Anybody want a 85% efficiency electrolyser for Hydrogen production delivers output at 200 bar pressure?
H2-PV NOW
The Republican Organized Crime Stoodges who go on and one badmouthing
Hydrogen from Rewable Energy (like PV Solar and Wind) keep circulating
1950s-era figures to uphold their case.
The INTENTIONAL LIARS hope nobody will look on the web and find out the
current state of products for sale and delivery today, in 2006.
http://www.accagen.com/age-family.htm
"... AGE Electrolizers Family
The AGE pressurized electrolyzer family is based on a patented
alkali process which warrants high efficiency, reliable operation and
represents the state-of-the-art commercially available today. Several
installations, based on this technology, are running continuously
failure free in the field for over 15 years. The operating parameters
are continuously supervised by a special control logic capable of
recognizing possible running defects and, if the case, stopping and
reverting the unit to a fail-safe condition in case of malfunction. A
control panel allows to operate the machine in a very simple way
through a touchscreen. The very rugged and compact construction is
suitable for equipment transportation. Ease of operation makes this
device usable with a minimum of training thus reducing significantly
set-up and operation costs. Because of the very high security features
in the outdoor execution, the electrolyzer can be operated in a non
classified environment, i.e. it can be placed in any room without the
need to classify the ambient for electrical installation with explosive
gases.
The HQ device option delivers hydrogen gas with purity of 99.999%
and dew point of - 50°C suitable for Fuel Cell supply. The AGE family
can be fabricated with 10 bar, 30 bar or 200 bar gas output pressure
without the need of compressors. All electrolyzers of the AGE family
shows an overall very high efficiency. For special applications, like
hydrogen production from renewable energy sources, AccaGen has
developed electrolyzers with ultra high efficiency >85%. Moreover these
devices mounts electrodes designed to work with strong fluctuating
electrical currents, like usually happens in solar or wind energy
production systems, without suffering any electrode degradation over
time. ..."
Other links:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.uss/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
ELECTROLYSIS Gov't Free Downloads PDFs:
Advances in On-Site Electrolysis Hydrogen Generation Technology 2005
PEM vs Alkaline.pdf
http://www.chewonkih2.org/docs/PEM%20vs%20Alkaline.pdf
Alkaline, High Pressure Electrolysis 2005 pd26_ibrahim.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd26_ibrahim.pdf
Alkaline, High-Pressure Electrolysis 2004 iif3_cohen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif3_cohen.pdf
Alkaline, High-Pressure Electrolysis 2005 iv_h_5_Cohen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress05/iv_h_5_Cohen.pdf
Alkaline, High-Pressure Electrolysis iif3_cohen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif3_cohen.pdf
Development Of A PEM Electrolyzer Enabling Seasonal Storage Of
Renewable Energy 2005 CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-085/CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
Development of New Polymer Electrolytes for Operation at High
Temperature and Low Relative Humidity fc6_zawodzinski.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/fc6_zawodzinski.pdf
Effective Utilization of By-product Oxygen of Electrolysis Hydrogen
Production 2003P_kato.pdf
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ECS/IEW2003/Papers/2003P_kato.pdf
Electrodes for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Operation on Hydrogen-Air
ive12_uribe.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/ive12_uribe.pdf
Electrolysis Development and Hydrogen Infrastructure 2004
euiw_a10_electricity_mtg.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_a10_electricity_mtg.pdf
Electrolysis Production of Hydrogen from Wind and Hydropower
chalk_doe.ppt
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/docs/chalk_doe.ppt
Electrolysis- Technology and Infrastructure Options 2004
euiw_background.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_background.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 euiw_agenda.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_agenda.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 PURPOSE
euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
Electrolytic Hydrogen Production kauffman_electrolytic.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/merit03/kauffman_electrolytic.pdf
Enabling Science for Advanced Ceramic Membrane Electrolyzers 2002
32405b21.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405b21.pdf
HIGH EFFICIENCY STEAM ELECTROLYZER 2000 28890y.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890y.pdf
High Temperature Solid Oxide Electrolyzer System 2005 pd24_herring.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd24_herring.pdf
High-Efficiency Steam Electrolyzer 2003 iid2_vance.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iid2_vance.pdf
High-Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membranes fc7_myers.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/fc7_myers.pdf
High-Temperature Polymer Membranes ivb3_myers.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/ivb3_myers.pdf
High-Temperature Solid Oxide Electrolyser System 2003 iid3_herring.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iid3_herring.pdf
High-Temperature Solid-Oxide Electrolyzer System 2004 iif1_herring.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif1_herring.pdf
Hydrogen Generation by Electrolysis 2004 euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
Hydrogen Generation from Electrolysis (New Project) 2004
iif6_porter.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif6_porter.pdf
Hydrogen Generation from Electrolysis 2004 hpd_16_cohen.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_16_cohen.pdf
Hydrogen Generation from Electrolysis 2004 hpd_p22_maloney.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_p22_maloney.pdf
Hydrogen Generation From Electrolysis 2005 pdp_41_porter.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_41_porter.pdf
Hydrogen Matrix as of 12.1.05.pdf
http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/Misc%20Matrix%20as%20of%2012.1.05.pdf
Hydrogen Production - Increasing the Efficiency of Water Electrolysis
(New Project) 2004 iif4_ingersoll.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif4_ingersoll.pdf
Hydrogen Production - Increasing the Efficiency of Water Electrolysis
2005 pdp_39_pile.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_39_pile.pdf
Hydrogen Production & Delivery 2005 pd1_devlin.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd1_devlin.pdf
Hydrogen production 2004 pigneri_ing.pdf
Hydrogen Production Factsheet h2_prod_fsheet.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_prod_fsheet.pdf
Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind -
Electrolysis 35404.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35404.pdf
Low Cost Hydrogen Production Platform pdp_4_aaron.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_4_aaron.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency Reversible Fuel Cell (And Electrolyzer)
Systems 30535aw.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535aw.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency, High Pressure Hydrogen Storage 2004
st_2_newell.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/st_2_newell.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency, High Pressure Hydrogen Storage 2005
04_warner_quantum.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/04_warner_quantum.pdf
Low Cost, High Efficiency, High Pressure Hydrogen Storage st15_ko.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/st15_ko.pdf
Low Cost, High Performance PPSA-based PEM Fuel Cell Membranes
fcp_6_ma.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/fcp_6_ma.pdf
Low Temperature Electrolysis 2004 maloney.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/maloney.pdf
Low Temperature Electrolytic Hydrogen Production pdp_56_weidner.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_56_weidner.pdf
Multi-Sourced Electricity for Electrolytic Hydrogen 2004
euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
Novel, Low-Cost Solid Membrane Water Electrolyzer (Phase II Project)
2005 xi_9_kosek.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress05/xi_9_kosek.pdf
NREL H2 Electrolysis - Utility Integration Workshop 2004
euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
NREL H2 Electrolysis - Utility Integration Workshop 2004
euiw_4_h2tp_nrel.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_4_h2tp_nrel.pdf
NREL H2 Electrolysis - Utility Integration Workshop 2004
euiw_9_h2_svc_stations.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_9_h2_svc_stations.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
iif2_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/iif2_elam.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
pd25_kroposki.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd25_kroposki.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2005/UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station System 2004 tv_p9_boehm.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/tv_p9_boehm.pdf
Renewables for Sustainable Village Power rsvp_2000.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/villagepower/pdfs/rsvp_2000.pdf
Research & Development for Off-Road Fuel Cell Applications (New
Project) ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
Research & Development for Off-Road Fuel Cell Applications
fc43_simpkins.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/fc43_simpkins.pdf
Reversible Planar Solid Oxide Fuel--Fed Fed Electrolysis Cell and Solid
Oxide Fuel Cell for Electrolysis Cell and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell for
Hydrogen and Electricity Production pd2_tao.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd2_tao.pdf
Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production 36734.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36734.pdf
Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production 2004 35948.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/35948.pdf
System Design and New Materials for Reversible Solid-Oxide,
High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis pdp_42_ruud.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_42_ruud.pdf
Technology Brief-- Analysis of Current-Day Commercial Electrolyzers
36705.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36705.pdf
wind_hydro_electrolysis_proc.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/wind_hydro_electrolysis_proc.pdf
Dan Bloomquist
H2-PV NOW wrote:
> AccaGen has
> developed electrolyzers with ultra high efficiency >85%....
Just so it isn't lost in this repeated posting...
Fossil fuel is the present major contributor to the grid. Most of it
coal at 30% chemical fuel to electricity efficiency. So why would
anybody want to take that electricity and turn it back into a chemical fuel?
It just doesn't make sense.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Roy. Just Roy.
and one links with each Usenet post. There are at least a dozen free
web hosting sites out there - everything from Geoshitties to Myspace.
Pick one, and put your links there. Then link to your table of
contents.
Second of all, Dan, I think the idea here is to use low-wattage solar
electricity to generate hydrogen during the daylight hours directly,
using some sort of plastic-coated Pd catalyst. Then use the generated
hydrogen as a carbon-free energy source.
Advantages are: the system is carbon-free, and battery-free. The
hydrogen basically replaces the lead-acid or Ni-Cd battery in the basic
solar system. Zero pollution, other than the pollution generated in the
manufacture of the solar cells.
I personally object to the optimistic "Star Trek" feel of it - just
convert to H2, and you'll have all the fuel you'll ever need, right
from water. You don't have to conserve - just zap! zap! and away you
go. Let's face it, finding alternative fuels aren't enough if we still
drive tanks around. We've got to grow up, to learn that bigger isn't
always better. Alternative fuel MUST be linked to more compact modes of
transport. Only then can we ever hope to supply enough fuel to meet
demand of 300+ million Americans.
/Roy
Dan Bloomquist
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> First of all, H2-PV, it is very rude and distracting to post a thousand
> and one links with each Usenet post. There are at least a dozen free
> web hosting sites out there - everything from Geoshitties to Myspace.
> Pick one, and put your links there. Then link to your table of
> contents.
>
> Second of all, Dan, I think the idea here is to use low-wattage solar
> electricity to generate hydrogen during the daylight hours directly...
Consider that we use 85 mb/d of oil. The light end of decline rates
are pegged at 3-5%/year. Some call for 25%/year. The immensity of peak
oil can not be addressed by a hydrogen economy. It is a first world
dream with its origins in denial.
I'll post this again.
----
Let's see. 5.5^12 btu/day to replace just 1mb/d. Let's say you can get
70% of the PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with
a base price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for
all the rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low
round numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
$1.4 trillion per mb/d.
And I thought coal liquefaction at $60 billion/mb/d was pretty expensive.
But dream on....
----
Pretending that cheap abundant fossil fuels can be replaced is just
that, pretending.
hhc...@yahoo.com
posts he knows nothing about science, cannot do even simple
mathematics, and hasn't a clue about simple logic. I doubt if he can
even define a 'mole' or a 'coulomb' without looking it up using
Google.
It's a total waste of time to argue with these losers, who have taken
over this and many other once science oriented newsgroupsand driven all
the people who can contribute to restricted or moderated venues like
ulink, nedsci and alphaweb.
Harry C.
H2-PV NOW
> H2-PV NOW wrote:
>
> > AccaGen has
> > developed electrolyzers with ultra high efficiency >85%....
>
> Just so it isn't lost in this repeated posting...
>
> Fossil fuel is the present major contributor to the grid. Most of it
> coal at 30% chemical fuel to electricity efficiency. So why would
> anybody want to take that electricity and turn it back into a chemical fuel?
>
> It just doesn't make sense.
WHAT PART OF RENEWABLE ENERGY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO THE PERPETUALLY
CONFUSED DAMN DOOMQUEST ORGANIZED CRIME FRAUD STOODGE?
Renewable, Solar, Wind... Damn Doomquest has been told these things
before but pretends he is in permanent state of confusion, unteachable,
whereas he is just in violation of California State Laws about Fraud
and Harrassement.
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Renewable Energy Applications
(New Project) viii1_ryan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/viii1_ryan.pdf
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Renewable Energy Applications
st17_ryan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/st17_ryan.pdf
Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands 2003
33530.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33530.pdf
comparison_of_renewable_energy_policies_of_china_and_the_united_states.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/international/china/pdfs/comparison_of_renewable_energy_policies_of_china_and_the_united_states.pdf
Development Of A PEM Electrolyzer Enabling Seasonal Storage Of
Renewable Energy 2005 CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-085/CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
Distributed Generation and Renewable Energy in the Electric Cooperative
Sector 2004 euiw_6_renew_energy_torrero.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_6_renew_energy_torrero.pdf
Distributed Production Technologies iia1_chen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iia1_chen.pdf
Distributed Wind Impacts Project Status dugan.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/dugan.pdf
EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station 2004 hpd_p18_mckay.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_p18_mckay.pdf
EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling System pdp_28_maloney.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_28_maloney.pdf
Feasibility of Using Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Internal Combustion
Engines in Remote Renewable Energy Systems 34043.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34043.pdf
Grid-Based Renewable Electricity and Hydrogen Integration 2004
euiw_a12_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_a12_elam.pdf
H2 Production from Renewable 2005 37612.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37612.pdf
H2 Roadmap 2005 roadmap_manufacturing_hydrogen_economy.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/roadmap_manufacturing_hydrogen_economy.pdf
Hydrogen from Renewable Energy Sources-- Pathway to 10 Quads
iia11_myers.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iia11_myers.pdf
Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind -
Electrolysis 35404.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35404.pdf
Producing Hydrogen from Renewables 36178b.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2003/36178b.pdf
Production of Hydrogen by Biomass Reforming Production pd6_king.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd6_king.pdf
Production of Hydrogen for Clean and Renewable Sources of Energy for
Fuel Cell Vehicles pdp_58_deng.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_58_deng.pdf
Production of Hydrogen from Peanut Shells hydrogen_peanut_shells.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hydrogen_peanut_shells.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
iif2_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/iif2_elam.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
pd25_kroposki.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd25_kroposki.pdf
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2005/UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station System 2004 tv_p9_boehm.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/tv_p9_boehm.pdf
Renewables for Sustainable Village Power rsvp_2000.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/villagepower/pdfs/rsvp_2000.pdf
Research & Development for Off-Road Fuel Cell Applications (New
Project) ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
Vermont Renewable Hydrogen Production and Transportation Fueling System
(New Project) viii7_mckay.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/viii7_mckay.pdf
Blending Wind And Solar Into The Diesel Generator Market diesel.pdf
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/diesel.pdf
European Research on Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy
eu_cst_en_2004.pdf
http://www.solarpaces.org/eu_cst_en_2004.pdf
International Conference on Solar Concentrators for the Generation of
Electricity or Hydrogen 38024.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38024.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Low Temperature Electrolysis 2004 maloney.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/maloney.pdf
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
Solar Hydrogen from High Temperature Solar Processes
Flamant-H2-Eurosol2004.pdf
http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/communication/actualites/Eurosol_2004/articles/Flamant-H2-Eurosol2004.pdf
Solar Water Splitting -- Photocatalyst Materials pdp_34_mcnulty.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_34_mcnulty.pdf
Solar-powered Thermochemical Production of Hydrogen from Water
pd28_weimer.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd28_weimer.pdf
A Preliminary Analysis and Case Study of Transmission Constraints and
Wind Energy in the West 2005 38152.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38152.pdf
EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf
Electrolysis Production of Hydrogen from Wind and Hydropower
chalk_doe.ppt
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/docs/chalk_doe.ppt
Electrolysis- Technology and Infrastructure Options 2004
euiw_background.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_background.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 euiw_agenda.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_agenda.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 PURPOSE
euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
energy_from_wind.pdf
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_information_service/energy_from_wind.pdf
Geographic Information Systems in Support of Wind Energy Activities at
NREL gis_nrel.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/gis_nrel.pdf
grid_integration_studies_draft.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/grid_integration_studies_draft.pdf
Hydrogen Storage in Wind Turbine Towers-- Cost Analysis and Conceptual
Design 34851.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34851.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 38451.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/38451.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 2005 38138.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38138.pdf
Modeling Utility-Scale Wind Power Plants Part 1-- Economics 2000
27514.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27514.pdf
Modeling Wind Energy Integration Costs coatney.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/coatney.pdf
Multi-Sourced Electricity for Electrolytic Hydrogen 2004
euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
Optimized Hydrogen and Electricity Generation from Wind 2003 34364.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34364.pdf
power_supply_guidebook.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/power_supply_guidebook.pdf
The Long-Term Potential Of Wind Power In The United States 34871.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy04/34871.pdf
H2-PV NOW
kill wrote:
> Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>
> > First of all, H2-PV, it is very rude and distracting to post a thousand
> > and one links with each Usenet post. There are at least a dozen free
> > web hosting sites out there - everything from Geoshitties to Myspace.
