Hydrogen Fuel Plant Run By Solar Power
Bolaleman
powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
panels. It's enough to power about 30 to 35 homes,” said Sean Mullen
of Sunetric.
And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
"It's all about renewable energy and alternative fuel,” said Tom Quinn
from High Technology Development Corp. “So we put in a hydrogen
production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
with renewable energy sources."
The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
application.
"The hydrogen is used to power electric drive vehicles, whether they
be fuel cell vehicles or internal combustion engine vehicles burning
hydrogen,” said Quin..
The hydrogen plant was developed through a cooperative agreement
between the state's center for advanced transportation technologies, a
division of the high technology development corporation - and the Air
Force.
The vehicles Quinn mentioned include this SUV.
Filling it up is as easy as pulling in to your corner gas station.
When the solar panels aren't producing energy for the hydrogen plant,
the energy doesn't go to waste.
"The beauty of it is also when the station, they hydrogen station, is
not operating - that renewable energy from the solar array actually
feeds the base grid so they benefit from that,” said Quinn.
The savings will amount to nearly $43,000 a year.
Civilians can see the operation during the Hickam open house this
Saturday.
Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
Reported by: Kirk Matthews
uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
Source of Article:
http://www.khon2.com/content/begreen2/story/Be-Green-2-Hydrogen-Fuel-Plant-Run-By-Solar-Power/c_bA8ktWMUCKLJpN4yS7Xw.cspx
Don Lancaster
> This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
> powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
> of Sunetric.
> And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
> However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
> panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
> Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
> from High Technology Development Corp. �So we put in a hydrogen
> production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
> with renewable energy sources."
> The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
> application.
> "The hydrogen is used to power electric drive vehicles, whether they
> be fuel cell vehicles or internal combustion engine vehicles burning
> The hydrogen plant was developed through a cooperative agreement
> between the state's center for advanced transportation technologies, a
> division of the high technology development corporation - and the Air
> Force.
> The vehicles Quinn mentioned include this SUV.
> Filling it up is as easy as pulling in to your corner gas station.
> When the solar panels aren't producing energy for the hydrogen plant,
> the energy doesn't go to waste.
> "The beauty of it is also when the station, they hydrogen station, is
> not operating - that renewable energy from the solar array actually
> The savings will amount to nearly $43,000 a year.
> Civilians can see the operation during the Hickam open house this
> Saturday.
>
> Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
> Reported by: Kirk Matthews
>
> uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
> wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
>
> Source of Article:
> http://www.khon2.com/content/begreen2/story/Be-Green-2-Hydrogen-Fuel-Plant-Run-By-Solar-Power/c_bA8ktWMUCKLJpN4yS7Xw.cspx
Fundamental thermodynamic principles involving exergy ABSOLUTELY
GUARANTEE that hydrogen electrolysis from pv panels (or ANY other
high value electrical source such as grid, pv, wind, or alternator) flat
out ain't gonna happen.
The process is exactly the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican
Pesos.
Nobody could possibly be that dumb.
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
--
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
Bob Eld
"Bolaleman" <hul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5febaf3b-1e2d-4d93...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Well let's see: 210, 180 Watt panels is 37.8kW? Not 146kW. So, where does
that number come from? But, even using that high 146kW number the energy,
at best, is equal to about 600kWhr each day or 24 hour period. If that
could be converted to hydrogen at 100% efficiency which isn't possible, it
would equal the energy of 17 gal of gasoline! Wow! That's about $50 per day
yield! But these clowns claim $43,000 per year savings??? So why does none
of this add up? As usual, its all hype and bull shit not based in reality,
generated by a marketing department or worse, a local TV station by people
who don't know a watt from a cheeseburger.
Is it possible that the 146kW number is supposed to be 146kWhrs, the total
amount of energy collected in one day? If so, the prolific yield would equal
abut four gallons of gasoline per day. Now I'm really impressed, that's
about $12 a day. What an investment! Checking numbers is important!
Don Lancaster
> "Bolaleman" <hul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5febaf3b-1e2d-4d93...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
> powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
> of Sunetric.
> And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
> However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
> panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
> Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
> from High Technology Development Corp. �So we put in a hydrogen
> production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
> with renewable energy sources."
> The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
> application.
> "The hydrogen is used to power electric drive vehicles, whether they
> be fuel cell vehicles or internal combustion engine vehicles burning
> The hydrogen plant was developed through a cooperative agreement
> between the state's center for advanced transportation technologies, a
> division of the high technology development corporation - and the Air
> Force.
