electrolysis has.
>
> Well, I'm not going to dig through my box of back issues on your say.
> Got a link? At that, 800 miles is probably around an 8% loss. How could
> you possibly get better than 50% with hydrogen storage?
Before it was magical flywheels coming out of your butt. Now it is 8%
figures. Come up with percent per mile. If you can't find it, find the
voltage, current and resistence numbers and I'll help you through the
math.
> > Any surplus electricity sensed by electronics at near the speed of
> > light which is not stored is 100% lost. FACT.
>
> You say 'FACT', therfor it is? Why don't you provide a link to back your
> rhetoric?
Are you making the claim that running a portable generator (you can do
this experiment at home) for 10 hours until your gas tank is dry, does
not generate electricity for ten hours if nobody plugs anything into
the generator? That's what it looks like you are saying. Apparently you
don't know what VOLTAGE actually means.
> >>K Jones is experienced in the industry. H2-PV NOW has no clue.
> >
> > I am so happy for K Jones career as a meter-reader.
>
> ad hominem argument. So point goes to K.
I am less than impressed with K Jones's statements and yours. You can
have a million billion trillion points and still not be able to come up
with coherent statements between you both. Humph, Imaginary Invisible
Flywheels indeed!
> >>I'll repost this again:
> >>Producers push on the grid if you'd like. The grid is like a massive
> >>flywheel.
> >
> > Don't use babytalk. There are NO FLYWHEELS attached to the grid. THere
> > are nukes, which are very slow responders as the fuel has to be more
> > exposed to increase heat to make more steam to power more turbines.
>
> Well, if you can't understand baby talk, what will work? The grid is
> full of inertia. But you don't get it.
What I get is VOLTS, AMPS, RESISTENCE, WATTS. Talk those if you
understand them. There are no "flywheels" and no "push". Generators
produce VOLTS, which induces current in a completed circuit, meeting
resistence in the real-world of physical objects. Without VOLTS being
ready to push, there is no push when the switch completes the circuit.
The switch does not turn on the generator -- it is already on,
use-it-or-lose-it -- the switch only completes the circuit so that
current can flow.
The consume has no power to "push" if the powerplant is not generating
already at the time (and before the time) the consumer demands through
plugging in a device, or switching one one.
Lay off the crack-pipe. Your gibberish is getting delerious.
> > Coal generation requires fueling more coal into more furnaces to boil
> > more water to make more steam to power more turbines. It is a slow
> > responder.
>
> Got numbers?
Here's your link: http://google.com
Look it up.
> > Natural gas is a fast responder. No steam. Direct fuel fire expansion
> > propels turbines within minutes. Very expensive, reserved for high cost
> > peak demand.
>
> So?
>
> > Hydro is slow responder, requires opening more gates to more turbines.
>
> Nope. The limitation to a turbine gate would be hammer. Otherwise they
> are very fast. Have you ever been around hydraulics? Or do you think
> those gates you see for bypass have something to do with a turbine gate?
>
> > Grid shunting from other utility districts is fast responder, leaky
> > bucket, wasting more energy than any other means.
>
> ??? I think you are quacking.
>From a guy whose butt is filled with imaginary invisible flywheels I
guess that is a compliment.
> > The USA with only three hours time difference experiences peak demands
> > at mid-day simultaneously across the country, and off-peaks
> > simultaneously across the country. Nowhere has peak baseline while
> > elsewhere ha off-peak demands to grid-shunt spare baseline capacity.
>
> Now I know you are quacking.
>
> > Nightime has baselines below demand coast to coast. Particularly hydro
> > and nuclear can be generating H2-PV at this time period.
>
> It is called baseload. And if you have spare capacity, you move that
> energy to pumped storage. But what, you know more than everyone else in
> the industry...
Florida with average height above sea level of 30 feet, most of it flat
as a parking lot -- where do you pump that pumped storage in Florida?
> >>Producers push to keep it turning. It has a friction pad that
> >>represents the consumers. If someone turns a light out, then the
> >>flywheel will tend to turn faster.
> >
> > There are no flywheels -- this is intewntionally decetive to fool
> > people too lazy to look up energy production methods and response times
> > to demands.
>
> Not my problem if you don't get it.
Your problem is butting into a discussion beyond your level of
understanding.