> > Pick one, and put your links there. Then link to your table of
> > contents.
> >
> > Second of all, Dan, I think the idea here is to use low-wattage solar
> > electricity to generate hydrogen during the daylight hours directly...
>
> Consider that we use 85 mb/d of oil. The light end of decline rates
> are pegged at 3-5%/year. Some call for 25%/year. The immensity of peak
> oil can not be addressed by a hydrogen economy. It is a first world
> dream with its origins in denial.
>
> I'll post this again.
>
> ----
> Let's see. 5.5^12 btu/day to replace just 1mb/d. Let's say you can get
> 70% of the PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with
> a base price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for
> all the rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low
> round numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
>
> $1.4 trillion per mb/d.
>
> And I thought coal liquefaction at $60 billion/mb/d was pretty expensive.
>
> But dream on....
I WILL POST THIS AGAIN. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS DETERMINED
THAT SOLAR PV CAN REPLACE ALL OIL AND COAL USED IN THE USA.
It can be done by PV alone with no help from anything else.
It can be done by WIND alone with no help from anything else.
Damn Doomquest pretends that big talk about big numbers of energy
production is only allowed by the fossil guys. The lands earmarked for
non-renewable extraction of oil sands in Canada far exceeds the amount
of space required to eliminate and replace dirty pollution with clean
renewables, eith PV alone or WIND alone, or combinations of both
together.
Here's the research to back up my claims:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.uss/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision
33162.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33162.pdf
CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual
Program 32405.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32405.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf 9525 KB
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf 50,775 KB
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf
Workshop_hydrogen_storage.pdf 8601 KB
http://www-cep.cma.fr/Public/themes_de_recherche/procedes_de_conversi/title_plas_pub/one-day_workshop_hy
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Renewable Energy Applications
(New Project) viii1_ryan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/viii1_ryan.pdf
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Renewable Energy Applications
st17_ryan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/st17_ryan.pdf
Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands 2003
33530.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33530.pdf
comparison_of_renewable_energy_policies_of_china_and_the_united_states.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/international/china/pdfs/comparison_of_renewable_energy_policies_of_china_and_the_united_states.pdf
Development Of A PEM Electrolyzer Enabling Seasonal Storage Of
Renewable Energy 2005 CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-085/CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
Distributed Generation and Renewable Energy in the Electric Cooperative
Sector 2004 euiw_6_renew_energy_torrero.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_6_renew_energy_torrero.pdf
Distributed Production Technologies iia1_chen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iia1_chen.pdf
Distributed Wind Impacts Project Status dugan.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/dugan.pdf
EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station 2004 hpd_p18_mckay.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_p18_mckay.pdf
EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling System pdp_28_maloney.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_28_maloney.pdf
Feasibility of Using Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Internal Combustion
Engines in Remote Renewable Energy Systems 34043.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34043.pdf
Grid-Based Renewable Electricity and Hydrogen Integration 2004
euiw_a12_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_a12_elam.pdf
H2 Production from Renewable 2005 37612.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37612.pdf
H2 Roadmap 2005 roadmap_manufacturing_hydrogen_economy.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/roadmap_manufacturing_hydrogen_economy.pdf
Hydrogen from Renewable Energy Sources-- Pathway to 10 Quads
iia11_myers.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iia11_myers.pdf
Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind -
Electrolysis 35404.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35404.pdf
Producing Hydrogen from Renewables 36178b.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2003/36178b.pdf
Production of Hydrogen by Biomass Reforming Production pd6_king.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd6_king.pdf
Production of Hydrogen for Clean and Renewable Sources of Energy for
Fuel Cell Vehicles pdp_58_deng.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_58_deng.pdf
Production of Hydrogen from Peanut Shells hydrogen_peanut_shells.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hydrogen_peanut_shells.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
iif2_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/iif2_elam.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
pd25_kroposki.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd25_kroposki.pdf
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2005/UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station System 2004 tv_p9_boehm.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/tv_p9_boehm.pdf
Renewables for Sustainable Village Power rsvp_2000.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/villagepower/pdfs/rsvp_2000.pdf
Research & Development for Off-Road Fuel Cell Applications (New
Project) ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
Vermont Renewable Hydrogen Production and Transportation Fueling System
(New Project) viii7_mckay.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/viii7_mckay.pdf
Blending Wind And Solar Into The Diesel Generator Market diesel.pdf
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/diesel.pdf
European Research on Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy
eu_cst_en_2004.pdf
http://www.solarpaces.org/eu_cst_en_2004.pdf
International Conference on Solar Concentrators for the Generation of
Electricity or Hydrogen 38024.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38024.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Low Temperature Electrolysis 2004 maloney.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/maloney.pdf
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
Solar Hydrogen from High Temperature Solar Processes
Flamant-H2-Eurosol2004.pdf
http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/communication/actualites/Eurosol_2004/articles/Flamant-H2-Eurosol2004.pdf
Solar Water Splitting -- Photocatalyst Materials pdp_34_mcnulty.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_34_mcnulty.pdf
Solar-powered Thermochemical Production of Hydrogen from Water
pd28_weimer.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd28_weimer.pdf
A Preliminary Analysis and Case Study of Transmission Constraints and
Wind Energy in the West 2005 38152.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38152.pdf
EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf
Electrolysis Production of Hydrogen from Wind and Hydropower
chalk_doe.ppt
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/docs/chalk_doe.ppt
Electrolysis- Technology and Infrastructure Options 2004
euiw_background.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_background.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 euiw_agenda.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_agenda.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 PURPOSE
euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
energy_from_wind.pdf
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_information_service/energy_from_wind.pdf
Geographic Information Systems in Support of Wind Energy Activities at
NREL gis_nrel.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/gis_nrel.pdf
grid_integration_studies_draft.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/grid_integration_studies_draft.pdf
Hydrogen Storage in Wind Turbine Towers-- Cost Analysis and Conceptual
Design 34851.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34851.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 38451.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/38451.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 2005 38138.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38138.pdf
Modeling Utility-Scale Wind Power Plants Part 1-- Economics 2000
27514.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27514.pdf
Modeling Wind Energy Integration Costs coatney.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/coatney.pdf
Multi-Sourced Electricity for Electrolytic Hydrogen 2004
euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
Optimized Hydrogen and Electricity Generation from Wind 2003 34364.pdf
H2-PV NOW
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dan, please cut H2-PV a bit of slack, since it is evident from his
> posts he knows nothing about science, cannot do even simple
> mathematics, and hasn't a clue about simple logic. I doubt if he can
> even define a 'mole' or a 'coulomb' without looking it up using
> Google.
The USA Department of Energy has done the math, and Harry Conover and
Damn Doomquest has never presented reputable dispossitive source
materials. Fraud is a crime in California, where fraudulent
transmissions are appearing with regularity.
Harrassment is a crime in California, where gands of collaborating and
collusional players operate in packs to stifle discourse based on
documented truth.
In a nearby thread Damn Doomquest posted a statement that no
electrolysis efficiency over 80% is technically possible. Doomquest
violated Federal law with that statement, disparging products on the
market making claims of 85% efficiency in detriment of potential
purchasers and interference in interstate commerce.
The USA Federal Government Department of Energy has themselves
validated processes over 80% efficiency of electrolysis, and spent
hundreds of millions of dollars developing Hydrogen Economy technology
and infrastructure.
It is against public policy to tolerate deliberate willful premeditated
acts of fraud to continue in violation of law clearly restricting such
criminal behavior.
This is NOT about freedom of opinon. Doomquest and others have been
informed what the true state of knowledge of research and development
of Hydrogen from renewables are repeatedly.
The is NO FREEDOM OF CRIMINAL FRAUD protected by the 1st amendment or
any other part of the Constitution of the United States of America.
There is a R.I.C.O. Organized Crime activity to protect one industry by
fraudulent deceptions about competing energy industries. These are
actual criminal behaviors, not innocent expressions of opinion. Lawful
Notice has been given to members of the self-selected participants whom
have willfully joined others in mutually-supportive criminal activities
involving WIRE FRAUD use of the internet. The LAW places a mandatory
duty on those so notified that they must do a due dilligence search for
the factual basis for their statements, and failure to perform due
diligence is considered henceforth willful premeditated and deliberate
acts of fraud to use the WIRES to make fraudulent statements hereafter.
Each member joining the enterprise is also equally guilty of the
criminal acts of every other member of the enterprise, according to the
present state of the law in effect on this day.
Here is the notice, and California's Hydrogen Highway efforts will not
be injured by ignoring these factual proofs that your opinions are
wrong and require retraction:
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Renewable Energy Applications
(New Project) viii1_ryan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/viii1_ryan.pdf
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Renewable Energy Applications
st17_ryan.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/st17_ryan.pdf
Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands 2003
33530.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33530.pdf
comparison_of_renewable_energy_policies_of_china_and_the_united_states.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/international/china/pdfs/comparison_of_renewable_energy_policies_of_china_and_the_united_states.pdf
Development Of A PEM Electrolyzer Enabling Seasonal Storage Of
Renewable Energy 2005 CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-085/CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
Distributed Generation and Renewable Energy in the Electric Cooperative
Sector 2004 euiw_6_renew_energy_torrero.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_6_renew_energy_torrero.pdf
Distributed Production Technologies iia1_chen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iia1_chen.pdf
Distributed Wind Impacts Project Status dugan.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/dugan.pdf
EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station 2004 hpd_p18_mckay.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_p18_mckay.pdf
EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling System pdp_28_maloney.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_28_maloney.pdf
Feasibility of Using Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Internal Combustion
Engines in Remote Renewable Energy Systems 34043.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34043.pdf
Grid-Based Renewable Electricity and Hydrogen Integration 2004
euiw_a12_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_a12_elam.pdf
H2 Production from Renewable 2005 37612.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37612.pdf
H2 Roadmap 2005 roadmap_manufacturing_hydrogen_economy.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/roadmap_manufacturing_hydrogen_economy.pdf
Hydrogen from Renewable Energy Sources-- Pathway to 10 Quads
iia11_myers.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iia11_myers.pdf
Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind -
Electrolysis 35404.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35404.pdf
Producing Hydrogen from Renewables 36178b.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2003/36178b.pdf
Production of Hydrogen by Biomass Reforming Production pd6_king.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd6_king.pdf
Production of Hydrogen for Clean and Renewable Sources of Energy for
Fuel Cell Vehicles pdp_58_deng.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_58_deng.pdf
Production of Hydrogen from Peanut Shells hydrogen_peanut_shells.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hydrogen_peanut_shells.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
iif2_elam.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/iif2_elam.pdf
Renewable Electrolysis Integrated System Development and Testing
pd25_kroposki.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd25_kroposki.pdf
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2005/UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station System 2004 tv_p9_boehm.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/tv_p9_boehm.pdf
Renewables for Sustainable Village Power rsvp_2000.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/villagepower/pdfs/rsvp_2000.pdf
Research & Development for Off-Road Fuel Cell Applications (New
Project) ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/ivj9_steinbroner.pdf
Vermont Renewable Hydrogen Production and Transportation Fueling System
(New Project) viii7_mckay.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/viii7_mckay.pdf
Blending Wind And Solar Into The Diesel Generator Market diesel.pdf
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/diesel.pdf
European Research on Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy
eu_cst_en_2004.pdf
http://www.solarpaces.org/eu_cst_en_2004.pdf
International Conference on Solar Concentrators for the Generation of
Electricity or Hydrogen 38024.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38024.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Low Temperature Electrolysis 2004 maloney.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/maloney.pdf
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
Solar Hydrogen from High Temperature Solar Processes
Flamant-H2-Eurosol2004.pdf
http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/communication/actualites/Eurosol_2004/articles/Flamant-H2-Eurosol2004.pdf
Solar Water Splitting -- Photocatalyst Materials pdp_34_mcnulty.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_34_mcnulty.pdf
Solar-powered Thermochemical Production of Hydrogen from Water
pd28_weimer.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd28_weimer.pdf
A Preliminary Analysis and Case Study of Transmission Constraints and
Wind Energy in the West 2005 38152.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38152.pdf
EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf
Electrolysis Production of Hydrogen from Wind and Hydropower
chalk_doe.ppt
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/docs/chalk_doe.ppt
Electrolysis- Technology and Infrastructure Options 2004
euiw_background.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_background.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 euiw_agenda.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_agenda.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 PURPOSE
euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
energy_from_wind.pdf
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_information_service/energy_from_wind.pdf
Geographic Information Systems in Support of Wind Energy Activities at
NREL gis_nrel.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/gis_nrel.pdf
grid_integration_studies_draft.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/grid_integration_studies_draft.pdf
Hydrogen Storage in Wind Turbine Towers-- Cost Analysis and Conceptual
Design 34851.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34851.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 38451.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/38451.pdf
Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from Wind and Competing
Sources 2005 38138.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38138.pdf
Modeling Utility-Scale Wind Power Plants Part 1-- Economics 2000
27514.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27514.pdf
Modeling Wind Energy Integration Costs coatney.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/seattlefiles/coatney.pdf
Multi-Sourced Electricity for Electrolytic Hydrogen 2004
euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_7_h2fc_wind_boulder.pdf
Optimized Hydrogen and Electricity Generation from Wind 2003 34364.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34364.pdf
power_supply_guidebook.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/power_supply_guidebook.pdf
The Long-Term Potential Of Wind Power In The United States 34871.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy04/34871.pdf
> It's a total waste of time to argue with these losers, who have taken
> over this and many other once science oriented newsgroupsand driven all
> the people who can contribute to restricted or moderated venues like
> ulink, nedsci and alphaweb.
>
> Harry C.
You are in violation of the law to act as an agent for purposes of
fraud using WIRES to transmit provably false statements. You are
advised to terminate all further criminal acts or meet me in court.
Bill Ward
I think I know how you feel, Harry, but don't forget the
lurkers. There are probably several of them for each
regular, and some of them may be students. It seems unfair
that they are looking to a sci. NG for help and see the type
of crapola that some are posting. If we immediately rebut
it with understandable reasoning, it will level the playing
field a bit.
I agree that arguing is futile. I just try to make easily
verifiable points, then leave the wackos to twist around
trying to deny the obvious. At least readers see both sides
and have a shot at sorting it out for themselves.
Regards,
Bill Ward
H2-PV NOW
Bill Ward wrote:
> I think I know how you feel, Harry, but don't forget the
> lurkers. There are probably several of them for each
> regular, and some of them may be students. It seems unfair
> that they are looking to a sci. NG for help and see the type
> of crapola that some are posting. If we immediately rebut
> it with understandable reasoning, it will level the playing
> field a bit.
>
> I agree that arguing is futile. I just try to make easily
> verifiable points, then leave the wackos to twist around
> trying to deny the obvious. At least readers see both sides
> and have a shot at sorting it out for themselves.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward
Here's the facts for readers to sort out themselves:
The Republican Organized Crime Stoodges who go on and on badmouthing
CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision
Roy. Just Roy.
What part of CONDENSE YOUR FUCKING LINKS are you having problems with?
/Roy
Roy. Just Roy.
I would have a much easier time following your math if you didn't pull
numbers out of your butt. Take for example 3400 Btu/kWh - what is that
from? Solar heaters?
