"Perfectly Safe"
knews4...@yahoo.com
phil scott
> http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_industry_plan.071025.htm
a few points. I notice the opening focus on solar.... sorry its too
diffuse to carry more than 5 or 10% of the nations energy load...
homes however *are and exception, solar and wind combined have been
shown to service nearly 100% of a single family needs. that founds
the larger confusion. Industrial and transport uses outstrip home
useage by 80% or more. rendering solar a non solution...however
useful in spots....and then mecoming even more useful as 50% of the
nations power usage curently goes to lighting... LED lighting by
itself can nearly solve the problem..it is over 90% more efficient
than what we have in place.
The opening salvo at least ignored nuclear energy... always a bad
indicator. Radiation contamination in total from power plants
pales in comparison to that from just one coal burning plant..not to
mention from the use of depleated uranium on the battle field. the
focus on solar also indicated a liberal arts major mind set, that is
beneficient minus any math or ability to think logically. that
always ends badly,
ok ok. I read the rest of her piece. a mix of snide remarks aimed
at our corrupt and incompetent government, mostly credible, used to
support her range of othwise bogus notions. such that solar is a
solution. it isnt. Its just another useful tool. and that nuclear
energy is dangerous. it isnt... liberal arts major thinking. no
math.
I met one of these the other day on a project...railing that buildings
didnt need HVAC, all the needed according to him was an underground
tunnel for cooling the inlet air...and he was right. however he had
not done the math...such a tunnel has to have 5 or 10 times the
surface area of the building it cools (to some degree, with no
dehumidification at all).... that of course is not practical. he
didnt do the math. same with his bogus anti nuclear energy
position. clueless.
Phil scott
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> a few points. I notice the opening focus on solar.... sorry its too
> diffuse to carry more than 5 or 10% of the nations energy load...
> homes however *are and exception, solar and wind combined have been
> shown to service nearly 100% of a single family needs. that founds
> the larger confusion. Industrial and transport uses outstrip home
> useage by 80% or more. rendering solar a non solution...however
> useful in spots....and then mecoming even more useful as 50% of the
> nations power usage curently goes to lighting... LED lighting by
> itself can nearly solve the problem..it is over 90% more efficient
> than what we have in place.
Solar and wind are intermittent generation sources. The biggest problem
is that they are not reliable, and often, the electricity is unavailable
during peak periods.
But they can be useful for production at night or on cold sunny winter
days, if the energy can be stored for use when it is needed. The problem
is storage. But if we use those methods to make hydrogen or liquid fuels,
the energy can be stored in those forms.
Farmers have been doing this for a long time, in a slightly different
form, by using windmills to power pumps whenever the wind blows, and then
storing the water in tanks for use when it is needed.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
AZ Nomad
>In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>> a few points. I notice the opening focus on solar.... sorry its too
>> diffuse to carry more than 5 or 10% of the nations energy load...
>> homes however *are and exception, solar and wind combined have been
>> shown to service nearly 100% of a single family needs. that founds
>> the larger confusion. Industrial and transport uses outstrip home
>> useage by 80% or more. rendering solar a non solution...however
>> useful in spots....and then mecoming even more useful as 50% of the
>> nations power usage curently goes to lighting... LED lighting by
>> itself can nearly solve the problem..it is over 90% more efficient
>> than what we have in place.
>Solar and wind are intermittent generation sources. The biggest problem
>is that they are not reliable, and often, the electricity is unavailable
>during peak periods.
>But they can be useful for production at night or on cold sunny winter
>days, if the energy can be stored for use when it is needed. The problem
>is storage. But if we use those methods to make hydrogen or liquid fuels,
>the energy can be stored in those forms.
Pissing away 95% of the energy to convert into H2 never makes sense. Put it back
into the grid and let nighttime users, use the power. The power saved will let
the default power sources be more utilized during the day.
Dan Bloomquist
> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>> a few points. I notice the opening focus on solar.... sorry its too
>> diffuse to carry more than 5 or 10% of the nations energy load...
>> homes however *are and exception, solar and wind combined have been
>> shown to service nearly 100% of a single family needs. that founds
>> the larger confusion. Industrial and transport uses outstrip home
>> useage by 80% or more. rendering solar a non solution...however
>> useful in spots....and then mecoming even more useful as 50% of the
>> nations power usage curently goes to lighting... LED lighting by
>> itself can nearly solve the problem..it is over 90% more efficient
>> than what we have in place.