> >>The fastest responder to a change in
> >>speed, (frequency), is hydro.
> >
> > FREQUENCY is 60hz coast to coast. It never intentionally changes.
> > Current is what changes, not frequency.
>
> No, frequency and voltage are provided. Current is demand. They all change.
Voltage drops from the start of the ciruit to the end of the circuit,
due to resistence. Frequency is unaffected by demand. Current is a
product of voltage divided by resistence, basic Ohm's law.
> >>So as the increase in frequency is
> >>detected this hydro cuts back on production. Likewise, if the frequency
> >>drops, more power is brought on line. There is no such thing as excess
> >>energy. Producers only supply what is demanded.
> >
> > Producers can only do what the actual equipment permits them to do.
> > They have decades of experience telling them when to expect peaks and
> > lulls, and they power up or power down equipment to meet those peaks
> > and valleys, but they always carry a least a small suplus at every
> > minute of every day.
>
> A surplus of 'capacity'. Do you understand this?
Capacity must be online. If a portable generator is stored in
Wal-Mart's warehouse it produces no useful energy, although it has the
CAPACITY to do so, once it is unpacked, filled with gas and turned on.
It produces electricity as long as the gastank doesn't run dry and it
remains on, even if nobody ever plugs anything into it. CAPACITY must
be already producing -- plugging something into a generator not
spinning does no good. Do you understand this?
> > Soimetimes the surplus can be quite large for some
> > periods of the day or night. The costs of wasting power never needed
> > are already paid for in your bill. Right now nobody is storing those
> > wastes, so they are 100% lost. Any saved is 100% efficiency saved
> > compared to 100% inefficiency of lost.
>
> The only waste is in your head. I'd call it a waste of space, but then I
> degrees. Provide your link oh great one.
Ohhh, I get a point for Ad Hom. I'm going to sell that point on Ebay.
Sorry, I can't stick around to answer your lazy request for links. Try
Sally Struthers Correspondence School -- I think they have Electricity
for Dummies course.
Dan Bloomquist
Don Lancaster wrote:
<snip>
Will you ever learn to use a newreader?
H2-PV Enthusiast Don Lancaster @SlightlyIntoxicated.com
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >
> >
> > H2-PV NOW wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The grid frequency is 60 hz. They go to great lengths to condition the
> >> power to 60 hz. You can set your clock by it, it is so exact. In facts
> >> electric clocks do keep time by detecting it's beats, 60 per second,
> >> exactly, unvarying.
> >
> >
>
> Not even wrong.
>
> The rule is that the frequency AVERAGE has to be right on every thirty
> days. Typical short time variation is typically a few tenths of a percent.
>
> Which, when combined with ten percent voltage variation is enough time
> for peaking and brokering sources to continuously adjust to demand.
>
> There is NO wasted utility power generation. Anytime, ever.
A few tenths of 1% is that like 60hz +/- .001 hz? or is it more like
60hz +/- .003 hz?
Or is it more like the width of a hair on a flea's butt worth of
difference from 60hz more or less exactly?
Frequency is not where the power hides waiting to be used. It hides in
big mother generators spining ar fairly precise speeds powered by nuke
or coal-fuel steam or water pressure, or expanding gases from natural
gas, on turbine vanes. That's where the power is, not in wee little
leprechanes of 0.001 hz.
Grow up.
There are no wee leprichans or magical invisible flywheels no matter
what the power engineer with a sense of humor told you once standing at
a bar liquored up.
If you want electricity, there are people who will sell it to you. They
plan ahead for the customers they hook up to their grid and have big
enough generators to match the load they plan to sell.
It costs less to have generators that are just undersized and buy power
from a neighbor utility through the grid when demand is high, but that
is not guaranteed when neighbors peak demand comes usually at the same
times as the utility's peak demands, so expensive gas turbines are
fired up. THese "peak generators don't come on and off all day and
night -- they go on when the historical peak demands are predicted,
like heatwaves in summertime during the workday when all the offices,
factories and schools are busy. Most of the time they are shut off
because they cost so much to run.
Nobody plays games with the frequency. That is a bad no-no.
The generators are made out of metal, not rubber -- they don't change
size to meet higher and lower loads. At a fixed speed they are creating
the power they are designed and built to generate, regardless of
whether you refigerator kicks on at any particular moment.