I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
And even IF we can make it work, what do we drive on? Asphalt is a
petroleum-based material. Without oil, how are we supposed to maintain
the amount of road surface we currently have, estimated at as much as
the square area of Georgia? All the hydrogen cars in the world won't
work if we have nothing to drive on.
I think we're both in agreement - conservation is needed, and now, if
any fuel source - renewable or not - is going to last.
/Roy
Don Widders
news:1142294996.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The Republican Organized Crime Stoodges who go on and one badmouthing
> Hydrogen from Rewable Energy (like PV Solar and Wind) keep circulating
> 1950s-era figures to uphold their case.
Buy one of those electrolyzers (and the solar array to power it and the
storage system to store the hydrogen and some sort of hydrogen powered
vehicle) and earn yourself a tiny little bit of credibility and self
respect.
Don W.
Scott Nudds
> H2-PV NOW wrote:
> > AccaGen has
> > developed electrolyzers with ultra high efficiency >85%....
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> Fossil fuel is the present major contributor to the grid. Most of it
> coal at 30% chemical fuel to electricity efficiency. So why would
> anybody want to take that electricity and turn it back into a chemical
fuel?
>
> It just doesn't make sense.
But of course it does make sense in some instances, like in the case of
CO2 emission reductions. Automobiles can not contain their CO2 emissions
while electric power generating facilities are fixed to the ground, are
centralized in terms of CO2 generation and therefore can collect and
sequester their emissions.
Also it is clearly the case that direct generation of power by PV or Wind
turbines, or tides, or wave power, geothermal, etc... have no emissions in
the first place, so the production of portable chemical fuels makes some
sense.
Scott Nudds
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Buy one of those electrolyzers (and the solar array to power it and the
> storage system to store the hydrogen and some sort of hydrogen powered
> vehicle) and earn yourself a tiny little bit of credibility and self
> respect.
Undoubtedly the capital costs are too high for any single individual, and
groups of interested individuals who could benefit from the hydrogen
produced are not sufficiently close to be able to fuel from the same tank.
This simple logic is lost upon the even simpler mind of Don Widders.
Don Lancaster
It is not presently possible for an individual to buy an electrolysizer.
They will not even tell you how much they cost, let alone sell you one.
Try it.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
> Also it is clearly the case that direct generation of power by PV or Wind
> turbines, or tides, or wave power, geothermal, etc... have no emissions in
> the first place,
Not even wrong.
All of the abover have HORRIBLE emissions.
Caused by the conventional old energy sources that go into their
amortization.
Bill Ward
<H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
>Bill Ward wrote:
>
>> I think I know how you feel, Harry, but don't forget the
>> lurkers. There are probably several of them for each
>> regular, and some of them may be students. It seems unfair
>> that they are looking to a sci. NG for help and see the type
>> of crapola that some are posting. If we immediately rebut
>> it with understandable reasoning, it will level the playing
>> field a bit.
>>
>> I agree that arguing is futile. I just try to make easily
>> verifiable points, then leave the wackos to twist around
>> trying to deny the obvious. At least readers see both sides
>> and have a shot at sorting it out for themselves.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill Ward
>
>Here's the facts for readers to sort out themselves:
>
>The Republican Organized Crime Stoodges who go on and on badmouthing
>Hydrogen from Rewable Energy (like PV Solar and Wind) keep circulating
>1950s-era figures to uphold their case.
>
>The INTENTIONAL LIARS hope nobody will look on the web and find out the
>current state of products for sale and delivery today, in 2006.
>
<snip repetitive links>
Keep it up, Sparky, maybe no one will notice you are just
trying to build traffic to your lame website by flooding the
search engines.
You have a lot of nerve complaining about Don L and his sig
line.
Better hope your ISP doesn't TOS you for spamming. All they
need are a few complaints.
Now shoo, before I fart in your general direction.
Dan Bloomquist
H2-PV NOW wrote:
>
> In a nearby thread Damn Doomquest posted a statement that no
> electrolysis efficiency over 80% is technically possible....
Liar.
Dan Bloomquist
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> Harry/Dan,
>
> I would have a much easier time following your math if you didn't pull
> numbers out of your butt. Take for example 3400 Btu/kWh - what is that
> from? Solar heaters?
Would it help if I had not rounded? 3412Btu/Kwh. If you don't know what
that means...
> I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
> with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
> they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
> Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
It looks like the guy is off by a magnitude. But I'm not doing your math...
> And even IF we can make it work, what do we drive on? Asphalt is a
> petroleum-based material. Without oil, how are we supposed to maintain
> the amount of road surface we currently have, estimated at as much as
> the square area of Georgia? All the hydrogen cars in the world won't
> work if we have nothing to drive on.
Peak oil is about 'cheap' oil. It doesn't mean we have run out.
> I think we're both in agreement - conservation is needed, and now, if
> any fuel source - renewable or not - is going to last.
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/Hirsch.pdf
T.Keating
wrote:
>Harry/Dan,
>
>I would have a much easier time following your math if you didn't pull
>numbers out of your butt. Take for example 3400 Btu/kWh - what is that
>from? Solar heaters?
Dan likes to make a lot of invalid comparisons ... Degrading high
order energy sources to the level of some low order intermediate form
of energy and then making weakest/most wasteful possible comparison.
Current conversion processes are horribly in-efficient (I.E. energy
input to road miles) and can improved upon (5 to 10x) when substituted.
>
>I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
>with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
>they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
>Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
They would be wrong.. and the claim is irrelevant..
And (Indiana??).. we have far better places to put them.
I.E. Locations in the South and Desert SW provide substantially more
daily solar flux.
(+ plenty of land useful for little else.. )
Additionally mounting PV panels on dual axis trackers improves
output(+30%) and provides for beneficial symbiotic reuse of the land
underneath and in between the arrays. Finally, the area covered by
PV is directly related to efficiency of conversion. (I.E. Most
public statements are based on obsolete PV conversion rates.)
The NREL doesn't design solar panels. They may build some
experimental PV cells and test various solar setups.. but, that's about
it..
Here is presentation on the US conversion to PV power.
http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/CNST/emplibrary/Hartley%2004May03%20NanoTechConf.ppt
(Note: The linked PPT uses a fair number of conservative estimates,
ordinary refinements could result in 50%+ reduction of PV panel usage.)
>
>And even IF we can make it work, what do we drive on? Asphalt is a
>petroleum-based material. Without oil, how are we supposed to maintain
>the amount of road surface we currently have, estimated at as much as
>the square area of Georgia? All the hydrogen cars in the world won't
>work if we have nothing to drive on.
P.S. Hydrogen is a primary component of hydrocarbons.
(Spare H2 and biomass/recycling one can make almost any HC our society
will need.)
>I think we're both in agreement - conservation is needed, and now, if
>any fuel source - renewable or not - is going to last.
We need to displace our dependance on the wasteful carbon based fuel
cycle. Overall energy efficiency of current ICE only vehicles
(underground oil to road miles) is less than 7% efficient.
Adding insult to injury, the overall efficiency of our current
Underground oil locating /drilling /pumping /transport /refining
/distribution /ICE to Road mile DROPS as time progresses. I.E.
Depletion of easy to recover HC's.
Dan Bloomquist
T.Keating wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2006 00:57:02 -0800, "Roy. Just Roy." <deld...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Harry/Dan,
>>
>>I would have a much easier time following your math if you didn't pull
>>numbers out of your butt. Take for example 3400 Btu/kWh - what is that
>>from? Solar heaters?
>
>
> Dan likes to make a lot of invalid comparisons ... Degrading high
> order energy sources to the level of some low order intermediate form
> of energy and then making weakest/most wasteful possible comparison.
I'll post it again. Point your claim out specifically.
---
5.512 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the
PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base
price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the
rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round
numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
---
> Current conversion processes are horribly in-efficient (I.E. energy
> input to road miles) and can improved upon (5 to 10x) when substituted.
What does making more efficient cars have to do with calculating cost of
equivalent fuel?
Hondas get 40 mpg now. Are you saying they could get 200-400 mpg?
>>I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
>>with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
>>they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
>>Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
>
> They would be wrong.. and the claim is irrelevant..
> And (Indiana??).. we have far better places to put them.
I read 'size of Indiana'. How do you read 'in Indiana'?
>
> Additionally mounting PV panels on dual axis trackers improves
> output(+30%) and provides for beneficial symbiotic reuse of the land
> underneath and in between the arrays. Finally, the area covered by
> PV is directly related to efficiency of conversion. (I.E. Most
> public statements are based on obsolete PV conversion rates.)
More infrastructure than just the panels? So what do you figure a peak
watt, $12? Now we are talking $4 trillion/mb/d equivalent.
<snip the rest as it assumes trillions of dollars will fall from the
sky, wait, that's Bernanke's line!>
Don Widders
news:anzRf.134730$8d1....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Buy one of those electrolyzers (and the solar array to power it and the
>> storage system to store the hydrogen and some sort of hydrogen powered
>> vehicle) and earn yourself a tiny little bit of credibility and self
>> respect.
>
> Undoubtedly the capital costs are too high for any single individual, and
> groups of interested individuals who could benefit from the hydrogen
> produced are not sufficiently close to be able to fuel from the same tank.
>
My point precisely! ...and undoubtedly, if the costs are too high for any
single individual, then multiply those costs by the number of individuals in
groups of interested individuals and the costs are too high for groups of
individuals. That is why you neither see individuals nor groups of
individuals storing lots of energy using hydrogen. It has nothing to do
with not being "sufficiently close to be able to fuel from the same tank".
> This simple logic is lost upon the even simpler mind of Don Widders.
Simple indeed!
Don W.
T.Keating
wrote:
>
>
>T.Keating wrote:
>
>> On 14 Mar 2006 00:57:02 -0800, "Roy. Just Roy." <deld...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Harry/Dan,
>>>
>>>I would have a much easier time following your math if you didn't pull
>>>numbers out of your butt. Take for example 3400 Btu/kWh - what is that
>>>from? Solar heaters?
>>
>>
>> Dan likes to make a lot of invalid comparisons ... Degrading high
>> order energy sources to the level of some low order intermediate form
>> of energy and then making weakest/most wasteful possible comparison.
>
>I'll post it again. Point your claim out specifically.
>
>---
>5.512 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the
>PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base
>price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the
>rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round
>numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
First flaw.. converting into dollars is an invalid comparison.. You
really can't predict the price of any thing beyond the short term.. An
exception to this rule is when there are limited resources and high
demand which inevitably leads to price increases. (On average, Crude
Oil will only get more expensive from this point forward..)
I take a shot at playing your intermixing of $/energy game..
To make this fair.. I won't include the actual cost of end user
vehicle.
Let's see... 1 mbbl/day...
Current Market cost ~63 $bbl.
Tack in DOD overhead (IRAQ/sea lane protection, etc)
(1.0B$/day./15mbbl/d) == 66.66$ per barrel..
Tack on environmental damage? (30% of amortized US GW
relocation&mitigation costs(*1).. @10T$/year) 10Tyr$ *0.30/365
/15mbbl/d == 547$ per barrel.
Net cost per barrel 677.60 dollars per barrel or 677.60 million dollars
per day..
============
Second flaw.. Using an intermediate product as a reference.. You
conveniently forgot all the overhead to get the fuel to market..
Exploring, drilling, injection, separation, pipelines, tankers,
transportation, etc..
Subtract out 30% for infrastructure overhead..
667 K barrels a day left over..
Refining..
Lack of H2 input significantly decreases yield per barrel.
Yielding no more than ~20 gallons of usable fuel per barrel.
(I will let the energy cost of building, maintaining and running the
slide into refining overhead. )
Notes..Five(5) percent of US NG supply is consumed by Oil
refineries. Current Oil production trend is shifting towards heavy
sour crude, which contains decreasing percentages of light distillates
propane, butane, pentane, etc.. gases which can be used to offset
NG ->H2 usage. )
---
Net 13.3 M gallons of gasoline delivered @ refinery.
Distribution & retail sale.
(Someone's got to build, maintain and run all that infrastructure. )
(pipelines, storage depots, tankers, gas stations, etc..)
Take out another 15%... down to 11.3 Mgal gasoline.
Average fleet MPG 27.5 (2004 Cafe) standards.. == 311.6M
ICE/miles. (This is an over-estimate)
or a real cost of $2.14 per mile.
========
PV/EV calcs.. (EV's are way more efficient)..
Modern Li-Ion EV.. 150W/hr per mile .. 311.6M EV miles
*.15kWh/mile = 46,749 mWh/day
On site capital costs for local PV recharging of EV's.
Assume 4$ watt.. + another 2$ watt overhead == 6$ per watt of
capacity.
6 whr/day production (US Solar flux for dual axis Tracker) / 6$ per
watt..== $1 capital cost per watt hr/day..or $1K capital cost per each
kWh per day of capacity. (10K$ for 10kWh/day setup..)
One time net cost.. 46.7B$.. for 311.6 EV miles per day..
Service Lifetime ~40 years..
=========
PV/EV Break even verses gasoline with DOD & GW environmental damage
costs.
46.7B$/.667B$/day == 70 days.. (EV/PV combo 208x advantage
over ICE/Oil +DOD&Env subsidies )
PV/EV Break even verses gasoline with DOD subsidy.
46.7B$/.130B$/day == 359 days.. (EV/PV combo 40.6x
advantage over ICE/Oil + DOD costs,)
PV/EV break even verses gasoline without factoring in any
subsidies.. (no NG input)..
46.7B$/.063B$/day == 741 days.. (EV/PV combo 19.7x
advantage over current market costs)..
.
As you can see.. Oil's hidden subsidies dwarfs the current market
cost of the raw HC.
>
>$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
You're off by 1.4T /46.7B == 29.97.. (almost 30x)..
Even if I'm off by 50%...
PV/EV is still 20x more efficient than your claims..
Oh... 1.4T$ investment would purchase enough PV output to displace
nearly all OIL usage by motor vehicles(converted to EV's).
>---
>
>> Current conversion processes are horribly in-efficient (I.E. energy
>> input to road miles) and can improved upon (5 to 10x) when substituted.
>
>What does making more efficient cars have to do with calculating cost of
>equivalent fuel?
>
>Hondas get 40 mpg now. Are you saying they could get 200-400 mpg?
Nope.. it suffers from being at the end of the fuel chain..
It can never be more efficient than the raw feedstock costs.
(see above.. once NG feed stock is in short supply gasoline costs
will skyrocket. )
After that.. The most energy efficient ICE vehicle on planet is a
hybrid/ICE(Prius) with a gasoline to wheel efficiency running around
25%. You might get a few more % by using Li-ion tech and capturing
braking energy more efficiently.. but that's about it..
>
>>>I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
>>>with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
>>>they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
>>>Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
>>
>> They would be wrong.. and the claim is irrelevant..
>> And (Indiana??).. we have far better places to put them.
>
>I read 'size of Indiana'. How do you read 'in Indiana'?
not even close.. Indiana is around ~36 K sq. miles..
Est.. ranges from ppt presentation..
http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/CNST/emplibrary/Hartley%2004May03%20NanoTechConf.ppt
3.0 K (w/updates) to 6.7K sq. miles.
>>
>> Additionally mounting PV panels on dual axis trackers improves
>> output(+30%) and provides for beneficial symbiotic reuse of the land
>> underneath and in between the arrays. Finally, the area covered by
>> PV is directly related to efficiency of conversion. (I.E. Most
>> public statements are based on obsolete PV conversion rates.)
>
>More infrastructure than just the panels? So what do you figure a peak
>watt, $12? Now we are talking $4 trillion/mb/d equivalent.
Huh? No mater watt how you try to twist your logic.
PV will still average out to 1K$ capital cost per kWh/day.
>
><snip the rest as it assumes trillions of dollars will fall from the
>sky, wait, that's Bernanke's line!>
(*1) 500T$+interest over next fifty years to evac coastal
cities/ports/lowlands/etc.