> The vehicles Quinn mentioned include this SUV.
> Filling it up is as easy as pulling in to your corner gas station.
> When the solar panels aren't producing energy for the hydrogen plant,
> the energy doesn't go to waste.
> "The beauty of it is also when the station, they hydrogen station, is
> not operating - that renewable energy from the solar array actually
> The savings will amount to nearly $43,000 a year.
> Civilians can see the operation during the Hickam open house this
> Saturday.
>
> Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
> Reported by: Kirk Matthews
>
> uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
> wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
>
> Source of Article:
> http://www.khon2.com/content/begreen2/story/Be-Green-2-Hydrogen-Fuel-Plant-R
> un-By-Solar-Power/c_bA8ktWMUCKLJpN4yS7Xw.cspx
>
> Well let's see: 210, 180 Watt panels is 37.8kW? Not 146kW. So, where does
> that number come from? But, even using that high 146kW number the energy,
> at best, is equal to about 600kWhr each day or 24 hour period. If that
> could be converted to hydrogen at 100% efficiency which isn't possible, it
> would equal the energy of 17 gal of gasoline! Wow! That's about $50 per day
> yield! But these clowns claim $43,000 per year savings??? So why does none
> of this add up? As usual, its all hype and bull shit not based in reality,
> generated by a marketing department or worse, a local TV station by people
> who don't know a watt from a cheeseburger.
>
> Is it possible that the 146kW number is supposed to be 146kWhrs, the total
> amount of energy collected in one day? If so, the prolific yield would equal
> abut four gallons of gasoline per day. Now I'm really impressed, that's
> about $12 a day. What an investment! Checking numbers is important!
>
>
A 1 Kilowatt peak noon power array typically produces 5 kilowatt hours
per day.
<http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp>
Converting to hydrogen at 100% efficiency would involve converting very
high value kilowatt hours into very low value kilowatt hours because of
exergy.
Nobody could possibly be that dumb.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things to do with the electricity.
bw
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:7hd6jpF...@mid.individual.net...
> Bob Eld wrote:
>
> A 1 Kilowatt peak noon power array typically produces 5 kilowatt hours per
> day.
>
> <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp>
>
> Converting to hydrogen at 100% efficiency would involve converting very
> high value kilowatt hours into very low value kilowatt hours because of
> exergy.
>
5 kWh/day ONLY in the southwest. The annual average for USA is 4 kWh/day.
Thats NREL data, good for most areas up to 40 degrees North.
But you have to remember the weak link in the chain, which is that
December/January average will be just over 2 kWh/day. Adding trackers will
improve that to 3 kWh/day.
Don Lancaster
The assumption was that the noontime capability was one kilowatt
In general, you get five kwh or less per day for each noon kilowatt.
<http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf>
See <http://www.tep.com/Green/GreenWatts/SolarOutput.asp> for current
real numbers.
Bob Eld
> bw wrote:
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7hd6jpF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> Bob Eld wrote:
> >
> >> A 1 Kilowatt peak noon power array typically produces 5 kilowatt hours
per
> >> day.
> >>
> >> <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp>
> >>
> >> Converting to hydrogen at 100% efficiency would involve converting very
> >> high value kilowatt hours into very low value kilowatt hours because of
> >> exergy.
> >>
> >
> > 5 kWh/day ONLY in the southwest. The annual average for USA is 4
kWh/day.
> > Thats NREL data, good for most areas up to 40 degrees North.
> > But you have to remember the weak link in the chain, which is that
> > December/January average will be just over 2 kWh/day. Adding trackers
will
> > improve that to 3 kWh/day.
> >
> >
>
>
> The assumption was that the noontime capability was one kilowatt
>
> In general, you get five kwh or less per day for each noon kilowatt.
Yes, besides tweaking the numbers slightly, that changes the assumptions and
conclusions about the absurdity of the original post just how?
In other words, why are you picking the fly shit out of the pepper? The
conclusions, which are the same as yours, still stand.
Bolaleman
> Bob Eld wrote:
> > "Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5febaf3b-1e2d-4d93...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> > This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
> > powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
> > of Sunetric.
> > And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
> > However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
> > panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
> > Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
> > from High Technology Development Corp. “So we put in a hydrogen
> > production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
> > with renewable energy sources."
> > The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
> > application.