They don't change speed. The frequency doesn't flucuate enough to
register on your cheap home electronics lab tools. It's doubtful your
$1000 oscilloscope can see these frequency variations.
Utilities know something you don't. They know they have surplus power
on tap, not being used that you claim doesn't exist, ever. That's why
they offer to sell kilowatts cheaper to people who schedule major use
at non-prime times.
You can make all the credibility-destroying mistakes you want but lots
of people know about the low-cost off-hours rates that says you are a
liar.
The utility doesn't get cheaper kilowatts out of their generators at
night. Electricity don't care about day or night, generators can't tell
day or night. The big spinning mass of magnets through coils of wire
are the same size day or night. The magnetic flux doesn't change day or
night. The coil turns of wire stay the same size day or night. The
force required to turn the mass of magnets in coils of wire remains
constant day or night.
Only in your padded room at the funny farm do physical objects morph
mass, size, speed, and power to always perfectly mach demand without a
microsecond of delay.
Nobody invited you HYDROGEN-HATERS to this discussion, but if you have
to be here, at least have some objection that is close to reality. This
total luddite hurling of your wooden shoes into the wheels of progress
will do you no good in the end, but it will cost a few sales of
Lancaster's publications when the public sees how dumb he can be. Who
wants to buy publications from a conspicuously discredited dunce?
Don Lancaster
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> H2-PV NOW wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> The grid frequency is 60 hz. They go to great lengths to condition the
>>> power to 60 hz. You can set your clock by it, it is so exact. In facts
>>> electric clocks do keep time by detecting it's beats, 60 per second,
>>> exactly, unvarying.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not even wrong.
>
> The rule is that the frequency AVERAGE has to be right on every thirty
> days. Typical short time variation is typically a few tenths of a percent.
>
> Which, when combined with ten percent voltage variation is enough time
> for peaking and brokering sources to continuously adjust to demand.
>
> There is NO wasted utility power generation. Anytime, ever.
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
>
Further, as the voltage goes up, THE CUSTOMERS PAY MORE. As the voltage
goes down, THE CUSTOMERS PAY LESS. At least for typical unregulated
loads such as lamps and HVAC and refrigerators and such.
Thus, any "excess" power produced generates a PROFIT, not a loss!
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Bill Ward
wrote:
<snip usual drivel>
>
>The utility doesn't get cheaper kilowatts out of their generators at
>night. Electricity don't care about day or night, generators can't tell
>day or night. The big spinning mass of magnets through coils of wire
>are the same size day or night. The magnetic flux doesn't change day or
>night. The coil turns of wire stay the same size day or night. The
>force required to turn the mass of magnets in coils of wire remains
>constant day or night.
Here's the key point you misunderstand. The magnetic flux
_does_ change with the alternator field current. The RPM of
the rotor sets the line frequency and the field current sets
the voltage. The torque required to turn the rotor depends
on the output current load.
The system is stabilized by automatically controlling the
field current and shaft torque to match the load. Your
theory of constantly generating more power than is used is
simply ludicrous and completely discredits anything you may
say on the subject. No power can be generated that is not
immediately stored or dissipated somewhere in the system.
When the load is incrementally changed, the output voltage
and phase angle shift slightly. The control system corrects
by adjusting the drive torque and field current. No energy
is wasted.
And I hate to disappoint you, but Dan B is absolutely right
and you are wrong (big surprise) about the flywheel effect
in the grid. Every polyphase motor and alternator in the
system has angular momentum which indeed does act as an
enormous flywheel providing an energy reservoir to help
stabilize the short-term frequency.
You, troll-of-many-names, simply have no clue about how the
grid system works, and are trying to make it up as you go
along. This is a sci. NG and should not have deliberate
misinformation posted.
SO STOP IT!
===========
Apology and note to legitimate readers:
My background is not in power generation, so I would
appreciate any corrections and clarifications that may be
needed from those who are in that field. I just can't let
that kind of harmful misinformation go unchallenged.
Regards,
Bill Ward
life...@atlantic.net
Bill Ward wrote:
> This is a sci. NG and should not have deliberate
> misinformation posted.
Yes, only your disinformation is allowed.