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote
> > Undoubtedly the capital costs are too high for any single individual,
and
> > groups of interested individuals who could benefit from the hydrogen
> > produced are not sufficiently close to be able to fuel from the same
tank.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> My point precisely! ...and undoubtedly, if the costs are too high for any
> single individual, then multiply those costs by the number of individuals
in
> groups of interested individuals and the costs are too high for groups of
> individuals.
You are truly brilliant Mr. Widders for you have just proven why it is
impossible for a group to build anything that they must share. A bridge for
example, or a building.
No individual can afford the tens of millions of dollars in capital to
build a modern bridge over a river, and when you multiply those costs by the
number of individuals in
a group of interested individuals, the cost is too high for the group.
Brilliant Mr. Widders.. Absolutely Brilliant.
The only thing you have forgotten is that the capital cost is DIVIDED by
the number of people in the group, <NOT> MULTIPLIED.
Scott Nudds
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> It is not presently possible for an individual to buy an electrolysizer.
> They will not even tell you how much they cost, let alone sell you one.
Why not purchase one from this company?
Are you too stupid to ask for a price list Don?
http://www.avalence.com/products/default.asp
Scott Nudds
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> > Also it is clearly the case that direct generation of power by PV or
Wind
> > turbines, or tides, or wave power, geothermal, etc... have no emissions
in
> > the first place,
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> Not even wrong.
Absolutely, precisely correct.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> All of the abover have HORRIBLE emissions.
All that reflected sunshine? All that blackness on the PV cells.
Horrible.. Horrible emissions.
You are a moron Lancaster.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote
> Caused by the conventional old energy sources that go into their
> amortization.
And paid for by the purchase price of the unit. If the device produes
more electricity (by value) than the cost of purchase, Then it's a pretty
good bet that it's in the energy positive category.
This is certainly true of PV generation, Hydrothermal, Wind and the
others.
You truly are a moron Lancaster.
Scott Nudds
Roy Wrote:
> > I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
> > with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
> > they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
> > Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> It looks like the guy is off by a magnitude. But I'm not doing your math.
He's about right if you consider low efficiency PV panels, but
overestiamtes the area a lot, yes for modern efficient PV panels.
Scott Nudds
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> 5.512 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the
> PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base
> price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the
> rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round
> numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
>
> $1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
Assuming $100 per 15 watt panels - I can purchase them for less Retail
right now - and assuming 150Whr/mile automotive efficiency, Your 1.4
trillion in one time infrastructure cost would purchase 28 miles of travel
per U.S. citizen per day, every day.
Now since you wouldn't be purchasing your panels from Wallmart you can
expect that figure to be about 4 times larger due to bulk pricing
reductions, and better quality panels would produce about twice as much
power per unit cost, so a more realistic figure would be 1.4 trillion
providing 228 miles of travel per day per person in the U.S.
What's the average figure for the U.S. population? 20 miles per day?
That puts your estimated cost about a factor of 10 too high. The true cost
then would be about 140 billion. About...
<HALF OF WHAT THE US WAR IN AFGHANISTAN HAS COST SO FAR>
Don Lancaster
>
> And paid for by the purchase price of the unit. If the device produes
> more electricity (by value) than the cost of purchase, Then it's a pretty
> good bet that it's in the energy positive category.
>
> This is certainly true of PV generation,
Not even wrong.
Not one net watthour of PV generation has EVER been produced.
Nor will any EVER be produced using conventional silicon PV technology.
The synchronous inverter cost alone today guarantees a net energy sink.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Don Lancaster
No "modern efficient" PV panels are known today that are modern enough
or efficient enough to become a net energy source under full burdened
total system grid tie amortization.
They are simply feelgood net energy sinks that destroy gasoline.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Paul Vader
>Why not purchase one from this company?
>Are you too stupid to ask for a price list Don?
>
>http://www.avalence.com/products/default.asp
The pictures are CGI. There is no purchase link on the site. All discussion
of sales use the future tense. The only references to it on the web are
reprints of press releases. Next! *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Dan Bloomquist
T.Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:48:37 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com>
> wrote:
>>T.Keating wrote:
>>>On 14 Mar 2006 00:57:02 -0800, "Roy. Just Roy." <deld...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Harry/Dan,
>>>>
>>>>I would have a much easier time following your math if you didn't pull
>>>>numbers out of your butt. Take for example 3400 Btu/kWh - what is that
>>>>from? Solar heaters?
>>>
>>> Dan likes to make a lot of invalid comparisons ... Degrading high
>>>order energy sources to the level of some low order intermediate form
>>>of energy and then making weakest/most wasteful possible comparison.
>>
>>I'll post it again. Point your claim out specifically.
>>
>>---
>>5.512 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the
>>PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base
>>price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the
>>rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round
>>numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
>
> First flaw.. converting into dollars is an invalid comparison...
What are you talking about. I'll snip the oil straw man. The issue is
not the future cost of oil, it is the present cost of PV-H2.
> Second flaw.. Using an intermediate product as a reference...
Again with the oil strawman...
> ========
>
> PV/EV calcs.. (EV's are way more efficient)..
Not necessarily. Current production models have a hard time seeing 50%.
A majority of our grid is coal at 30%. What they do afford is mitigation
to energy that has the potential not to peak as early as oil. But the
way we have planned for NG peaking it may be game over on the grid also.
>>$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
>
> You're off by 1.4T /46.7B == 29.97.. (almost 30x)..
Address my numbers to support your claim.
> Even if I'm off by 50%...
> PV/EV is still 20x more efficient than your claims..
I'm not going to try to figure out what you posted. If you can't
understand something as simple as cost/watt it isn't my trouble.
> Oh... 1.4T$ investment would purchase enough PV output to displace
> nearly all OIL usage by motor vehicles(converted to EV's).
Of course you have changed the subject to EVs. Let's see. You first
assume that all transportation can be replaced. (right). So you need
some 14 exajoules. That's a very conservative number as you have to
store a good deal of this energy from the day to charge at night.
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
I'll continue to assume you can put PV in at $4/peak watt, $14/watt.
4.5^11 watts, or $6.2 trillion.
Coal liquefaction for 20mb/d is $1.2 trillion.
>>>Current conversion processes are horribly in-efficient (I.E. energy
>>>input to road miles) and can improved upon (5 to 10x) when substituted.
>>
>>What does making more efficient cars have to do with calculating cost of
>>equivalent fuel?
>>
>>Hondas get 40 mpg now. Are you saying they could get 200-400 mpg?
>
>
> Nope.. it suffers from being at the end of the fuel chain..
> It can never be more efficient than the raw feedstock costs.
> (see above.. once NG feed stock is in short supply gasoline costs
> will skyrocket. )
???? talk about pulling shit out of your ass.
>
>
> After that.. The most energy efficient ICE vehicle on planet is a
> hybrid/ICE(Prius) with a gasoline to wheel efficiency running around
> 25%. You might get a few more % by using Li-ion tech and capturing
> braking energy more efficiently.. but that's about it..
So at 10x, 250%? What's wrong with this picture?
>>>>I agree that solar energy won't do it all. I personally have spoken
>>>>with the NREL - PV team (the guys that design the solar panels), and
>>>>they said in seminar that it would take a solar panel the size of
>>>>Indiana to supply the current electrical grid.
>>>
>>>They would be wrong.. and the claim is irrelevant..
>>> And (Indiana??).. we have far better places to put them.
>>
>>I read 'size of Indiana'. How do you read 'in Indiana'?
>
> not even close.. Indiana is around ~36 K sq. miles..
Again, I read 'size of Indiana'. How do you read 'in Indiana'?
>>> Additionally mounting PV panels on dual axis trackers improves
>>>output(+30%) and provides for beneficial symbiotic reuse of the land
>>>underneath and in between the arrays. Finally, the area covered by
>>>PV is directly related to efficiency of conversion. (I.E. Most
>>>public statements are based on obsolete PV conversion rates.)
>>
>>More infrastructure than just the panels? So what do you figure a peak
>>watt, $12? Now we are talking $4 trillion/mb/d equivalent.
>
> Huh? No mater watt how you try to twist your logic.
> PV will still average out to 1K$ capital cost per kWh/day.
That's about $1/peakwatt. Where can I buy infrastructure at that cost?
And don't forget storage.
>><snip the rest as it assumes trillions of dollars will fall from the
>>sky, wait, that's Bernanke's line!>
>
> (*1) 500T$+interest over next fifty years to evac coastal
> cities/ports/lowlands/etc.
What does that have to do with today? Shit, we aren't even doing the
easy stuff to address peak oil.
Our economy is now stack on a huge pile of debt that lacks quality. We
can't produce our way out of a paper bag anymore. But you have a dream...
Dan Bloomquist
Scott Nudds wrote:
Which is it, about right or not?
Don Widders
>
> Scott Nudds wrote
>> > Undoubtedly the capital costs are too high for any single
>> > individual, and groups of interested individuals who could
>> > benefit from the hydrogen produced are not sufficiently
>> > close to be able to fuel from the same tank.
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
>> My point precisely! ...and undoubtedly, if the costs are
>> too high for any single individual, then multiply those costs
>> by the number of individuals in groups of interested
>> individuals and the costs are too high for groups of
>> individuals.
>
> You are truly brilliant Mr. Widders
Thank you! If ignorance is bliss, then you are truly ecstatic, Mr. Nudds!
> for you have just proven why it is
> impossible for a group to build anything that they must share. A bridge
> for
> example, or a building.
Apples and oranges. While many persons may travel the same bridge, they
can't burn the same hydrogen.
> No individual can afford the tens of millions of dollars in capital to
> build a modern bridge over a river, and when you multiply those costs by
> the
> number of individuals in a group of interested individuals, the cost is
> too high for the group.
Apples and oranges. See above ^
> Brilliant Mr. Widders.. Absolutely Brilliant.
Thank you, Mr. Nudds, thank you. Your praise would be more meaningful
coming from someone with a basic understanding of that about which he
speaks.
> The only thing you have forgotten is that the capital cost is DIVIDED by
> the number of people in the group, <NOT> MULTIPLIED.
See above ^.
> This simple logic is lost upon the even simpler mind of Don Widders.
>
Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
So millions of kWh of solar electricity is still more expensive than
millions of kWh of 'conventional' electricity. Add to the solar the losses
and capital cost of storage and distribution and now you have something
that's even more expensive. (hint: that's why conventional is conventional
and alternative is alternative.)
Don W.
Don Widders
Did you bother to ask for a price list? Get the prices and give your
argument some teeth!
Don W.
H2-PV NOW
Stop mass murdering to obtain dirty energy and earn yourself a whole
lot of humanity that you are currently lacking.
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
30,000 people are killed by coal emissions each year to power your
spamming, enough to fill an Arlington National Cemetery every ten
years. By coincidence, that's about how many unarmed civilians are
killed in Iraq every year in your attempt to steal 20% of the world's
oil reserves.
Nobody has to die for transportation fuel and electricity:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.uss/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
H2-PV NOW
Unlike the spammer Lancaster, there are no products offered for sale on
any webpages on any websites I host. All of my pages are informational
pages, with multiple links to reputable authoritaritive source
websites, There's no shopping carts, no "buy now" buttons, no PayPal
links, no address to mail checks. You couldn't make a donation or give
me money through any webpage. There's no pathway for any money flow. I
have never asked for, nor received one cent from more than 500,000
visits.
Any aggression traced to a publish threat will be prosecuted by
criminal and civil prosecutions as are appropriate. Harrassment is a
crime in California, and you just broke the law by making a threat to
act on your harrassment. What do you own that I might enjoy owning? How
high a price are you willing to risk in violating laws in order to
perpetuayte frauds AFTER you have been recipient of LAWFUL NOTICE of
facts requiring mandatory duty of due diligence investigation as A
REASONABLE MAN WOULD TAKE TO ACERTAIN THE FACTS?
You have been notified of many authorities offering evidence in
conflict to your statements, and it is proclaimed and published public
policy that the USA and California will pursue A Hydrogen Roadmap and
Hydrogen Highway.
You repeatedly violate the Federal Lanham act besmirching vendors
products which solve problems relevent to the public policy of
transition to a Hydrogen Economy. It is prohibitted by law for you to
publish false and fraudulent statements about these products worthiness
to meet their published specifications.
Your ISP is in violation of law and public policy to aid and abet you,
and your TERMS OF SERVICE prohibit you from engaging in acts of
knowing, willful, premeditated violations of law.
If you want to participate in any SCIENCE discussion forum you are
required to abstain from any provably false statements which you have
been given prior LEGAL NOTICE are violations of law.
If you have any facts to dispute claims published by reputable
manufacturers then you ought to provide those facs as defense of your
apparent systematic pattern of fraud and false statements. You have a
large published track record yourself implicating you in collaboration
and collusion in an "enterprise" (as defined by the R.I.C.O. statutes)
and are equally legally responsible for acts in violation of law by
each and every one of the others you are seen to be acting concert
with.
Freedom of Speech has never been a defense in law for prohibited acts
of fraud. Smearing reputable manufacturer's products to injure them in
interstate commerce is not an innocent act of opinion, by one without a
single minute's experience with the product.
These are the things you snipped, which invoke the MANDATORY DUTY OF
DUE DILIGENCE as any reasonable man would do when informed that their
facts were FALSE:
http://www.accagen.com/age-family.htm
"... AGE Electrolizers Family
The AGE pressurized electrolyzer family is based on a patented
alkali process which warrants high efficiency, reliable operation and
represents the state-of-the-art commercially available today. Several
installations, based on this technology, are running continuously
failure free in the field for over 15 years. The operating parameters
are continuously supervised by a special control logic capable of
recognizing possible running defects and, if the case, stopping and
reverting the unit to a fail-safe condition in case of malfunction. A
control panel allows to operate the machine in a very simple way
through a touchscreen. The very rugged and compact construction is
suitable for equipment transportation. Ease of operation makes this
device usable with a minimum of training thus reducing significantly
set-up and operation costs. Because of the very high security features
in the outdoor execution, the electrolyzer can be operated in a non
classified environment, i.e. it can be placed in any room without the
need to classify the ambient for electrical installation with explosive
gases.
The HQ device option delivers hydrogen gas with purity of 99.999%
and dew point of - 50°C suitable for Fuel Cell supply. The AGE family
can be fabricated with 10 bar, 30 bar or 200 bar gas output pressure
without the need of compressors. All electrolyzers of the AGE family
shows an overall very high efficiency. For special applications, like
hydrogen production from renewable energy sources, AccaGen has
developed electrolyzers with ultra high efficiency >85%. Moreover these
devices mounts electrodes designed to work with strong fluctuating
electrical currents, like usually happens in solar or wind energy
production systems, without suffering any electrode degradation over
time. ..."
Other links:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.uss/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
ELECTROLYSIS Gov't Free Downloads PDFs:
Advances in On-Site Electrolysis Hydrogen Generation Technology 2005
PEM vs Alkaline.pdf
http://www.chewonkih2.org/docs/PEM%20vs%20Alkaline.pdf
Alkaline, High Pressure Electrolysis 2005 pd26_ibrahim.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd26_ibrahim.pdf
Alkaline, High-Pressure Electrolysis 2004 iif3_cohen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif3_cohen.pdf
Alkaline, High-Pressure Electrolysis 2005 iv_h_5_Cohen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress05/iv_h_5_Cohen.pdf
Alkaline, High-Pressure Electrolysis iif3_cohen.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif3_cohen.pdf
Development Of A PEM Electrolyzer Enabling Seasonal Storage Of
Renewable Energy 2005 CEC-500-2005-085.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-085/CEC-500-20...
Development of New Polymer Electrolytes for Operation at High
Temperature and Low Relative Humidity fc6_zawodzinski.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/fc6_zawodzinski.pdf
Effective Utilization of By-product Oxygen of Electrolysis Hydrogen
Production 2003P_kato.pdf
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ECS/IEW2003/Papers/2003P_kato.pdf
Electrodes for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Operation on Hydrogen-Air
ive12_uribe.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/ive12_uribe.pdf
Electrolysis Development and Hydrogen Infrastructure 2004
euiw_a10_electricity_mtg.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_a10_electri...