>
> Solar and wind are intermittent generation sources. The biggest problem
> is that they are not reliable, and often, the electricity is unavailable
> during peak periods.
>
> But they can be useful for production at night or on cold sunny winter
> days, if the energy can be stored for use when it is needed. The problem
> is storage. But if we use those methods to make hydrogen or liquid fuels,
> the energy can be stored in those forms.
>
> Farmers have been doing this for a long time, in a slightly different
> form, by using windmills to power pumps whenever the wind blows, and then
> storing the water in tanks for use when it is needed.
A few things here. I don't know what, 'too diffuse to carry more than 5
or 10% of the nations energy load' is suppose to mean. This is the area
needed of fully packed heliocentric solar that meets all the demand of
our grid and EV equivalent transportation:
http://lakeweb.com/chris/solar.gif
As for LEDs, they are still not as efferent as compact fluorescents and
at some ten times the cost last time I looked.
Storage is not an issue and won't be for a very long time. Especially
for solar. Methane peakers run as little as $.40/watt it is the cost of
fuel and waste of precious methane for these peakers that matters. Solar
farms in the Southwest would very naturally offset demand for peak
electricity.
As for hydrogen to store electricity, it will never be done. It would
cost several dollars a watt for effective storage at some 30-40%. We
have plenty of fine geography for pumped storage that does 80% at less
than a buck a watt. But like I said, it would be a very long time before
we even need to consider storage.
As for making liquid fuels with electricity, that may never make sense.
GM's Volt is the way to go.
Wind is a growing industry because it can compete with fossil sources.
Solar is still expensive. SCE has started, so 'they' say.
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/BetteringEnergyEfficiencyPowerSources/SolarProject/
'They' also say that this might see a buck a watt in today's dollars in
the next decade.
Best, Dan.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Pissing away 95% of the energy to convert into H2 never makes sense. Put it back
> into the grid and let nighttime users, use the power. The power saved will let
> the default power sources be more utilized during the day.
Yes, but building reliable capacity is extremely expensive. If we build
wind farms tied to the grid, they will not work on muggy August
afternoons, when demand is the highest. Therefore, we will have to also
build tradionally-fueled redundant plants to operate during those periods
of time. Much of the time, those plants will sit idle, thereby wasting
the invested capital and making the whole shebang a poor investment.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> As for hydrogen to store electricity, it will never be done. It would
> cost several dollars a watt for effective storage at some 30-40%. We
> have plenty of fine geography for pumped storage that does 80% at less
> than a buck a watt. But like I said, it would be a very long time before
> we even need to consider storage.
Very interesting. Thanks.
AZ Nomad
>In misc.survivalism Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>> As for hydrogen to store electricity, it will never be done. It would
>> cost several dollars a watt for effective storage at some 30-40%. We
>> have plenty of fine geography for pumped storage that does 80% at less
>> than a buck a watt. But like I said, it would be a very long time before
>> we even need to consider storage.
>Very interesting. Thanks.
2-5% would be closer to the mark. You might get 30-40% efficiency, unless
you wanted it pressurized. Knock off 60% to pressurize. Knock off 20-30% of
what's left to burn it and run a power plant.
Sheesh. Pumping water uphill would be a better deal than using hydrogen to
store.
Terryc
> Solar and wind are intermittent generation sources. The biggest problem
> is that they are not reliable, and often, the electricity is unavailable
> during peak periods.
Trick 1; site wind where the fscking wind actually blows more than 50%
of the time.
Trick 2; solar has this incredible ability to match air conditioning
demand, which can outstrip peak demand.
Trick 3; other countries (e.g. spain) are showing that is is economical
to store solar generated electricity and recover when needed.
>
> But they can be useful for production at night or on cold sunny winter
> days, if the energy can be stored for use when it is needed. The problem
> is storage. But if we use those methods to make hydrogen or liquid fuels,
> the energy can be stored in those forms.
AFAIK, making hydrogen from water uses more energy than you can recover
from the resultant fuel.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Trick 3; other countries (e.g. spain) are showing that is is economical
> to store solar generated electricity and recover when needed.
How do they store electricity?
Don Lancaster
>
> As for LEDs, they are still not as efferent as compact fluorescents and
> at some ten times the cost last time I looked.
>
blow CCFL's away. Lab units are beyond 160.
See the LED Journal for details.
--
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
Dan Bloomquist
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>
>> As for LEDs, they are still not as efferent as compact fluorescents
>> and at some ten times the cost last time I looked.