> > "The hydrogen is used to power electric drive vehicles, whether they
> > be fuel cell vehicles or internal combustion engine vehicles burning
> > The hydrogen plant was developed through a cooperative agreement
> > between the state's center for advanced transportation technologies, a
> > division of the high technology development corporation - and the Air
> > Force.
> > The vehicles Quinn mentioned include this SUV.
> > Filling it up is as easy as pulling in to your corner gas station.
> > When the solar panels aren't producing energy for the hydrogen plant,
> > the energy doesn't go to waste.
> > "The beauty of it is also when the station, they hydrogen station, is
> > not operating - that renewable energy from the solar array actually
> > The savings will amount to nearly $43,000 a year.
> > Civilians can see the operation during the Hickam open house this
> > Saturday.
>
> > Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
> > Reported by: Kirk Matthews
>
> > uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
> > wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
>
> > Source of Article:
>
> - Show quoted text -
They don't anything about the voltage that comes out of this system.
Isn't it possible that the voltage is that low that they prefer to use
it for feeding an electrolysis cell to produce hydrogen?
Maybe this question is stupid but I am not really a photovoltaic
expert.
Don Lancaster
> On Sep 16, 6:19 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>> Bob Eld wrote:
>>> "Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5febaf3b-1e2d-4d93...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>> This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
>>> powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
>>> of Sunetric.
>>> And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
>>> However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
>>> panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
>>> Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
>>> from High Technology Development Corp. �So we put in a hydrogen
>>> production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
>>> with renewable energy sources."
>>> The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
>>> application.
>>> "The hydrogen is used to power electric drive vehicles, whether they
>>> be fuel cell vehicles or internal combustion engine vehicles burning
>>> The hydrogen plant was developed through a cooperative agreement
>>> between the state's center for advanced transportation technologies, a
>>> division of the high technology development corporation - and the Air
>>> Force.
>>> The vehicles Quinn mentioned include this SUV.
>>> Filling it up is as easy as pulling in to your corner gas station.
>>> When the solar panels aren't producing energy for the hydrogen plant,
>>> the energy doesn't go to waste.
>>> "The beauty of it is also when the station, they hydrogen station, is
>>> not operating - that renewable energy from the solar array actually
Doesn't matter.
Once you have high value electricity, you can no longer afford to do
electrolysis.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent uses for the energy.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
And you can always connect cells in series for optimal synchronous
inverter use.
George Cornelius
[original poster wrote]:
>> Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
>> Reported by: Kirk Matthews
>>
>> uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
>> wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
>>
>> Source of Article:
>> http://www.khon2.com/content/begreen2/story/Be-Green-2-Hydrogen-Fuel-Plant-R
>> un-By-Solar-Power/c_bA8ktWMUCKLJpN4yS7Xw.cspx
>
> Well let's see: 210, 180 Watt panels is 37.8kW? Not 146kW. So, where does
> that number come from? But, even using that high 146kW number the energy,
It's 810 panels if you go to the link today, and that works out to 146kw.
Either the original post had a typo or the original page had one.
[Current value for web page's last update: 9/16 11:17 am]
With Don's number - 5kwh/kw/day - this amounts to 730 kwh. At 10c/kwh
that is $73. Similar to your 600 kwh/day calculation.
George Cornelius
AZ Nomad
Brilliant. Slightly over a half million dollar investment with a 26K/yr return,
about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
Don Lancaster
And the interest rate was.....???
At 4.5%, the investment would be utterly and totally pointless.
Above that, it is a gasoline destroying money sink rathole.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp
http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html
Also, with the imminicy of CIGS, there is no way in hell that existing
"eight track TTY" pv installations will still be in use even five years
from now. So ANY long term breakeven projections are worthless.
Bob Eld
"George Cornelius" <STXgcorn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4AB30D75...@charter.net...
My numbers were off hand and rounded. They were based on converting
electricity to fuel (hydrogen) at an absurd 100% efficiency (unobtainable
best case) and comparing it to the rough cost of gasoline, a fuel to fuel
comparison. In no way does a multi-hundred thousand dollar investment pay
off unless gasoline gets to about $20 a gallon. Or, as Don likes to say its
the equivalent of turning your dollars into pesos. My biggtest issue was not
the exact conversions values or even a typo but the fact that the original
post came from a TV report with the usual bimbos trying to talk technical.
They rarely get anything right.