Electrolysis Production of Hydrogen from Wind and Hydropower
chalk_doe.ppt
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/docs/chalk_doe.ppt
Electrolysis- Technology and Infrastructure Options 2004
euiw_background.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_background.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 euiw_agenda.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_agenda.pdf
Electrolysis-Utility Integration Workshop 2004 PURPOSE
euiw_02_intro_shawna.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_02_intro_sh...
Electrolytic Hydrogen Production kauffman_electrolytic.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/merit03/kauffman...
Enabling Science for Advanced Ceramic Membrane Electrolyzers 2002
32405b21.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405b21.pdf
HIGH EFFICIENCY STEAM ELECTROLYZER 2000 28890y.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890y.pdf
High Temperature Solid Oxide Electrolyzer System 2005 pd24_herring.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd24_herring.pdf
High-Efficiency Steam Electrolyzer 2003 iid2_vance.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iid2_vance.pdf
High-Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membranes fc7_myers.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/fc7_myers.pdf
High-Temperature Polymer Membranes ivb3_myers.pdf
http://www.eere.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/annual04/ivb3_myers...
High-Temperature Solid Oxide Electrolyser System 2003 iid3_herring.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iid3_herring.pdf
High-Temperature Solid-Oxide Electrolyzer System 2004 iif1_herring.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif1_herring.pdf
Hydrogen Generation by Electrolysis 2004 euiw_3_doe_utility.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/euiw_3_doe_utili...
Hydrogen Generation from Electrolysis (New Project) 2004
iif6_porter.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif6_porter.pdf
Hydrogen Generation from Electrolysis 2004 hpd_16_cohen.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_16_...
Hydrogen Generation from Electrolysis 2004 hpd_p22_maloney.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_p22...
Hydrogen Generation From Electrolysis 2005 pdp_41_porter.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_41_porter.pdf
Hydrogen Matrix as of 12.1.05.pdf
http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/Misc%20Matrix%20as%20of%2012.1.05.pdf
Hydrogen Production - Increasing the Efficiency of Water Electrolysis
(New Project) 2004 iif4_ingersoll.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iif4_ingersoll.pdf
Hydrogen Production - Increasing the Efficiency of Water Electrolysis
2005 pdp_39_pile.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_39_pile.pdf
Hydrogen Production & Delivery 2005 pd1_devlin.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pd1_devlin.pdf
Hydrogen production 2004 pigneri_ing.pdf
LongmuirG
>
>
>
Woops! Looks like there is not much left. Ol' H2 must have found a
law book somewhere -- criminal & civil prosecutions, harrassment,
Lanham act ... Dull! Dull! Dull!
At least the sadly misnamed H2-PV Now did not pronounce a fatwa against
Bill Ward. That would have spoiled Bill's whole day.
H2-PV NOW
Don Widders wrote:
> Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
> 'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
> So millions of kWh of solar electricity is still more expensive than
> millions of kWh of 'conventional' electricity. Add to the solar the losses
> and capital cost of storage and distribution and now you have something
> that's even more expensive. (hint: that's why conventional is conventional
> and alternative is alternative.)
>
> Don W.
There is no single price for kilowatts of electricity. They are sold
wholesale on the market and vary day by day, even hour by hour. There
are times and places that Solar kilowatts are far less expensive, and
even oil companies install solar panels to produce electricity in these
cases.
Here is a picture of an oil platform with solar panels installed:
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/PDF_extracted_07.JPG
Here's an enlargement for more details:
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/PDF_extracted_08.JPG
Here is where the picture came from, plus lots more:
Slides originated from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586.pdf
NCPV and Solar Program Review Meeting Proceedings (CDROM)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586CD.zip(ZIP 130
MB)NREL/CD-520-33586June 2003
* 33586006.pdf, 1,771KB Solar Energy Technologies-Contributing to
a Robust Energy Infrastructure
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/33586006.pdf
The price of kilowatts is constantly changing, and will continue to be
constantly changing. At no time in world history has PV manufacture
approached the scale of manufacture of beer bottles, yet both are made
from the exact same starting raw materials: silica dioxide, sand. PV as
cheap as beer bottles is possible if PV is continued to be introduced
and installed in ever greater amounts. As the volumes of PV approaches
the volumes of beer bottles the price of PV will approach the price of
beer bottles.
Here is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Energy best
projection known to them of the trends in prices of PV as events
continue to unfold according to how they have unfolded ever since 1979:
# 33586033.pdf, 699KB Solar Electric Future: Linking Science,
Engineering, Invention, and Manufacturing
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/33586033.pdf
Your statements are misleading because they imply the future will be
just like the past or even the present. Your statements are misleading
because they ignore the ever decreasing prices of kilowatts from PV and
the ever increasing price of kilowatts from fossil fuels. Your
statements are misleading because they ignore the ever rising costs of
environmental damages from fossil fuels pollution, which would require
fossil fuels retirement regardless of price or supply availability at
some near future point.
Your statements are outright false and fraudulent, in defiance of
established public policy to pursue a Hydrogen Roadmap nationally and
many states now pursuing Hydrogen Highway initiatives, based on sound
science and comprehensive studies.
You are attempting to lie your way to victory against the expressed
will of the population as represented by their government institutions.
You are attempting to inflict damages to the people of the UNITED
STATES of AMERICA through continued false and fraudulent expressions
couched in language crafted to deceive. You are waging economic and
environmental war on the citizens of the USA using false and fraudulent
publications disseminated over wires in violation of Federal R.I.C.O.
laws.
The facts today, March 15, 2006, is there are plenty of cases where it
is economically desirable to choose photovoltaics instead of any other
available energy option. The UNITED STATES government and a majority of
governments of the 50 states, and thousands of municipalities across
the USA have economically installed solar photovoltaic solutions as
preferable choices. The US military has installed PV in numerous bases
and facilities around the world and across the country. This is already
past fact, not future speculation.
You have been given LEGAL NOTICE. The laws in several states where your
publishings are appearing require a MANDATORY DUE DILIGENCE
investigation of facts brought to your notice, and further expressions
of false and fraudulent statements injuring public policy where you
negilgently refuse to investigate these facts may be treated the same
as intentional lies under prosecutions for fraud. You are at no time
exempted from the laws because of your personal opinions which you
failed to ascertain as truthful..
CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision
33162.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33162.pdf
CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual
Program 32405.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32405.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf 9525 KB
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf 50,775 KB
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf
H2-PV
news:1142485220....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
oh yeah, and I declare a fatwa too.
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2006 00:20:37 -0800, "H2-PV NOW"
>> <snip repetitive links>
H2-PV NOW
Don Widders wrote:
> Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
> 'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
> So millions of kWh of solar electricity is still more expensive than
> millions of kWh of 'conventional' electricity. Add to the solar the losses
> and capital cost of storage and distribution and now you have something
> that's even more expensive. (hint: that's why conventional is conventional
> and alternative is alternative.)
>
> Don W.
There is no single price for kilowatts of electricity. They are sold
Scott Nudds
> > He's about right if you consider low efficiency PV panels, but
> > overestiamtes the area a lot, yes for modern efficient PV panels.
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> Which is it, about right or not?
Let me make this clear enough for the average pipsqueek to understand.
He's about right if you consider low efficiency PV panels, but
overestiamtes the area a lot, yes for modern efficient PV panels.
Clear enough for you?
Peter Lowrie
> On 14 Mar 2006 00:20:37 -0800, "H2-PV NOW"
> <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bill Ward wrote:
> Keep it up, Sparky, maybe no one will notice you are just
> trying to build traffic to your lame website by flooding the
> search engines.
And he better hope that his firewall is up to speed. Like Don, I publish my
website details in the sig, and I get a lot of hits. Up to a dozen times a
day my firewall receives ssh (secure shell) attacks from people looking for
weak passwords. The firewall/gateway has a strong password and is
configured to disallow "root" logins.
Most of the hack/break-in attacks come from Korean universities. It seems
Korean students have too much time on their hands.
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.pelicom.net.nz
Peter Lowrie
>
>
> H2-PV NOW wrote:
>>
>> In a nearby thread Damn Doomquest posted a statement that no
>> electrolysis efficiency over 80% is technically possible....
>
> Liar.
>
I feel the need to defend Dan in this instance. Who the hell is H2-PV to
call Don a liar whilst hiding behind a nondeplume.
Ipso facto Don is NOT a liar AND h2-PV is a gutless wonder!
Bill Ward
<Long...@aol.com> wrote:
Yeah, it seems poor ol' Sparky's gone round the bend. He
really has an uncanny ability to demonstrate the depth of
his knowledge and understanding.
Oh well, look on the bright side - there's nowhere for him
to go but up.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Arnold Walker
You get them on Greenpeace and the EPA sites.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----
H2-PV NOW
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Don Widders wrote:
> > "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
> > news:1142294996.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >>The Republican Organized Crime Stoodges who go on and one badmouthing
> >>Hydrogen from Rewable Energy (like PV Solar and Wind) keep circulating
> >>1950s-era figures to uphold their case.
> >
> >
> > Buy one of those electrolyzers (and the solar array to power it and the
> > storage system to store the hydrogen and some sort of hydrogen powered
> > vehicle) and earn yourself a tiny little bit of credibility and self
> > respect.
> >
> > Don W.
> >
> >
>
> They will not even tell you how much they cost, let alone sell you one.
>
I had the exact same problem trying to get a price for a coal powered
electricty plant, and got the same snub trying to buy a nuclear power
plant, and they wouldn't answer my emails when I asked how much would
it cost me to put a hydroelectric dam on the Mississippi River. It's
like they don't want the people to own their own power plants or
something? Well, at least I can still buy an oil refinery in this
country, right? Say, you know anybody who will sell me an oil refinery?
About those electrolysers -- most PEM or Solid Oxide Fuel cells run in
reverse are regenerative electrolysers. At sixty kW power plants they
are planning for fuel cells, if the grid ever goes down you can plug
your fuel cell car into your PV inverter and run your home -- in fact,
with 60 kWs you can run extension cords to all your neighbors and run
their houses too.
But, as you said, you can't buy a fuel cell either -- not until they
finish figuring out how to make them by robotics so they can get rid of
the United Autoworkers Union finally. Then there will be plenty of Fuel
Cell cars all over the place, which you can run your house off of when
the grid goes down, or operate in reverse to make hydrogen when the
grid is up or when your PV is sunny.
H2-PV NOW
Nope. Didn't forget them. Don't depend on those processes. Found better
solutions than Seiman's process for SoG Si. In fact, found better
process than mg-Si. One-step from sand to PV ingots - 1/3rd the power,
better purity for SoG mc-Si ingots out the EMC furnace. No toxic wastes
up to this point in the process -- still cleaning up the rest of the
chain, before I licence it to Greenpeace to sub-licence it to those
with good track records only.
H2-PV NOW
Peter Lowrie wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > H2-PV NOW wrote:
> >>
> >> In a nearby thread Damn Doomquest posted a statement that no
> >> electrolysis efficiency over 80% is technically possible....
> >
> > Liar.
> >
>
> I feel the need to defend Dan in this instance. Who the hell is H2-PV to
> call Don a liar whilst hiding behind a nondeplume.
>
> Ipso facto Don is NOT a liar AND h2-PV is a gutless wonder!
Dan? Don? Which liar are you defending?
Anybody and everbody who catches Don Lancaster in a lie is entitled to
post proof of his lying regardless of whether they also feel like
opening themselves up to attacks by Organized Crime harrasser rings.
There is 5,000 post by the HYDROGEN-HATER in sci.energy.hydrogen and
NOBODY posts 5000 times in a forum they hate unless they are paid to
stay, paid to lie, paid to spread FUD and disinformation. NOBODY does
that for free. He can't be making enough from suckering people into his
ad-filled lure, er, I mean liar, ur, I mean lair, selling worthless
garage sale junk left over from his hay-day. Isn't he the one who first
called himself the "Blatant Opportunist"?
Damn Doomquest is the OTHER liar, who works in concert, collaboration
and collusion with the Blatant Opportunist to spread FUD. Who knows
what his profit motive is. Maybe he's just a mean skunk that likes
pissing on other people's parade, or maybe his IRA is all invested in
Exxon stocks -- he never published his motives for chronic lying about
the inevitable Hydrogen Economy powered by Cheap-as-beer-bottles PV
coming to your neighborhood soon.
Don Widders
>
> Don Widders wrote:
>
>
>> Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh
>> of
>> 'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it
>> 'conventional').
>> So millions of kWh of solar electricity is still more expensive than
>> millions of kWh of 'conventional' electricity. Add to the solar the
>> losses
>> and capital cost of storage and distribution and now you have something
>> that's even more expensive. (hint: that's why conventional is
>> conventional
>> and alternative is alternative.)
>>
>> Don W.
>
> There is no single price for kilowatts of electricity. They are sold
> wholesale on the market and vary day by day, even hour by hour. There
> are times and places that Solar kilowatts are far less expensive, and
> even oil companies install solar panels to produce electricity in these
> cases.
>
You are greatly in need of a life!
There are applications where solar PV does make sense and usually that's not
because of any benefit to the environment (it's simple economics!) Certain
remote applications like field measurement and telemetry are not too
uncommon. If you have to go out to an oil platform to find a solar panel
installation, that should tell you something. I'm willing to place a wager
with you that the oil platform does not store any of the solar electricity
as hydrogen and that it DOES store the electricity in storage batteries.
Care to take that wager?
Your pathetic threats and 'legal accusations' are so ridiculous they're
funny! I actually DID fart in your general direction (south), so sue me!
Don W.
Don Widders
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>> It is not presently possible for an individual to buy an electrolysizer.
>> They will not even tell you how much they cost, let alone sell you one.
>>
>> Try it.
>
> I had the exact same problem trying to get a price for a coal powered
> electricty plant, and got the same snub trying to buy a nuclear power
> plant, and they wouldn't answer my emails when I asked how much would
> it cost me to put a hydroelectric dam on the Mississippi River.
While a purchasing a small scale nuclear power plant may be problematic,
it's not problematic to purchase a coal fired boiler or steam powered
generator or a micro or mini hydro installation. It's also not too
difficult to buy solar panels. It's no piece of cake to buy a commercial
electrolyzer of any size larger than very small. Even the very small ones
are more than a little pricey! Then buy your hydrogen compressor and
storage system. You'll find that to be extraordinarily expensive. Then buy
a fuel cell or a hydrogen powered vehicle of any kind. I just can't imagine
why you're not driving one...
Don W.
Scott Nudds
"Peter Lowrie" <peter...@paradise.net.nz> wrote
> Who the hell is H2-PV to call Don a liar whilst hiding behind a
nondeplume.
Who does he have to be?, you shift for brains, you dog sucking,
motherfucker.
Lying is a matter of fact, irrespective of who reports that fact.
LongmuirG
> [Dull stuff snipped]
> Then there will be plenty of Fuel Cell cars all over the place,
> which you can run your house off of when the grid goes down,
> or operate in reverse to make hydrogen when the grid is up
> or when your PV is sunny.
Fuel cell cars in reverse? But what about all the kids on their bikes,
scrambling to get out the way?
If you mean pump water and electricity into the fuel cell car, get
hydrogen & oxygen out -- (i.e. electrolysis) -- and then compress the
hydrogen for storage & later use, is there any evidence that an
efficient fuel cell lends itself to such a practice?
Don Lancaster
> If you mean pump water and electricity into the fuel cell car, get
> hydrogen & oxygen out -- (i.e. electrolysis) -- and then compress the
> hydrogen for storage & later use, is there any evidence that an
> efficient fuel cell lends itself to such a practice?
>
Automatovie fuel cells are unlikely to ever reach this stage, because
the ICE efficiency is raising much faster than the much lower fuel cell
efficiency is.
Mostly because more dollars and smarter dollars are working towards
better ICE efficiency.
See http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp for the latest links.