>>
> Nope. LED's are routinely pushing 120 lumens per watt and completely
> blow CCFL's away. Lab units are beyond 160.
>
> See the LED Journal for details.
Sorry, we are talking production. See 'Electronics Products', Oct. I get
the paper version. See the 'cost'!
Sevenhundred Elves
Yes, but there's always the option of converting the hydrogen to
ammonia. It's an endothermic process, so it actually adds more energy to
the hydrogen. The nitrogen needed is available for free straight from
the air. Compared to hydrogen, ammonia is much easier to store, and
takes far less pressure to turn into liquid, thus less energy is lost by
the compression. It can be burned as-is or in fuel cells. Also, ammonia
can be stored and transported conveniently in solid form as ammine
complexes of the period 2 elements, most notably magnesium and calcium.
In this way, no compression losses occur at all. And at ordinary
temperatures, ammonia does not "leak" from the complexes; they are
odorless.
Quoting Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/
| Danish researchers use metal ammine complex to store hydrogen
|
|Available online 23 February 2006.
|
|A team from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) has produced
|a contender for the safe and convenient storage of hydrogen at high
|density, in the form of pellets of a metal ammine complex (Mg(NH3)6Cl2)
|which can hold more than 9% hydrogen by weight. The hydrogen is stored
|in the form of ammonia, and can be easily released by heating. The
|release temperature can be altered by changing the composition of the
|complex and by using catalysts.
Read more about it here:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/handheld_hydrog.html
S.
Maximust
Actually, those 'white' strings of LED Christmas lights have become quite
popular among the rural folks around here who live off the grid. They're quite
cheap because of mass production. Last year they were $8.95 for a string of 50.
Don Lancaster
Prices of LED's, especially white are in free fall.
Efficiencies are skyrocketing.
See the LED Journal for latest details.
Dan Bloomquist
We have a LED night light in the bathroom, I kinda like the blue. But
what would have to be done as far as the string goes is to know how many
lumen per dollar and watt. Then compare it to a CF that cost a couple of
bucks. My off grid friends still use CFs.
This started because the original op talked about leds as if cfs didn't
exist. There is little doubt that there are leds more efficient than
fluorescents. But at what cost? If, like the last time I looked, what is
available cost some ten times at a leaser efficiency than CFs, they
still not suitable for general lighting.
Maybe in another five years the line will get fuzzy.
Best, Dan.
Dan
That seems to be a good time line.
I can't use CFs because they just do not produce enough light in the
same space, and our lamp sockets are the limiting factor.
Dan
Dan Bloomquist
>
> I can't use CFs because they just do not produce enough light in the
> same space, and our lamp sockets are the limiting factor.
My house is almost 100% cfl, the light is fine. Have you never seen a
spiral CFL? They fit where any incandescent will. Things have changed in
the last 15 years...
I buy them at costco for less than $2/each for 17W units.
Tim May
<publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
Virtually of my bulbs are CFL. And not for some bllissninny "Saving
Gaia" crapola. I buy them because they last a lot longer (changing
bulbs is big hassle for me) and because the subsidized price is so low.
I often get my 25 W bulbs for less than a dollar each, when our utility
is having a subdidized sale at Home Depot or Orchard Supply Hardware.
About the only bulbs in my house that are not CFL are a couple on
dimmers or night time switches, which do not well with CFLs, some
halogens in the ceiling of my kitchen, and the appliance bulbs in my
refrigerator and range hood.
Oh, and some outdoor security floods, but these are on only
intermittently. And some are solar-powered (for location reasons and to
prevent them from being off in a grid failure or home invasion where
the power line is cut).
The blissninny/Gaia reason for buying CFLs is actually the dumbest and
most insulting one.
--Tim May
Jerry
"Tim May" <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:311020071826273930%tim...@removethis.got.net...
Besides the cost savings, I also like that they produce much less heat. The
energy is being used to produce light rather than heat.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Phil, I used to read The Mother Earth News (TMEN), Rhodale's Organic
Gardening, and much later on Home Power magazine. A pervasive theme
throughout these magazines is that Big Government is Bad, and Big
Business is Bad. This must be because nobody ever got screwed by
little government or little business, right? I dropped each one
because despite some good technical information, I was tired of being
preached at (National Geographic went that route, too). The final
straw with the Home Power magazine was some nutcase Brit wrote an
essay about how much he worried about not living lightly enough on the
earth. No power, no running water... He was mental.