>
> SO STOP IT!
> ===========
Yes, you demand that all rotating magnetic fields on the grid connected
usenet operate in synch, in jackbooted lockstep, no variation is
allowed. Next you will be demanding that congress legislate the usenet.
I can just hear it now : Yer either fer US er agin US, and if yer agin
US, we will root you out and hunt you down in your pathetic caves,
because we merkans, and merka da gratis contry in da whole dang cosmos,
and beyon da cosmos, cuz god is on our side, and yer god is da wrong
god, that other god, wazt he name, allah or ja, or sumptin like dat,
and my Dad can beat up yer dad, and yer all a bunch a damn tourists and
communiss, that's what you are. Now go back to yer own damn universe,
New Orleans, iddn't it?
Yes, I'll bet you wish by now Al Gore wouldn't have even invented the
damn Usenet.
Arnold walker
Maybe you should tell the French about that. As Paris burns because of
your kind of idea on how things should be done.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Arnold walker
It regretable that you did not follow the lead of your Socialist
friends.IN that you talk this line but used oil profits from their stock
portfolio to finance thier work.Maybe you ought to get smarter....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Bill Ward
<snip>
>
>Yes, you demand that all rotating magnetic fields on the grid connected
>usenet operate in synch, in jackbooted lockstep, no variation is
>allowed. Next you will be demanding that congress legislate the usenet.
>I can just hear it now : Yer either fer US er agin US, and if yer agin
>US, we will root you out and hunt you down in your pathetic caves,
>because we merkans, and merka da gratis contry in da whole dang cosmos,
>and beyon da cosmos, cuz god is on our side, and yer god is da wrong
>god, that other god, wazt he name, allah or ja, or sumptin like dat,
>and my Dad can beat up yer dad, and yer all a bunch a damn tourists and
>communiss, that's what you are. Now go back to yer own damn universe,
>New Orleans, iddn't it?
>
>Yes, I'll bet you wish by now Al Gore wouldn't have even invented the
>damn Usenet.
>
Not bad, Tommy. Considering...
BTW, who's "Al Gore"?
Ed Earl Ross
He is a US politician (ex VP) who's publicity credited him with
inventing the internet, but in reality he just publicized the
internet. I think lifeform used his name in jest. Perhaps you did too.
My real reason for posting is to say you and Dan B. are accurate in
your description of the grid--just to add my vote about who is
correct. I have a bachelors in electrical engineering, but not
power engineering, so I cannot correct any minor errors you two may
have made.
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
Ron McNulty
> use-it-or-lose-it -- the switch only completes the circuit so that
> current can flow.
>
> The consume has no power to "push" if the powerplant is not generating
> already at the time (and before the time) the consumer demands through
> plugging in a device, or switching one one.
>
Sorry mate, your theory is way off
When the load on the grid suddenly increases, both the voltage and frequency
drop very slightly. (If the opposite happened, the grid would be unstable)
There is a "flywheel affect". It is provided by the rotating mass of
thousands of generators on the grid, helped by the kinetic energy of their
turbines and hydro water flowing down the penstocks. Also, most generation
systems have huge "rotary capacitors" for power factor correction. Their
rotating mass further adds to the flywheel affect.
The drop in frequency and voltage is detected by the generators' governing
devices, and more coal/oil/hydro water is supplied to bring the voltage &
frequency back to standard. This is just the modern-day equivalent of what
James Watt did with flying-ball governers on his steam engine.
To prove that grid frequency varies, find a TV technician, and ask him/her
to lock a scope to the frame rate of a TV broadcast (a very stable source
that is at least crystal locked, if not derived from a Rubidium or Caesium
standard). Then hang a probe on the mains - the display will move left and
right as the frequency varies and grid does its governing magic.
A cruder experiment is to bring a device containing a mains transformer near
a TV set. A "hum bar" will appear on screen. If the grid frequency was
constant, the bar would stay still, or drift in one direction at a constant
speed. In practise, it will vary in direction and speed as the grid
frequency changes.
Here in New Zealand, most of our generation is hydro, and one hydro station
has the responsibility of maintaining the grid at correct voltage and
frequency. I have seen the quick-response generators used for this job. As
other posters have correctly pointed out, grid frequency is only loosley
guaranteed to be correct. IIRC the NZ standard has a small percentage
tolerance acceptable at any time, but the number of cycles in a day is
guaranteed to be far more accurate.