Steve Spence
If you want to try it, we move a few reversible fuel cells:
http://www.green-trust.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=25&products_id=31
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Paul Vader
>Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
>'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
A LOT more expensive. An order of magnitude more expensive, maybe even two
orders of magnitude depending on how you amortize. *
Don Lancaster
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
>>'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
>
>
> A LOT more expensive. An order of magnitude more expensive, maybe even two
> orders of magnitude depending on how you amortize. *
And NOT in any manner renewable nor sustainable.
"solar electricity" is simply plain old conventional energy sources that
has been painted green and lied about. To date, it remains a net energy
sink that destroys gasoline.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
T.Keating
wrote:
>Paul Vader wrote:
>> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>>Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
>>>'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
>>
>>
>> A LOT more expensive. An order of magnitude more expensive, maybe even two
>> orders of magnitude depending on how you amortize. *
>
>And NOT in any manner renewable nor sustainable.
>
>"solar electricity" is simply plain old conventional energy sources that
>has been painted green and lied about. To date, it remains a net energy
>sink that destroys gasoline.
A deception... Our gasoline industry is very inefficient and heavily
subsidized.
US consumers ARE NOT paying ALL of the costs associated with
gasoline's usage.
Most of Europe has got the right idea, stiff taxes, but it's still
not enough..
ref.. another post in same subject.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/9b8d56307e686653?dmode=source&hl=en
T.Keating
wrote:
>Paul Vader wrote:
>> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>>Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh of
>>>'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
>>
>>
>> A LOT more expensive. An order of magnitude more expensive, maybe even two
>> orders of magnitude depending on how you amortize. *
>
>And NOT in any manner renewable nor sustainable.
>
>"solar electricity" is simply plain old conventional energy sources that
>has been painted green and lied about. To date, it remains a net energy
>sink that destroys gasoline.
A deception... Our gasoline industry is very inefficient and heavily
subsidized.
U.S. consumers ARE NOT paying ALL of the costs associated with
LongmuirG
> U.S. consumers ARE NOT paying ALL of the costs associated
> with gasoline's usage.
> Most of Europe has got the right idea, stiff taxes, but it's still
> not enough..
Tom, please tell US consumers who we need to thank for paying the
remainder of the costs associated with gasoline? US taxpayers, maybe?
Except that US taxpayers are US consumers. The statement that
consumers are not paying all the costs is totally indefensible.
As to the EUnuch idea of high taxes on gasoline, think about the
implications. What the EUtopians have proved is that the end use
consumer will pay a very high price indeed for transportation energy --
several times its actual cost. But at present, most of that "economic
rent" is going to greedy European governments; only a small part is
going to the people to whom it really should belong -- the people in
the countries where the oil is produced.
Clearly, seen from the perspective of the producing governments, the
price of oil should be much higher, and the EU governments should have
to get by with less tax revenue from oil. Some day, that is going to
happen. And if the US ever falls into line with the EUnuchs, it will
inevitably be hastening that day.
Don Widders
>
> Your statements are misleading because they imply the future will be
> just like the past or even the present. Your statements are misleading
> because they ignore the ever decreasing prices of kilowatts from PV and
> the ever increasing price of kilowatts from fossil fuels. Your
> statements are misleading because they ignore the ever rising costs of
> environmental damages from fossil fuels pollution, which would require
> fossil fuels retirement regardless of price or supply availability at
> some near future point.
>
> Your statements are outright false and fraudulent, in defiance of
> established public policy to pursue a Hydrogen Roadmap nationally and
> many states now pursuing Hydrogen Highway initiatives, based on sound
> science and comprehensive studies.
>
You know better. That's why you've chosen not to practice any of what you
preach! Show how you have implimented even one step of your plans for
everyone else. I'm mildly interested to know why you don't just tell
everyone you're driving around in a hydrogen car supplied with fuel from the
PV panels on the roof of your home. You don't have any problem repeating
the lie that hydrogen from electrolysis is economical, safe and convenient,
but if you thought for a minute it's really TRUE, then you would be
utilizing hydrogen for your own transportation and clearly you are not.
Your own practices make it very clear whose statements are misleading.
Don W.
Arnold Walker
>
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>> Don Widders wrote:
>> > "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1142294996.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >>The Republican Organized Crime Stoodges who go on and one badmouthing
>> >>Hydrogen from Rewable Energy (like PV Solar and Wind) keep circulating
>> >>1950s-era figures to uphold their case.
>> >
>> >
>> > Buy one of those electrolyzers (and the solar array to power it and the
>> > storage system to store the hydrogen and some sort of hydrogen powered
>> > vehicle) and earn yourself a tiny little bit of credibility and self
>> > respect.
>> >
>> > Don W.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It is not presently possible for an individual to buy an electrolysizer.
>> They will not even tell you how much they cost, let alone sell you one.
>>
>> Try it.
>
> I had the exact same problem trying to get a price for a coal powered
> electricty plant, and got the same snub trying to buy a nuclear power
> plant, and they wouldn't answer my emails when I asked how much would
> it cost me to put a hydroelectric dam on the Mississippi River. It's
> like they don't want the people to own their own power plants or
> something? Well, at least I can still buy an oil refinery in this
> country, right? Say, you know anybody who will sell me an oil refinery?
of my head.Assuming you actually wanted a price for any of that.
>
> About those electrolysers -- most PEM or Solid Oxide Fuel cells run in
> reverse are regenerative electrolysers. At sixty kW power plants they
> are planning for fuel cells, if the grid ever goes down you can plug
> your fuel cell car into your PV inverter and run your home -- in fact,
> with 60 kWs you can run extension cords to all your neighbors and run
> their houses too.
but then if your system doesn't work .What's the point .....
>
> But, as you said, you can't buy a fuel cell either -- not until they
> finish figuring out how to make them by robotics so they can get rid of
> the United Autoworkers Union finally. Then there will be plenty of Fuel
> Cell cars all over the place, which you can run your house off of when
> the grid goes down, or operate in reverse to make hydrogen when the
> grid is up or when your PV is sunny.
As implied......
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----
H2-PV NOW
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> > WHAT PART OF RENEWABLE ENERGY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
>
> What part of CONDENSE YOUR FUCKING LINKS are you having problems with?
>
> /Roy
You don't read links. You don't click them, you don't download the
PDFs. What do you care if they are posted or not.
You are not here for any purpose other than to lie, and links to proof
that you lie injure your ability to lie. The links are not for you --
they are to expose you as a liar -- for others to click and others to
download and others to read.
As long as you lie I will post the links that prove you are a chronic
persistant liar.
Don Widders
As long as you imply that others are murderers for making use of
conventional energy while you do exactly the same thing you won't score many
points for calling anyone a liar.
Don W.
Peter Lowrie
publish using a real name. Alas though, you are a pathetic gutless
knob-polisher.
You could try getting a life and not abusing people until such time as
you're prepared to post using a real identity.
H2-PV NOW wrote:
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.pelicom.net.nz
H2-PV NOW
I don't do EXACTLY the SAME THING. You have no NSA spies reporting to
you what I do or don't do.
In 1970, around the first EARTHDAY, I and NOT YOU started the first
permanent post-consumer recycling center in San Francisco, which is
still going today even though the city has curbside collection of
recyclables inspired by the concepts I demonstrated 36 years ago. I get
some credits in my carbon-karma account for that one. I have a lifetime
track record of such things. In fact the whole state has adopted the
policy proved in San Francisco 36 years ago, and a bunch of other
states have too. How much dirty carbon has been avoided by recycling
glass and paper over 36 years?
I have NEVER advocated mass murder for oil. In 1973 I published my
first publication on the Hydrogen Economy. This was BEFORE the first
oil crisis of 1976. I notice in 2006 that I am still doing that. I have
a track record, in the Library of Congress and major university
libraries and many better libraries across the country going back to
1973 on that.
I have been teaching 450,000 people, visitor log to my website records
that, around the world about energy conservation and alternative clean
energy. If I inspired each one to save one single gallon of gasoline in
their entire lifetime I have 250 tons of avoided carbon pollution
credits in my lifetime karma account.
If you ever get your lazy lying mass murdering azz over to my website I
might even convince you to cut back a little, even one less gallon of
blood-filled gasoline wasted on one unnecessary trip and ka-ching,
another pound of avoided carbon pollution credits goes in my karmic
account.
If you do drop by the website you might learn how to save tons of
carbon pollution and begin to wipe that republican feces off yourself
and start cleaning up your own karma.
If you follow my advice and build yourself a PALACE instead of that
trailer trash you live in, you'll find your energy inefficiemncy is cut
75%, and ka-ching, we both rack up a ton of carbon avoidance in our
karmic accounts, plus you'll rack up a heap of saved energy cash in
your bank account. If you put my in H2-PV, ka-ching, ka-ching,
ka-ching, tons of lifetime carbon avoidance credits goes into each of
our karmic accounts.
You won't have to be a filthy lying feces-covered republican scumbag
any more. You can hold your head up without the continuing perpetual
crimes of MASS MURDER for Iraq oil staining your soul and making you a
repulsive pestulent outcast, after you've repented and made amends,
that is.
Don Widders
>
> Don Widders wrote:
>>
>> As long as you imply that others are murderers for making use of
>> conventional energy while you do exactly the same thing you won't
>> score many points for calling anyone a liar.
>>
>> Don W.
>
> I don't do EXACTLY the SAME THING. You have no NSA spies reporting to
> you what I do or don't do.
>
If you owned an electrolyzer for changing expensive electricity into
worthless hydrogen you'd be proud to say so. You don't. You use gasoline
for your transportation just like your neighbors and your electricity comes
from the same wires as your neighbors and your gas comes from the same
pipes.
> In 1970, around the first EARTHDAY, I and NOT YOU started the first
> permanent post-consumer recycling center in San Francisco, which is
> still going today even though the city has curbside collection of
> recyclables inspired by the concepts I demonstrated 36 years ago.
Today, just like 36 years ago, recycling is (for the most part) a big waste
of resources. You haven't done anything to improve the environment.
> I get
> some credits in my carbon-karma account for that one.
How do you figure?
> I have a lifetime
> track record of such things.
I'm sorry to hear that. While I work to improve efficiency and work in
communications to avoid transportation where it's unnecessary you work to
reduce efficiency and cost which ultimately wastes resources.
> In fact the whole state has adopted the
> policy proved in San Francisco 36 years ago, and a bunch of other
> states have too. How much dirty carbon has been avoided by recycling
> glass and paper over 36 years?
Good question. Do you know the answer? Please don't leave out any of the
inefficient government subsidies added regulations and processes along the
way. Here's a good rule of thumb: if a recycling program can't fly without
subsidies or regulations that force people to comply, it's wasting more
resources than it saves. I am a conservationist. Improved efficiency is a
good thing.
> I have NEVER advocated mass murder for oil.
Has anyone ever advocated mass murder for oil (well, I mean with the
exception of Saddam Hussain)?
> In 1973 I published my
> first publication on the Hydrogen Economy.
Way to go! You helped the U.S. auto industry skirt the CAFE laws and sell
the U.S. car buyers SUVs for the next 20 years until everyone figures out
it'll be ANOTHER 20 years before hydrogen is 'ready'.
>This was BEFORE the first
> oil crisis of 1976. I notice in 2006 that I am still doing that. I have
> a track record, in the Library of Congress and major university
> libraries and many better libraries across the country going back to
> 1973 on that.
So your maniacal support of this administration's 'don't bother with clean
air or fuel efficiency for the next 20 years while we work on hydrogen' is
well documented. Congratulations, you're an idiot.
> I have been teaching 450,000 people, visitor log to my website records
> that, around the world about energy conservation and alternative clean
> energy. If I inspired each one to save one single gallon of gasoline in
> their entire lifetime I have 250 tons of avoided carbon pollution
> credits in my lifetime karma account.
Figure it out, Bozo. Not one of those 450,000 is burning hydrogen in their
vehicle, and if they did it would be hydrogen reformed from methane. And in
the meantime, you've provided a diversionary circus so Detroit can continue
to manufacture SUVs. Now how many gallons of gasoline have you saved?
> If you ever get your lazy lying mass murdering azz over to my website I
> might even convince you to cut back a little, even one less gallon of
> blood-filled gasoline wasted on one unnecessary trip and ka-ching,
> another pound of avoided carbon pollution credits goes in my karmic
> account.
Now you're talking! That's called conservation (of which I'm an active
proponent.) That's also why I oppose wasting money and other resources on
your PV-H2 silliness.
> If you do drop by the website you might learn how to save tons of
> carbon pollution and begin to wipe that republican feces off yourself
> and start cleaning up your own karma.
Wrong again. If people listen to you, there will be no end to waste and no
reduction in 'carbon pollution'. Open your eyes.
> If you follow my advice and build yourself a PALACE instead of that
> trailer trash you live in, you'll find your energy inefficiemncy is cut
> 75%, and ka-ching, we both rack up a ton of carbon avoidance in our
> karmic accounts, plus you'll rack up a heap of saved energy cash in
> your bank account. If you put my in H2-PV, ka-ching, ka-ching,
> ka-ching, tons of lifetime carbon avoidance credits goes into each of
> our karmic accounts.
Blah, blah, blah... more silly rhetoric. H2-PV (or is it PV-H2?) is a
horrible waste of money and resources. Show where either PV OR H2 has ever
saved money? Well, OK there are a few special applications where PV makes
sense, but for the purpose of bulk energy storage H2 makes no sense at all.
Even in outer space they use BATTERIES and not H2 to store electrical
energy.
> You won't have to be a filthy lying feces-covered republican scumbag
> any more. You can hold your head up without the continuing perpetual
> crimes of MASS MURDER for Iraq oil staining your soul and making you a
> repulsive pestulent outcast, after you've repented and made amends,
> that is.
>
...more juvenile name-calling. It really is pointless to try and educate
you because your foolishness is obviously a religion for you. Best take it
someplace other than a .sci newsgroup.
Don W.
K. Jones
"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
> I had the exact same problem trying to get a price for a coal powered
> electricty plant
60kW? No problem, I'll sell you one.
> Say, you know anybody who will sell me an oil refinery?
How big?
K. Jones
Scott Nudds
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> If you have solar panels on your roof you'd be proud to say so.
Solar panels are not yet economically viable for individual purchase.
However prices continue to fall while the price of oil continues to rise as
oil production continues it's decline.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> If you owned an electrolyzer for changing expensive electricity into
> worthless hydrogen you'd be proud to say so.
If hydrogen were really worthless then it would be an abundance, and
Automobiles would be powered via hydrogen rather than increasingly scarce
oil.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> You use gasoline for your transportation just like your neighbors
I don't own a car.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> your electricity comes
> from the same wires as your neighbors and your gas comes from the same
> pipes.
True. But I use vastly less of both than they do, and less and less each
year, as I increase my consumptive efficiency.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Today, just like 36 years ago, recycling is (for the most part) a big
waste
> of resources. You haven't done anything to improve the environment.
Ah, so in your view, reclaiming resources is a waste of resources.
Snicker... Do you write for comedy central?
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> I'm sorry to hear that. While I work to improve efficiency and work in
> communications to avoid transportation where it's unnecessary you work to
> reduce efficiency and cost which ultimately wastes resources.
I see, so the reclaiming of resources is a waste of resources... Better in
your view to dump an aluminum can in the local ditch and replace it with the
reduction of bauxite ore and subsequent electrochemical refining rather than
just melt it down and reclaim the pure metal.
It's good though that you are working to reduce the need for
transportation. How sad the U.S. is so poorly served by high speed internet
connections.
Where does Yankville now rate on the availability of high speed net
access? 57th in the world?
Too bad Al Gore wasn't president. Everyone would have a T1 line to their
homes.
Don Widders
news:g6kUf.3699$Hk1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> If you have solar panels on your roof you'd be proud to say so.
>
> Solar panels are not yet economically viable for individual purchase.
Precisely my point.
> However prices continue to fall while the price of oil continues to rise
> as
> oil production continues it's decline.