Anyway, I don't know why these magazines draw in the kooks, and I
don't know why the editors tolerate it. Too bad for them.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> Besides the cost savings, I also like that they produce much less heat. The
> energy is being used to produce light rather than heat.
>
>
The light becomes heat unless it goes out a window or door.
Dan
Got several. Too dim. And if they are too dim for me, they drive my
wife up the wall, because she is a photophile.
I'm looking forward to the LEDs.
Dan
Dan
> Jerry wrote:
>>
>>
>> Besides the cost savings, I also like that they produce much less
>> heat. The
>> energy is being used to produce light rather than heat.
>>
>>
> Totally bogus argument.
> The light becomes heat unless it goes out a window or door.
>
>
>
No, they actually produce less heat for the same amount of light. A
HUGE portion of the energy given of by incandescents is in infrared.
Go back to physics class and read up on black body radiation.
Dan
Dan
government is bad...
Oh the irony!
Dan
Dan Bloomquist
> Jerry wrote:
>>
>>
>> Besides the cost savings, I also like that they produce much less
>> heat. The
>> energy is being used to produce light rather than heat.
>>
>>
> Totally bogus argument.
> The light becomes heat unless it goes out a window or door.
Christ, why do you act so dumb? 13 watts vs. 60 watts. You can't be that
brain dead.......
Dan Bloomquist
To each there own. They work just fine for me and my wife.......
Ever thought of using the 23 watt for the old 60 watt incandescent?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
A simpleton would make a comment like that.
You have to evaluate each branch of the government and ask if it is
what the Constitution and Bill of Rights demands or allows. No?
At least that's what I think a thinking person would do. I could be
wrong.
Jerry
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:5osvr3F...@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry wrote:
> >
> >
> > Besides the cost savings, I also like that they produce much less heat.
The
> > energy is being used to produce light rather than heat.
> >
> >
> Totally bogus argument.
> The light becomes heat unless it goes out a window or door.
>
>
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm#11
11. How much heat (or infrared radiation) is emitted by regular, halogen,
and compact fluorescent light bulbs?
Because incandescent and halogen bulbs create light through heat, about 90%
of the energy they emit is in the form of heat (also called infrared
radiation). To reduce the heat emitted by regular incandescent and halogen
light bulbs, use a lower watt bulb (like 60 watts instead of 100).
Fluorescent light bulbs use an entirely different method to create light.
Both compact fluorescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes contain a gas that,
when excited by electricity, hits a coating inside the fluorescent bulb and
emits light. (This makes them far more energy-efficient than regular
incandescent bulbs.) The fluorescent bulbs used in your home emit only
around 30% of their energy in heat, making them far cooler.
Dan Bloomquist
Did you miss my post? So what if Lancaster is retarded?
Don Lancaster
WRONG.
ALL light bulbs ultimately emit 100 percent of their energy in heat,
unless some of the light manages to escape out a window or door.
Fred Kasner
Don, you missed another error of the OP. He claims that something hits
the coating. The excitation of the gas (mercury vapor, produces UV and
the UV is absorbed and then emitted as visible light by the coating on
the tube. A fluroescent tube without the coating produces UV output.
I've used them for photo work in the UV.
FK
Dan
True, eventually almost all light emitted from most sources on the earth
will interact with matter and be CONVERTED into infrared radiation by
the matter it interacts with, but not all the energy is EMITTED as
infrared (heat). A much higher percentage of energy emitted by
incandescents is in the form of infrared as compared with fluorescent
and LED lights, as well as the fact that for the same light output, both
fluors and LEDs require less energy input.
Dan
daestrom
Well, not quite. They don't all 'emit 100 percent of their energy in heat'.
All the energy they emit *ends up as heat*. The difference is key for any
light fixture. A CF will emit much of its energy in the form of visible
light (the whole purpose of a light). Yes, it will eventually interact with
matter in the room and turn into heat. But before it does that, it will
reflect off enough surfaces for you to read a book, avoid the coffee table,
etc...
And as another pointed out, if you can get adequate light levels to do your
favorite tasks (i.e. reading a book, avoiding the coffee table, etc...) with
a bulb that draws only 17W instead of one that draws 100W, then obviously
you are lighting your room with less energy.
daestrom
Eric Gisin
>> The light becomes heat unless it goes out a window or door.
>
> http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm#11
> 11. How much heat (or infrared radiation) is emitted by regular, halogen,
> and compact fluorescent light bulbs?
>
> Because incandescent and halogen bulbs create light through heat, about 90%
> of the energy they emit is in the form of heat (also called infrared
> radiation). To reduce the heat emitted by regular incandescent and halogen
> light bulbs, use a lower watt bulb (like 60 watts instead of 100).