There is no magical "spare" energy being generated or wasted. The feedback
mechanism I described is what controls the amount of energy being generated.
Your home generator example ignores the fact that a heavily-loaded generator
will use gas far more quickly that one idling on no load. If you take it
apart, you will find it too has a governer sensitive to voltage and
frequency variation.
And this is not the ramblings of an amateur. I have an honours degree in
Electrical Engineering.
Regards
Ron
Bill Ward
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate your response.
You're right - I was also kidding about AG.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Ed Earl Ross
>>The switch does not turn on the generator -- it is already on,
>>use-it-or-lose-it
If this were true, batteries would discharge within seconds or
minutes and be worthless. Yet, they have a much longer shelf life.
bogax
> He is a US politician (ex VP) who's publicity credited him with
> inventing the internet, but in reality he just publicized the
> internet
Oh, horseshit
He claimed to have coined the term "information superhighway"
and went around bragging about being one of the first if not the
first in the congress to push for funding the internet.
The right (starting I think with Drudge) transmogrified that into
the mythical "I invented the internet"
life...@atlantic.net
shadet...@hotmail.com
utilities that employed me to practice my tradecraft of power
engineering, and the dozen or so engineers I've trained to run said
power generation stations would most likely disagree with you.
Never the less, I'm curious as to what deficiencies you seem to feel I
demonstrated in my past chosen profession, that you care to correct.
>The equipment of base-production cannot start-stop on a fraction of a second. Even peak demand equipment, which is fast starting takes minutes to >power up and power down.
Correct. But why would it? Power generators *modulate* their output
based on load. A typical 300MW steam turbine driven generator is
capable of supplying as little as 60MW, and any number in between to
300 or so MW. Want more power? Step on the gas a bit, want less, back
off a bit. There is no need for them to "start-stop on a fraction of a
second"....unless you believe a generators 50 to 100 ton shaft spinning
at 3,600 rpm comes to a screaching halt whenever you shut your night
light off. :) I doesn't appear you understand what "peak demand" and
said equipment is, or how it works.
>It would require TOP ASTROLOGERS like Nancy Reagan hired to help her already senescent hubby to predict in advance peak baseload and
>peak-peakload demands. There is ALWAYS some surplus unless the utility imposes brownouts of reduced supply.
Ah no. Approx (but very close) baseload/peakload are known
hours/days/weeks/months in advance. No astrologers neccessary. Simple
historical trending and experience makes load forcasting pretty
accurate. There always is surplus "capacity", that is not the same as
generation. Surplus capacity means you have, for example a 300MW
generator operating with a 150MW load. Your surplus *capacity* is
150MW, but your generation is still only 150MW. There is no "surplus"
power produced, no "poof into nothingness" etc. It's like saying
because you've only put the gas pedal on your car 1/2 way to the floor,
that 1/2 the power of the engine is "wasted, and dissapears 'poof' into
nothingness". That would be silly now, wouldn't it?
>Electronics sensors can detect the surplus at near speed of light and shunt tha power into some saving scheme. H2 is one of many possible savings >schemes for unused kWs, but no savings means 100% lost.
Now you are babbling like an idiot, and making shit up. AC power can
not be stored as AC power, there is no "unused kWs", no "100% lost".
Some utilites have the ability to pump water uphill at night when
demand is low, and then run it back through generators during the day
when demand is higher. ...this is different than what you are
postulating. Try to wrap your head around the difference between
capacity, and generation.
>You are the one who needs to go finish your education. Come back when you understand why electrical generation systems are designed to
>provide a daytime baseline power supply which is always higher than the nighttime demand
My education (hopefully) will never be "finished" in my lifetime.
However, when you spend several weeks of classes dedicated to grid
control, as taught by (grid) system control operators, including
several days in a high-voltage lab, and can use a wall sized
breadboard, and wire up, without notes, your own working mini
generation and distribution utility and control system, when you are
qualified to teach power station trainees on how to operate the
equipment, and when you can fire up and synchonize a generator to the
grid, you can come back and correct my mis-understandings. Until then,
stop talking, and start listening to what many people besides myself
are trying to explain to you.