Still not there yet, are we? At what point will solar PV be cheaper than
the electricity you use?
>
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> If you owned an electrolyzer for changing expensive electricity into
>> worthless hydrogen you'd be proud to say so.
>
> If hydrogen were really worthless then it would be an abundance, and
> Automobiles would be powered via hydrogen rather than increasingly scarce
> oil..
LOL... May I quote you on that? Hydrogen is worthless as an energy storage
medium because of physical properties. Same reason automobiles will never
be hydrogen powered even when crude oil is outrageously scarce. There is no
abundance of hydrogen because terrestrial hydrogen is already burned and to
unburn it takes way more energy than you can get back from re-burning the
hydrogen.
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> You use gasoline for your transportation just like your neighbors
>
> I don't own a car.
Who said anything about cars? Perhaps I should have used the more generic
'hydrocarbons' instead of gasoline. Anyway, whoopie for you not owning a
car. So what do you use for transportation?
>
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> your electricity comes
>> from the same wires as your neighbors and your gas comes from the same
>> pipes.
>
> True. But I use vastly less of both than they do, and less and less each
> year, as I increase my consumptive efficiency.
Now you're talkin'! Conservation is just plain wise.
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> Today, just like 36 years ago, recycling is (for the most part) a big
>> waste of resources. You haven't done anything to improve the
>> environment.
>
> Ah, so in your view, reclaiming resources is a waste of resources.
Only true when the cost (resources you put in) of "reclaiming resources" is
greater than the reclaimed resources.
Don W.
Scott Nudds
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> writes:
> >Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh
of
> >'conventional' electricity (hint: that's why they call it
'conventional').
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
> A LOT more expensive. An order of magnitude more expensive, maybe even two
> orders of magnitude depending on how you amortize. *
Passive solar is already an order of magnitude less expensive than oil.
About 2.5 times the cost as long as you ignore the government subsidies that
are paid to the Oil Industry either directly or through infrastructure
subsidy.
Add those costs and Solar comes out ahead.
Scott Nudds
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> You don't have any problem repeating
> the lie that hydrogen from electrolysis is economical, safe and
convenient,
> but if you thought for a minute it's really TRUE, then you would be
> utilizing hydrogen for your own transportation and clearly you are not.
The claim is that it's production is over 80% efficient, with some methods
over 90% efficient. These claims are supported by the peer reviewed science
literature.
As for a hydrogen powered car, At the moment only individuals who can
manufacture thier own can have one because no manufacturers are producing
them.
I now add that GM lost $10 billion last year and that all of AmeriKKKa's
automobile manufacturers - who are widely known to produce absolute crap -
are on the ropes.
More engineering effort goes into making AmeriKKKan cars sound purdy than
goes into design efficiency and quality.
Absolute corruption.
Scott Nudds
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
> news:g6kUf.3699$Hk1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> > "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> If you have solar panels on your roof you'd be proud to say so.
> >
> > Solar panels are not yet economically viable for individual purchase.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Precisely my point.
No, your claim is that PV is not economically viable for large scale
production, and there you are quite wrong.
> > However prices continue to fall while the price of oil continues to rise
> > as oil production continues it's decline.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Still not there yet, are we? At what point will solar PV be cheaper than
> the electricity you use?
It already is once you remove subsidies paid to the Oil industry.
> > If hydrogen were really worthless then it would be an abundance, and
> > Automobiles would be powered via hydrogen rather than increasingly
scarce
> > oil..
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> LOL... May I quote you on that?
Be my guest. Your laughter says much about the depth of your ignorance.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Hydrogen is worthless as an energy storage medium because of physical
> properties.
Ya, they said the same about natural gas. Far to difficult to use as
fuel. Impossible, never happen. Cars will explode. Parking lots will go
up in flames. The world will come to an end.
Yet natural gas is now as common to find as desel.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Same reason automobiles will never
> be hydrogen powered even when crude oil is outrageously scarce. There is
no
> abundance of hydrogen because terrestrial hydrogen is already burned and
to
> unburn it takes way more energy than you can get back from re-burning the
> hydrogen.
That is true of all energy storage systems now isn't it? None are
perfectly efficient. What is the efficiency of a NiCd battery over a charge
cycle? 10% 15%?
What's the efficiency of photosynthesis John Boy? 6%, 8%... This
efficiency seems sufficient to drive the entire biosphere.
Hydrogen can be produced economically through electrolysis with a
conversion efficiency of over 80%, and can be produced by direct solar
thermal processes without electrolysis of any kind.
> > "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> You use gasoline for your transportation just like your neighbors
> >
> > I don't own a car.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Who said anything about cars? Perhaps I should have used the more generic
> 'hydrocarbons' instead of gasoline.
I don't own a truck either.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Anyway, whoopie for you not owning a car. So what do you use for
> transportation?
That depends on where I go. I walk, bike, use public transportation,
whatever is most practical.
> > True. But I use vastly less of both than they do, and less and less
each
> > year, as I increase my consumptive efficiency.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Now you're talkin'! Conservation is just plain wise.
Once levels of consumption become low enough, a wide variety of energy
sources become available to supply the requried energy. Right now I am
consuming 110 watts of power - 160 now that my furnace fan has kicked in. 6
hours ago it was 50 watts, oh, sorry 59 watts - since my PC speakers were
on.
This does not include my hot water heater which is electric and
constitutes about 1/3 rd of my electric energy use.
What is limiting my ability to cut my electric consumption further without
altering my lifestyle is the orientation of this house, which blocks my
abilitity to use passive solar to heat water. The house is oriented
east-west and the tank is improperly placed to provide adequate access
without significant heat loss should I put a collector on the south edge of
he house.
A properly constructed home would not suffer from these problems.
Further, proper orientation would also permit the collection of sunlight in
the winter months - which is now also impossible, and increase my heating
efficiency as well.
What is blocking greater consumptive efficiency on my part is the building
codes that existed 60 years ago, and that exist today that allow the
construction of inefficient buildings that can not even be easily
retrofitted to take advantage of obvious energy sources.
The moral of the story is that improvements in consumptive efficiency are
trivial when existing infrastructure is not an impediment to their
application.
> > Ah, so in your view, reclaiming resources is a waste of resources.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Only true when the cost (resources you put in) of "reclaiming resources"
is
> greater than the reclaimed resources.
Only a fool confuses consumptive efficiency with cost efficency.
Scott Nudds
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> No "modern efficient" PV panels are known today that are modern enough
> or efficient enough to become a net energy source under full burdened
> total system grid tie amortization.
At least not for the first couple of months of operation. After that it's
gravy.
Scott Nudds
Yup, Lancaster has shit for brains.
> Nor will any EVER be produced using conventional silicon PV technology.
Ah, but the less energy efficient form of solar conversion - biomass - has
potential, right Donnie boy....
Snicker..
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> The synchronous inverter cost alone today guarantees a net energy sink.
Another case of Shit for Brains who conflagrates energy efficiency and
cost and confuses himself in the process.
Scott Nudds
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
>> My point precisely! ...and undoubtedly, if the costs are
>> too high for any single individual, then multiply those costs
>> by the number of individuals in groups of interested
>> individuals and the costs are too high for groups of
>> individuals.
Scott Nudds responds:
> > You are truly brilliant Mr. Widders for you have just proven why it is
> > impossible for a group to build anything that they must share. A bridge
> > for example, or a building.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Apples and oranges. While many persons may travel the same bridge, they
> can't burn the same hydrogen.
Sure they can, you just decompose the water again. But what does this
have to do with your claim that costs are cumulative and hence groups can't
afford what individuals can't afford?
Stupid... Stupid... Widders.
> > No individual can afford the tens of millions of dollars in capital to
> > build a modern bridge over a river, and when you multiply those costs by
> > the
> > number of individuals in a group of interested individuals, the cost is
> > too high for the group.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Apples and oranges.
This isn't a discussion of fruit, although your opinions sure are
fruity. But what does this have to do with your claim that costs are
cumulative and hence groups can't afford what individuals can't afford?
Stupid... Stupid... Widders.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> > The only thing you have forgotten is that the capital cost is DIVIDED
by
> > the number of people in the group, <NOT> MULTIPLIED.
"if the costs are too high for any single individual, then multiply those
costs
by the number of individuals in groups of interested individuals and the
costs
are too high for groups of individuals." - Don Widders - Previous post.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a kWh
of
> 'conventional' electricity
No, it's nearly the same actually, once you remove the subsidy paid to the
oil and coal industries.
Stupid... Stupid... Widders...
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> (hint: that's why they call it 'conventional').
No, that's not right either. It's called conventional because the use of
these fuels has become commonplace and the default behaviour.
Stupid... Stupid... Widders...
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> So millions of kWh of solar electricity is still more expensive than
> millions of kWh of 'conventional' electricity.
It certainly does when you ignore all of the additional hidden costs of
oil and coal production.
But only a moron would do that.
"Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> Add to the solar the losses and capital cost of storage and distribution
and now
> you have something that's even more expensive.
Line losses are 11%. Are you still trying to claim that electric
production losses are on the order of 80%?
Bahahahahahahahahaha... You are a moron.
Don Lancaster
WHAT oil subsidies?
The oil taxes obscenely exceed any oil subsidies.
The solar subsidies obscenely exceed any net return to date.
If anything, they can be shown to be widly counterproductive.
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp
Paul Vader
>Passive solar is already an order of magnitude less expensive than oil.
Cite? Every solar energy website on the web that's not a con game disagrees
with you. *
Don Lancaster
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> writes:
>
>>Passive solar is already an order of magnitude less expensive than oil.
>
>
> Cite? Every solar energy website on the web that's not a con game disagrees
> with you. *
Actually, at certain climates and locations passive solar for
architectural heating can be quite cost effective.
Best Cites are from Zomeworks.
K. Jones
>
> > "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> > Let's see.... a kWh of solar electricity is way more expensive than a
kWh
> of
> > 'conventional' electricity
>
> No, it's nearly the same actually, once you remove the subsidy paid to
the
> oil and coal industries.
You can build a coal fired generating station for around 10 to 20 cents a
watt installed.
No subsidies. You can do this with solar?
> "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> > Add to the solar the losses and capital cost of storage and distribution
> and now
> > you have something that's even more expensive.
>
> Line losses are 11%. Are you still trying to claim that electric
> production losses are on the order of 80%?
>
> Bahahahahahahahahaha... You are a moron.
Line losses are dependant on many factors, and is variable, you can't give a
general number like "11%". 11%, would be extremely high, the average tends
to be between 4 and 7%, for the north american grid.
Learn a little of what you're talking about before you go around name
calling.
K. Jones
Paul Vader
>> Cite? Every solar energy website on the web that's not a con game disagrees
>> with you. *
>
>Actually, at certain climates and locations passive solar for
>architectural heating can be quite cost effective.
Yeah, I got off track - I was thinking he was still talking about PV and
missed the word 'passive'. *
Scott Nudds
"K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote
> You can build a coal fired generating station for around 10 to 20 cents a
> watt installed.
> No subsidies. You can do this with solar?
Pretty much. I was looking at some retail panel costs today and it comes
in at something like 100 cents a watt. This goes through two levels of
retailing with 100% markups so going right to the producer for volume sales
you are looking at 25 cents to say 30 cents per watt.
And of course, there is zero fuel cost for the lifetime of the panels.
Which is essentially infinite.
Coal has a cost both in terms of extraction, but also in terms of
environmental damage after it has been pumped into the air.
> > "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > Add to the solar the losses and capital cost of storage and
distribution
> > and now
> > > you have something that's even more expensive.
> >
> > Line losses are 11%. Are you still trying to claim that electric
> > production losses are on the order of 80%?
> >
> > Bahahahahahahahahaha... You are a moron.
"K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote
> Line losses are dependant on many factors, and is variable, you can't give
a
> general number like "11%". 11%, would be extremely high, the average
tends
> to be between 4 and 7%, for the north american grid.
My sources have it set to about 11% on average. But lets accept your 7%
figure shall we. Don't you think it's a little bit off claiming 80% as the
two Don's have?
"K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote
> Learn a little of what you're talking about before you go around name
> calling.
Would you like me to cite my source for the 11% figure?
Why not ask Don to cite his.
Scott Nudds
> The oil taxes obscenely exceed any oil subsidies.
Oil companies pay very little in taxes. ANd they certainly don't pay for
the defense of oil fields, they receive direct government subsidies for
drilling, reduced fees for producing oil on Government property, and they
pay <NOTHING> for the environmental remediation required by the designed use
of the product they produce.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> The solar subsidies obscenely exceed any net return to date.
Excellent, and emerging technologies that will replace oil will need more
of this.
So Don... Tell us more about how you arrived at your 80% inefficiency
rating in the U.S. electric power distribution system.
Scott Nudds
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> writes:
> >Passive solar is already an order of magnitude less expensive than oil.
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> Cite? Every solar energy website on the web that's not a con game
disagrees
> with you. *
Oh lets see... A 1 square meter High E window is gonna cost me $200. Over
40 years it's gonna provide 1 Kw of heating in the winter, for a net savings
of $2300 at current average electricity rates. Gee, I bet they will rise
over the next 40 years don't you.
So the net cost of passive solar is <negative> $2300 while the net cost of
electric heating would be +2300 over the same period.
Total costs would be +200 passive solar vs. +2500 for electric heating.
More than an order of magnitude difference.
Stupid... Stupid... Vader...
Scott Nudds
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote
> Yeah, I got off track - I was thinking he was still talking about PV and
> missed the word 'passive'. *
Ah. Then ignore the "Stupid... Stupid... Vader" part of the previous
message.
K. Jones
>
>
> "K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote
> > You can build a coal fired generating station for around 10 to 20 cents
a
> > watt installed.
> > No subsidies. You can do this with solar?
>
> Pretty much. I was looking at some retail panel costs today and it comes
> in at something like 100 cents a watt.
10x the cost is hardly "pretty much"........You have a cite for this PV
available for purchase at dollar a watt?
>This goes through two levels of
> retailing with 100% markups so going right to the producer for volume
sales
> you are looking at 25 cents to say 30 cents per watt.
You have a cite for this PV available for purchase at 25 cents to 30 cents
per watt?
> And of course, there is zero fuel cost for the lifetime of the panels.
> Which is essentially infinite.
>
> Coal has a cost both in terms of extraction, but also in terms of
> environmental damage after it has been pumped into the air.
>
>
>
> > > "Don Widders" <wid...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > Add to the solar the losses and capital cost of storage and
> distribution
> > > and now
> > > > you have something that's even more expensive.
> > >
> > > Line losses are 11%. Are you still trying to claim that electric
> > > production losses are on the order of 80%?
> > >
> > > Bahahahahahahahahaha... You are a moron.
>
>
> "K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote
> > Line losses are dependant on many factors, and is variable, you can't
give
> a
> > general number like "11%". 11%, would be extremely high, the average
> tends
> > to be between 4 and 7%, for the north american grid.
>
> My sources have it set to about 11% on average. But lets accept your 7%
> figure shall we. Don't you think it's a little bit off claiming 80% as
the
> two Don's have?
Looked through the entire thread, never saw that claim, nor the context it
was in.
You have a cite (message ID) where this is quoted?
>
> "K. Jones" <shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote
> > Learn a little of what you're talking about before you go around name
> > calling.
>
> Would you like me to cite my source for the 11% figure?
Not particularly, but I'd like to see a cite for the other three claims.
K. Jones
Don Lancaster
happen with silicon or till brand new CIGS gets replaced by a further
breakthrough), pv solar is still NOT renewable nor sustainable. All it
is are conventional energy sources painted green and felt good about.
That are net destroyers of gasoline and other conventional sources.
Renewability and sustainability can only emerge when fully burdened pv
solar electricity costs LESS than conventional grid sources. At the
system level with synchronous buyback. At present, the synchronous
inverter alone guarantees a net energy sink.
Even then, the renewability and sustainability part only is the
DIFFERENTIAL betwen its cost and conventional, not the entire cost.