>
> Fluorescent light bulbs use an entirely different method to create light.
> Both compact fluorescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes contain a gas that,
> when excited by electricity, hits a coating inside the fluorescent bulb and
> emits light. (This makes them far more energy-efficient than regular
> incandescent bulbs.) The fluorescent bulbs used in your home emit only
> around 30% of their energy in heat, making them far cooler.
>
Fluorescents are only 30% efficient, so 70% must be heat.
They are a mercury discharge lamp of ~60% efficiency,
plus a phosphor that coverts this UV to visible at ~50%.
Jerry
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13ipfqs...@corp.supernews.com...
> Fluorescents are only 30% efficient, so 70% must be heat.
> They are a mercury discharge lamp of ~60% efficiency,
> plus a phosphor that coverts this UV to visible at ~50%.
>
Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common incandescent bulbs. I have
posted links to support the statement. Below is another. I stand behind my
statement:
>>>>> Besides the cost savings, I also like that they produce much less
heat. The energy is being used to produce light rather than >>>>> heat.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/question236.htm
The phosphor fluoresces to produce light.
A fluorescent bulb produces less heat, so it is much more efficient. A
fluorescent bulb can produce between 50 and 100 lumens per watt. This makes
fluorescent bulbs four to six times more efficient than incandescent bulbs.
That's why you can buy a 15-watt fluorescent bulb that produces the same
amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent bulb.
Don Lancaster
>
> Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common incandescent bulbs.
>
A common misconception. A fluorescent bulb installed as a closet light
will NEVER pay for its cost differential, and thus is LESS efficient
than an incandescent.
The majority of home light sources fail to run long enough to amortize.
If your lamp runs for, say four hours a day five days a week, the
fluorescent often has an efficiency advantage. Below that becomes
questionable.
The CFL may have been the efficiency poster child before the LED blew it
away, but its advantages are highly dependent on actual hours run.
Also, I have yet to find any CFL that runs as long as an incandescent
without burning out. The long life is a myth grossly offset by sleezoid
manufacturing.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> >
> > Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common incandescent bulbs.
> >
>
> A common misconception. A fluorescent bulb installed as a closet light
> will NEVER pay for its cost differential, and thus is LESS efficient
> than an incandescent.
>
> The majority of home light sources fail to run long enough to amortize.
>
> If your lamp runs for, say four hours a day five days a week, the
> fluorescent often has an efficiency advantage. Below that becomes
> questionable.
Some guru. The misconception is yours. If you put your coffeepot in the
closet, you will be drinking tea.
The CFL bulbs can be found for a buck or less. Sometimes free, with a
rebate. One CFL in my staircase has been burning for several years now, at
one-third the power of the incandescents it replaced. I say incandescents ,
because I was replacing them much too often. I put the CFL in the staircase
because changing the bulb meant setting up a ladder in the staircase, and
changing the bulb turned into a project.
In the old days, you didn't know how long your bulb would last. You might
get a lucky bulb that lasted longer than the unlucky ones. Today, it's a
science and they can predict things like bulb life or number of operations
or moving parts. Any manufacturer should have this information. Google MTBF
or "mean time between failures".
The price of one CFL ... cheaper than the price of multiple replacements
using incandescents.
Not having to haul a ladder through the house ... priceless. Actually, about
a buck.
The CFL in my garage has been there at least five years. Some of my lamps
are run more than 4 hours a day, and anyone with kids in the house can
pretty much expect to see lights left on in unoccupied rooms. Anyone who
reads, works at a computer, has a workshop, likes to see, etc. is burning a
bulb. What do you do, sit in the dark or light candles?
I already posted a couple links, one by GE and the other by How Stuff Works.
Both explain how CFLs are more efficient. You, on the other hand post a link
to an article written by yourself that does not even mention CFL bulbs.
Interesting article, but really not relevant to the discussion.
Except the part about resistance and heat. You should read your own words.
Incandecents act as resistors and give off heat. CFLs give off less heat.
They work differently. Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common
incandescent bulbs.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Jerry wrote:
> >
> > Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common incandescent bulbs.
> >
> A common misconception. A fluorescent bulb installed as a closet light
> will NEVER pay for its cost differential, and thus is LESS efficient
> than an incandescent.
So you take an atypical application, and generalize it to all
applications? Are you willfully ignorant?
> The majority of home light sources fail to run long enough to amortize.