Dan Bloomquist (and others) gave you an excellent analogy of how the
grid operates with the "flywheel" concept. Besides the "virtual"
flywheel of electrons buzzing around, "the grid", is perhaps, the
worlds largest interconnection of very real flywheels, they are not
"imaginary". There are perhaps hundreds of generators connected to the
grid. Each one of these has a mass of several tens of
tons....somewhere between 50 and 100 tons each (depending on size).
Each of these are spinning at either 1,800 rpm, or 3,600 rpm, and have
several millions of foot pounds of torque applied to them.
Hundreds of multi-ton shafts spinning at 3600 rpm, driven by millions
of millions of pounds of torque is one honking huge, very real
flywheel!
Now, lets go back to your reduction in load, therefore surplus power
"poofing into nothingness, being wasted" claim. We've established the
grid has thousands of tons of rotating mass, with mind-boggling
inertia....and you turn your oven on to cook dinner.....The amount of
extra "load" you've created is not even perceptable by the grid. It's
like an ant getting in the way of a fully loaded 18 wheeler barreling
down the interstate. The amount the truck slows down as a result of
running into the ant isn't even noticible, but it's there. It slows
the truck down some minute fraction. You oven does the same. Now,
when hundreds or thousands of people start to turn their ovens on, the
frequency of the grid begins to drop ever so slowly....and the units on
AGC (Automatic Governer Control) (usually hydro-electric, or fossil
fueled stations) will automatically begin ramping up, to keep the
flywheel turning at the same speed. As AGC load goes up, the system
control operators will contact the non-AGC units, and order them "up 25
megs, up 50 megs" etc. As these units spool up, the AGC units back
off. Same thing with decreasing load, like when hundreds of people
begin shutting their ovens off....System control operators will start
shedding "blocks" of generation, AGC will do the fine control. It's
quite simple actually, and it works like "magic"
K. Jones
Ed Earl Ross
You have a good memory. Thanks for the added detail.
shadet...@hotmail.com
>electric clocks do keep time by detecting it's beats, 60 per second, exactly, unvarying
by operational design. To keep all inter-connected utilities "honest"
with their neighbors, the BES (Bulk Electrical System) agreement
dictates this in part. To put this very simplistically (there's much
more to it than this), the system control guys sit around all day and
"follow the bouncing ball". If their grid is operating at say 59.99
Hz, within 60 seconds they must pass through 60.00, say to 60.01Hz.
Within 60 seconds, they must pass back down through the 60.00 mark to
say 59.99Hz again. There are constraints on how far they are allowed
to let it swing on each cycle of course, say 59.95 to 60.05 for
example. There are financial penalties imposed if they do not do this.
The reason your clock is accurate, is because over some time period,
say 30 days, the amount of time they spent above and below the 60.00
mark must average out to 60.00. All utilities connected to the grid,
set *their* clocks by the same atomic clock.
>Any surplus electricity sensed by electronics at near the speed of light which is not stored is 100% lost. FACT.
FACT. The above statement is utter rubbish, horse feathers,
poppy-cock. You have no clue at all, you are hopeless.
>Coal generation requires fueling more coal into more furnaces to boil more water to make more steam to power more turbines. It is a slow responder
Incorrect. Pulverized coal generators can respond almost as fast as
hydro-generation, which is generally the quickest on the grid. This is
where hydro-electric really shines, as peak power. Nuke shines as
base.
>The USA with only three hours time difference experiences peak demands at mid-day simultaneously across the country, and off-peaks simultaneously >across the country.
Bullcrap. "peak emands simultaneously across the country"? So the
7:00am breakfast peak experienced in California is experienced
simultaneously at 4:00am in Maine? California eats dinner at 2:00pm,
to "simultaniously" match Maine's 5:00pm dinner peak? Next you're
going to tell me that a heat-wave driven air-conditioning peak load one
hot summer day in New Mexico, is going to be experienced
"simultaniously" by Rhode Island. Peaks vary thoughout the day, at
different times, for different reasons. Do you even stop to think
about what you're yammering on about? I can't imagine anyone this
stupid.
>FREQUENCY is 60hz coast to coast. It never intentionally changes. Current is what changes, not frequency.