Ferinstance, if fully burdened synchronous grid solar comes in at nine
cents per kilowatt hour and conventional grid is ten, then only ONE CENT
PER KILOWATT HOUR is newly renewable or sustainable.
And, unless you are a calculator user who gladly pays $500 per kilowatt
hour for your solar electricity, or are someone stealing subsidy
ripoffs, solar without renewability or sustainability makes no economic
sense whatsoever.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp
H2-PV NOW
Don Lancaster wrote:
> The kicker is that even at THIRTY CENTS per peak watt (ain't gonna
> happen with silicon or till brand new CIGS gets replaced by a further
> breakthrough), pv solar is still NOT renewable nor sustainable. All it
> is are conventional energy sources painted green and felt good about.
> That are net destroyers of gasoline and other conventional sources.
Lies, Lies, Lies.
PV makes electricity. Electricity makes PV. Once you make the first PV
the rest can be made from PV, forever and ever and ever.
It's called PV Breeders, where one acre of PV generates enough power to
cover all of the costs of making a new generation acre of PV in 35
days. The cost of the plant is a bit over $2 million dollars, which is
the value of 20 snowbirds motorhome deluxe custome coaches now parked
in Florida. It's less than the cost of one luxury home in my vacinity.
It's a hump to get over, but not any insurmountable hump.
> Renewability and sustainability can only emerge when fully burdened pv
> solar electricity costs LESS than conventional grid sources. At the
> system level with synchronous buyback. At present, the synchronous
> inverter alone guarantees a net energy sink.
That may be because YOU are too incompetent in electronics to walk us
through, component by component and tell us how to make those
inverters. There is no INVERTERS COOKBOOK from the electronics
incompetent Don Lancaster, is there?
And since you are so incompetent, why should we trust anything an
incompetent person has to say?
> Even then, the renewability and sustainability part only is the
> DIFFERENTIAL betwen its cost and conventional, not the entire cost.
Yeah, just like price at the pump does count the dead in Iraq, or the
military upkeep for vulnerable spread-out oil supply lines for oil
addicts. Just like the cost of watts at the meter doesn't count the
30,000 murdered by coal particulates pollution every year. Just like
the $300,000,000,000.00 hit to the economy from fossil fuels global
warming has been swept under the rug by EXXON and their useful fools
parroting their propaganda.
You won't talk about the WHOLE COST, the Full Burden, of fossil fuels.
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
You won't talk about your kisser stuck like a lampray on the butts of
Shieks of Arabique, giving up dollars for driving so they can come back
and buy up American ports.
> Ferinstance, if fully burdened synchronous grid solar comes in at nine
> cents per kilowatt hour and conventional grid is ten, then only ONE CENT
> PER KILOWATT HOUR is newly renewable or sustainable.
Phoney-Balony from the incompetent.
> And, unless you are a calculator user who gladly pays $500 per kilowatt
> hour for your solar electricity, or are someone stealing subsidy
> ripoffs, solar without renewability or sustainability makes no economic
> sense whatsoever.
>
The subsidy goes to the solar indstry to make more to instll more.
Every time the installed base increased by double the price of solar PV
has come down by half. How much does the cost of gasoline go down since
use doubled last? How much is gasoline expected to come down in price
if we double consumption again?
Use real figures backed up by somebody besides your own incompetent
website and enema-fun.pdf.
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
* 33586006.pdf, 1,771KB Solar Energy Technologies-Contributing
to a Robust Energy Infrastructure
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/33586006.pdf
* 33586009.pdf, 1,450KB The DOE Solar Program: Photovoltaics
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/33586009.pdf
* 33586033.pdf, 699KB Solar Electric Future: Linking Science,
Engineering, Invention, and Manufacturing
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/33586033.pdf
* 33586034.pdf, 1,232KB R&D on
Shell Solar's CZ Silicon Product Manufacturing
http://ecosyn.us/PV/DOE_Slides/33586034.pdf
Don Widders
>
> PV makes electricity. Electricity makes PV. Once you make the first PV
> the rest can be made from PV, forever and ever and ever.
>
> It's called PV Breeders, where one acre of PV generates enough power to
> cover all of the costs of making a new generation acre of PV in 35
> days. The cost of the plant is a bit over $2 million dollars, which is
> the value of 20 snowbirds motorhome deluxe custome coaches now parked
> in Florida. It's less than the cost of one luxury home in my vacinity.
>
> It's a hump to get over, but not any insurmountable hump.
The hump IS insurmountable and that's why no one has overcome the
insurmountable hump. If the capital cost of $2 million plus all operating
costs is greater than the plant output, the plant will not be built. The
plant hasn't been built, has it?
>> Renewability and sustainability can only emerge when fully burdened pv
>> solar electricity costs LESS than conventional grid sources. At the
>> system level with synchronous buyback. At present, the synchronous
>> inverter alone guarantees a net energy sink.
>
> That may be because YOU are too incompetent in electronics to walk us
> through, component by component and tell us how to make those
> inverters. There is no INVERTERS COOKBOOK from the electronics
> incompetent Don Lancaster, is there?
>
> And since you are so incompetent, why should we trust anything an
> incompetent person has to say?
Your remarkable stupidity is showing. 'Magic sinewaves' is about efficiency
and economy in devices like inverters, so it's likely the man you're calling
incompetent has already 'written the book' on the next generation of
inverters.
You add nothing of value to any discussion in this forum and it's abundantly
clear you're unwilling to learn anything. Your ignorance will do nothing to
change the [un]economics of PV or the physical properties of hydrogen.
According to your own posts, you've been counting on a hydrogen economy for
something like thirty years and still you're not driving a hydrogen vehicle
and you have no concrete plans on how or when you'll acquire or fuel your
first hydrogen vehicle. Face it, it isn't going to happen and none of your
rhetoric will change that.
Don W.
H2-PV NOW
Don Widders wrote:
> "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
> news:1143255426.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > PV makes electricity. Electricity makes PV. Once you make the first PV
> > the rest can be made from PV, forever and ever and ever.
> >
> > It's called PV Breeders, where one acre of PV generates enough power to
> > cover all of the costs of making a new generation acre of PV in 35
> > days. The cost of the plant is a bit over $2 million dollars, which is
> > the value of 20 snowbirds motorhome deluxe custome coaches now parked
> > in Florida. It's less than the cost of one luxury home in my vacinity.
> >
> > It's a hump to get over, but not any insurmountable hump.
>
> The hump IS insurmountable and that's why no one has overcome the
> insurmountable hump. If the capital cost of $2 million plus all operating
> costs is greater than the plant output, the plant will not be built. The
> plant hasn't been built, has it?
The plant was built in 1982, 24 years ago. It was due to open
immanently and suffered a hostile takeover and was decomissioned.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1982_March_April/Energy_Flashes
" PERPETUAL SOLAR: Solarex, a large photovoltaics company, has broken
ground for the world's first "solar breeder" in Frederick, Maryland.
The sun-powered facility will produce 200 kilowatts of electricity, an
amount sufficient to support a plant manufacturing photovoltaic cells.
Solarex claims the building will be the first large, self-supported
solar energy industrial site."
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=725&pageID=177&subSiteID=44
"And, finally, we must commit to major investments in alternatives,
especially as efficiencies improve. We have got a solar breeder that,
by the way, is about 5 miles from my home. It was built by Solarex and
is now owned by BP. They know that oil is not forever. They are now the
world's second largest producer of solar panels."
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/ANTITRUST.html
# 1982 Solarex "Breeder" Factory w/200 kilowatt peak rooftop Frederick,
Maryland
# 1982 Terrestrial Photovoltaics 1st reported as commodity 6,000 kWp
# 1983 Over 10,000 kWp Photovoltaic Modules Shipped See Table 18
# 1984 300 kWp PV roof installed Intercultural Center Georgetown
University Washington, DC
# 1984 AMOCO [Amoco/Enron & now BP-Amoco] forced takeover of Solarex
before last shipment for Intercultural Center
* Charging Ahead by Dr. John J. Berger
* Solar Electric House by Stephen Strong of Solar Design Associates
# 1984 reports indicate Dr. Lindmeyer's wife & son passed away
# 1984 PV Shipments drop to under 9,000 kWp after Amoco takeover
# 1984-86 DOE Annual Energy Report states 127 solar energy companies
put out of business!
# 1986 Solar-Voltaic Dome™ patented by Lt. Colonel Richard T.
Headrick
# 1987 PV shipments declined to 3,029 kWp
# 1988 PV Shipments began to recover
# 1988 ARCO Solar completed 1st One MW field PV system Hesperia, CA
# 1988-91 Enron/AMOCO used Solarex patents to sue ARCO Solar out of
business
[Solarex Corp.(Enron/Amoco)v.Arco, Inc.Ddel, 805 Fsupp 252Fed Digest]
# Patents & factory taken by Siemens who sell products in US without
suit--?
# 1990 Desert Storm in Kuwait oil war
> >> Renewability and sustainability can only emerge when fully burdened pv
> >> solar electricity costs LESS than conventional grid sources. At the
> >> system level with synchronous buyback. At present, the synchronous
> >> inverter alone guarantees a net energy sink.
> >
> > That may be because YOU are too incompetent in electronics to walk us
> > through, component by component and tell us how to make those
> > inverters. There is no INVERTERS COOKBOOK from the electronics
> > incompetent Don Lancaster, is there?
> >
> > And since you are so incompetent, why should we trust anything an
> > incompetent person has to say?
>
> Your remarkable stupidity is showing. 'Magic sinewaves' is about efficiency
> and economy in devices like inverters, so it's likely the man you're calling
> incompetent has already 'written the book' on the next generation of
> inverters.
Lancaster is waiting for companies to issue product data sheets with
suggested circuit uses for their products. When a bunch of
semiconductor companies issues these circuits I expect a book of
circuits will follow.
> You add nothing of value to any discussion in this forum and it's abundantly
> clear you're unwilling to learn anything. Your ignorance will do nothing to
> change the [un]economics of PV or the physical properties of hydrogen.
> According to your own posts, you've been counting on a hydrogen economy for
> something like thirty years and still you're not driving a hydrogen vehicle
> and you have no concrete plans on how or when you'll acquire or fuel your
> first hydrogen vehicle. Face it, it isn't going to happen and none of your
> rhetoric will change that.
So if I advocated for public transportation I have to own a bus or
light rail system FIRST?
Who are you to set the rules. Do you own a coal-fired power plant or an
oil refinery, you hypocrite!!! Come back when you have a coal fired
utility on your roof and drive a vehicle power from your own refinery
before you open your fat mouth.
CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision
33162.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33162.pdf
CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual
Program 32405.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32405.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf 9525 KB
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf 50,775 KB
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf
Workshop_hydrogen_storage.pdf 8601 KB
http://www-cep.cma.fr/Public/themes_de_recherche/procedes_de_conversi/title_plas_pub/one-day_workshop_hy
Don Lancaster
> PV makes electricity.
Not even wrong.
There has not been one recorded instance anytime ever of one net
watthour of pv electricity having been produced.
To date, pv remains a net energy sink that simply destroys gasoline and
other conventional energy sources.
There is no way in hell that conventional silicon pv can ever remotely
approach renewability or sustainability. The latest of new CIGS
technologies MAY get us as much as ONE-THIRD of the way to renewability
and sustainablity. But further MAJOR developments will be required
before net pv electricity can happen.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib.energfun.pdf for a detailed tutorial.
Also http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp for latest updates.
d
If I could get 5kw for $1500, I could sell about 40 kwh per day, I use about
30 kwh/day. I could cancel about $100/month electric bill and make about
$.30/day selling the excess or about $100/year. Pay back would be about 14
months.
I live out the country, I have plenty of space for panels.
Payback for more panels would be about 3 years. I could actually start a
profitable business selling electricity back to the electric company.
I am somewhat dubious about the price but I am willing to invest in panels
at $.30 per watt.
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:YdQUf.41483$fd....@read2.cgocable.net...
Dan Bloomquist
d wrote:
> post the source, I am looking to buy.
>
> If I could get 5kw for $1500...
Let me know when you find it. But best to take what Nudds says with a
grain of salt.
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
> news:YdQUf.41483$fd....@read2.cgocable.net...
>>
>> Pretty much. I was looking at some retail panel costs today and it comes
>>in at something like 100 cents a watt. This goes through two levels of
>>retailing with 100% markups so going right to the producer for volume
>>sales you are looking at 25 cents to say 30 cents per watt....
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Don Lancaster
> I could cancel about $100/month electric bill and make about
> $.30/day selling the excess or about $100/year. Pay back would be about 14
> months.
>
Thirty cents a day can amortize capital, labor, and maint costs of $910
in an eight year, ten percent note. For a ZERO investment return.
http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html
Paul Vader
>post the source, I am looking to buy.
>
>If I could get 5kw for $1500, I could sell about 40 kwh per day, I use about
>30 kwh/day. I could cancel about $100/month electric bill and make about
>$.30/day selling the excess or about $100/year. Pay back would be about 14
>months.
Nudds is of course making this all up. Solar panels go for $4-$5 per peak
watt (just the panels, support infrastructure about doubles that), and
electrolisers capable of significant output ... don't get sold to private
citizens at all. He posted a link a while back showing a home electroliser,
but a) the pictures of the device were CGI, b) the picture of the home
installation was badly photoshopped, c) there was no price for this supposed
home unit anywhere on the site, and finally d) there were no references
to this device on the internet other than press releases by the
company. It's a pathetic fantasy. *
BobG
There has not been one recorded instance anytime ever of one net
watthour of pv electricity having been produced.
What I think he really means is:
If you compare the KWH produced to date by all pv panels in existence
to the KWH used to produce them, break even hasn't been reached yet. As
more and more panels are produced and added to the equation, the break
even date keeps pushing farther into the future. I admit certain
installations have produced net watt hours, but I dont make this clear
in order to make my position more dramatic.
Don Lancaster
BOTH the kilowatt hours and the dimes of amortization and excluded
oportunity costs must be considered together. In net metering states,
the two are DEFINED as being both fungible and interchangable.
And what is even cuter is this:
Should net energy renewability and sustainability even be seen in the
next decade or so (flat out ain't gonna happen with conventional
silicon, and only faintly likely with what happened so far with CIGS),
the net energy sink will temporarily become RIDICULOUSLY WORSE because
of new dollars thrown to get into the game.
If it is ever gonna get better, it HAS to get a lot worse first.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
H2-PV NOW
Paul Vader wrote:
> <d> writes:
> >post the source, I am looking to buy.
> >
> >If I could get 5kw for $1500, I could sell about 40 kwh per day, I use about
> >30 kwh/day. I could cancel about $100/month electric bill and make about
> >$.30/day selling the excess or about $100/year. Pay back would be about 14
> >months.
>
> Nudds is of course making this all up. Solar panels go for $4-$5 per peak
> watt (just the panels, support infrastructure about doubles that), and
> electrolisers capable of significant output ... don't get sold to private
> citizens at all.
You need to put some proof on the line for these filthy lies of yours,
and explain who you are, and what money angle is paying you to lie
about PV.
Solar panels have no one price. They were going down until the world
market diverted everything to Germany where the government wants the
country free from butt-kissing to Shieks of Arabique, and doesn't want
to fight wars for oil with all those military expenses.
For now the price is up over last year, but since 1979 it has been
coming down at a rate of 19% reduction in retail price for every
doubling of installation. That means that price figures should be going
down steady and you shouldn't even put prices in your posts because
they are probably wrong.
The manufacturing cost of Shell Solar panels was $1/watt back in 2003.
Put in a large order and you can buy them wholesale not too much higher
than that.
There is NO DOUBLING of price for balance of system. That's a lie
spread by the chronic pathetic liar Don Lancaster. Aluminum mounts are
cheap. You put them on your own land and house, so the cost of property
is ZERO, and you need some wiring and inverter. Only if you are
off-grid and want to store in batteries does it get pricey, and in that
case it is still cheaper than the $5000 per mile to string grid power
to your outback location.