Cite?
> If your lamp runs for, say four hours a day five days a week, the
> fluorescent often has an efficiency advantage. Below that becomes
> questionable.
Cite?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Dan Bloomquist
> In misc.survivalism Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>>> Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common incandescent bulbs.
>>>
>
>> A common misconception. A fluorescent bulb installed as a closet light
>> will NEVER pay for its cost differential, and thus is LESS efficient
>> than an incandescent.
>
> So you take an atypical application, and generalize it to all
> applications? Are you willfully ignorant?
>
>
>> The majority of home light sources fail to run long enough to amortize.
>
> Cite?
>
>
>
>> If your lamp runs for, say four hours a day five days a week, the
>> fluorescent often has an efficiency advantage. Below that becomes
>> questionable.
>
> Cite?
He has been trolling the same thing for a while.
google groups: "closet light" lancaster
You won't get a reasonable assessment of the numbers from Don.
sci.energy.hydrogen is pretty much his litter box.
Sevenhundred Elves
> AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:57:56 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >In misc.survivalism Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> As for hydrogen to store electricity, it will never be done. It would
> > >> cost several dollars a watt for effective storage at some 30-40%. We
> > >> have plenty of fine geography for pumped storage that does 80% at less
> > >> than a buck a watt. But like I said, it would be a very long time before
> > >> we even need to consider storage.
> >
> > >Very interesting. Thanks.
> >
> > 2-5% would be closer to the mark. You might get 30-40% efficiency, unless
> > you wanted it pressurized. Knock off 60% to pressurize. Knock off 20-30% of
> > what's left to burn it and run a power plant.
> >
> > Sheesh. Pumping water uphill would be a better deal than using hydrogen to
> > store.
>
> Yes, but there's always the option of converting the hydrogen to
> ammonia. It's an endothermic process, so it actually adds more energy to
> the hydrogen.
Sorry about that. It's exothermic, not endothermic. Delta_H(f) of the
reaction
0.5 N2 + 1.5 H2 --> NH3
is -46kJ. So making NH3 really takes away some energy from the hydrogen.
I hope nobody will be misled by my foolish assertion.
In part, I blame my error on wishful thinking. But also, for some
reason, I must have thought that the formation of NH3 was the "opposite"
of burning it, so it should have the opposite enthalpy. Silly me.
I'm surprised that nobody spotted this and corrected me. What's the
matter, don't you read my posts?
S.
daestrom
> Jerry wrote:
>>
>> Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient than common incandescent bulbs.
>
> A common misconception. A fluorescent bulb installed as a closet light
> will NEVER pay for its cost differential, and thus is LESS efficient than
> an incandescent.
>
> The majority of home light sources fail to run long enough to amortize.
>
> If your lamp runs for, say four hours a day five days a week, the
> fluorescent often has an efficiency advantage. Below that becomes
> questionable.
>
> The CFL may have been the efficiency poster child before the LED blew it
> away, but its advantages are highly dependent on actual hours run.
>
> Also, I have yet to find any CFL that runs as long as an incandescent
> without burning out. The long life is a myth grossly offset by sleezoid
> manufacturing.
>
Funny, I have several in a bath that get used just a couple hours a day.
But they're the same ones I installed when I built the house almost 8 years
ago. So far, those 34 watts of CFL versus 120 watts of incandescent I
figure have saved me about 500 kWh or about $50 in electricity.
In my kitchen, where they get used much more, I've had to replace them twice
for an average life of about 3 years. Being on about five hours a day (more
in winter, less in summer), I figure those 51 watts versus 180 watts saves
me about 700 kWh or about $70 in electricity. But I didn't pay anywhere
near $70 for those three CFL. Guess that shoots the crap out of your
'analysis'.
daestrom
P.S. Or would you like to through out bull words like 'fully paid up, fully
amortized' at it to throw up smoke??
Dan Bloomquist
> I'm surprised that nobody spotted this and corrected me. What's the
> matter, don't you read my posts?
This is usenet. All about egos. But glad to see you doing critical thinking!
(I just have not been around for a few days.) I'm so special! :)
Paul F. Dietz
> If your lamp runs for, say four hours a day five days a week, the
> fluorescent often has an efficiency advantage. Below that becomes
> questionable.
You are likely using obsolete cost figures for CFLs. I can buy them
now for close to $2/bulb. This will pay for itself even if the bulb is
used only occasionally. At $.10/kWh the savings of about 45 W
will pay for itself in less than 500 hours of use.
Paul