As stated before, it *is*, in fact, intentionally changed every 60
seconds or less.
>The costs of wasting power never needed are already paid for in your bill. Right now nobody is storing those wastes, so they are 100% lost.
Just shut up, please! You obviously have no clue how stupid you sound.
Do yourself a favor, and just shut up, before you embarass yourself any
further (if that is possible).
If you have a 300HP engine in your car, and at any particular moment
you only need to use 200HP, is that 100HP "wasted"...should this
"surplus" horsepower be "stored" somehow? Are the costs of this
wasted horsepower already paid for in your gasoline bill?
Idiot.
K. Jones
Al
>when hundreds or thousands of people start to turn their ovens on, the
>frequency of the grid begins to drop ever so slowly....and the units on
>AGC (Automatic Governer Control) (usually hydro-electric, or fossil
>fueled stations) will automatically begin ramping up, to keep the
>flywheel turning at the same speed.
A while back I toured some of the hydro facilities along the LaGrande
river in northern Quebec. They described the control systems as
simultaneously modulating the water turbine inlet vane angle and the
generator field voltage. They could *very* quickly adjust the power
output of the turbine while maintaining a constant frequency, despite
the huge rotating mass of the turbine/shaft/armature.
And IIRC, these turbines were spinning at 150 or 180 rpm. I believe
the number of poles on the armature determine the speed required to
produce 60 Hz AC.
fkasner
Hey, supermoron, Ohm's law is not what you claim it is. Ohm's Law is
I=V/R where I is current, V is potential difference, and R is
resistance. It is applicable only when R can be assumed to be constant
in an electric circuit. Thus making it of limited usefulness.
Facts are OK if you don't care about the laws of thermodynamics. Fact
then is that electrolysis is a superbly stupid process for making H2 for
purposes of almost any large scale use.
All your other facts have the same validity as the facts that the
intelligence community used to sucker us into the second Gulf War.
Where does all that energy come from to make hydrogen. And where does
all that energy come from to make PV equipment. And what does it cost to
produce one KWh of electricity by PV? Those facts are soemthing that you
find inconvenient and so ignore.
You are truly stupid.
FK
K. Jones
"Al" <bi...@alamat.edu> wrote in message
news:436cb978....@netnews.att.net...
> On 5 Nov 2005 05:15:55 -0800, shadet...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >when hundreds or thousands of people start to turn their ovens on, the
> >frequency of the grid begins to drop ever so slowly....and the units on
> >AGC (Automatic Governer Control) (usually hydro-electric, or fossil
> >fueled stations) will automatically begin ramping up, to keep the
> >flywheel turning at the same speed.
>
> A while back I toured some of the hydro facilities along the LaGrande
> river in northern Quebec. They described the control systems as
> simultaneously modulating the water turbine inlet vane angle and the
> generator field voltage. They could *very* quickly adjust the power
> output of the turbine while maintaining a constant frequency, despite
> the huge rotating mass of the turbine/shaft/armature.
Yup, AGC controls many unmanned stations as well as manned stations. When
you are operating a fossil fuel plant, being on AGC
is a pain in the *ss. Normally, when you have a request to increase load,
you tweat the fuel/air flow to the boiler up a bit, then tweak the governer
to the turbine, back and forth, matching firing rate to load. Then you can
sit down again *smile*. When on AGC, system control runs your generator up
and down, you have to fire the boilers to match...you're always trying to
follow your generator, that performs smaller, constant load changes, without
your input.....so you now have to vigilantly monitor the generator
output....and now the generating station operators have to follow their own
"bouncing ball"....very little feet up on the desk time :)
AGC controls "everything" *smile*, in unmanned stations.
> And IIRC, these turbines were spinning at 150 or 180 rpm. I believe
> the number of poles on the armature determine the speed required to
> produce 60 Hz AC.
Yes, you are right. I had to stop somewhere. Most steam plants are 2 pole
(3,600 rpm) machines, or 4 pole (1,800 rpm) machines.
"Water wheels" spin much slower, so they have some multiple, like say 24
pole machines, to achieve 60Hz at whatever rpm they spin at..
K. Jones
Bill Ward
Kev, thanks for your excellent tutorials, If they don't
work, nothing will.
Regards,
Bill Ward