Bolaleman
> "George Cornelius" <STXgcornelius...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4AB30D75...@charter.net...> Bob Eld wrote:
> > [original poster wrote]:
> > >> Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
> > >> Reported by: Kirk Matthews
>
> > >> uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
> > >> wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
>
> > >> Source of Article:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> un-By-Solar-Power/c_bA8ktWMUCKLJpN4yS7Xw.cspx
>
> > > Well let's see: 210, 180 Watt panels is 37.8kW? Not 146kW. So, where
> does
> > > that number come from? But, even using that high 146kW number the
> energy,
>
> > It's 810 panels if you go to the link today, and that works out to 146kw.
>
> > Either the original post had a typo or the original page had one.
> > [Current value for web page's last update: 9/16 11:17 am]
>
> > With Don's number - 5kwh/kw/day - this amounts to 730 kwh. At 10c/kwh
> > that is $73. Similar to your 600 kwh/day calculation.
>
> > George Cornelius
>
> My numbers were off hand and rounded. They were based on converting
> electricity to fuel (hydrogen) at an absurd 100% efficiency (unobtainable
> best case) and comparing it to the rough cost of gasoline, a fuel to fuel
> comparison. In no way does a multi-hundred thousand dollar investment pay
> off unless gasoline gets to about $20 a gallon. Or, as Don likes to say its
> the equivalent of turning your dollars into pesos. My biggtest issue was not
> the exact conversions values or even a typo but the fact that the original
> post came from a TV report with the usual bimbos trying to talk technical.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder for how much they can sell their hydrogen produced in their
plant. According to an article about hydrogen price projections (even
though from 2004), the market price of this gas is about 100 $/kg plus
cylinder rental (http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price.pdf). I don't
think that this price dropped during the past years to a few dolars
per kilo.... This means that the business simply might be in selling
the hydrogen to this price which is much more than you can get just
selling the electricity.
Cheers,
Bolaleman
-------------------------------------------------
Renewable Energy Job Bank:
http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
Bolaleman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think I misinterpreted this publication and in particular the
hydrogen price. Reading it again, the cost of $100/kg of hydrogen is
too high for being used as fuel in cars and the real cost of technical
grade hydrogen is rather in the range of $3/kg. As far as I know, most
of the hydrogen today is produced by thermolytic methane reforming and
electrolysis cannot (or could not in the past) compete with this
process. The production of hydrogen by electrolysis consumes in the
range of 65 kWh/kg (http://www.evnut.com/docs/acp_fc_pollution.pdf)
which means that with a 146 kW solar pannel it should be possible to
produce about 2.24 kg of hydrogen per hour or 22 kg per day
(considering 10 hours production per day). Let's say the 22 kg of
hydrogen could be sold for a price of $3/kg, the profit would be $66
per day. This is almost the same conclusion Bob got comparing the
energy of the produced hydrogen with the corresponding gasoline price.
There really seems no way to save $43,000 per year..... Or we are all
wrong :-)
Eeyore
> This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
> powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
> of Sunetric.
Solar PV panels are HOPELESSLY inefficient.
Anyone thinking they are our saviour are ignorant non-scientific IDIOTS.
Graham
DanB
Wow Graham,
You are suddenly back!! Good to see you. Can't stay away from the pub, ey?
Dan.
hhc314
> "Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5febaf3b-1e2d-4d93...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
> powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
> panels. It's enough to power about 30 to 35 homes,” said Sean Mullen
> of Sunetric.
Wow, how do these characters arrive at their overly optimistic
estimates? It sure beats me.
Being a physicist and engineer, I would back up my clams with simple
'back of the envelope' envelopes based on the electrical service to a
typical home, and the KW demand that full use of this capacity
implies.
Most middle class home constructed during the past 20 years have
either 100, 125, or 200 amp service panels on 220-Volts. This is
because of the electrical demand imposed by the appliance within the
home, including electric ranges, water heaters, air conditioning,
microwave ovens, electric irons, TV sets, refrigerators, washers/
dryers, lighting, entertainment, vacuum cleaners, space heaters,
etc....
In many parts of our country, a building code mandates the minimum
capacity of the electrical service. Years ago, say in the 1940s, a
typical household electrical service was 60-Amps at 115-Volts (which
is why in those days home owners had boxes of spare fused. This is
long obsolete, but ever a 60-Amp, had a demand of 6.9 KW. which for 35
homes amounts to a peak demand of 241.5 KW. So the Senetric system
wouldn't even be capable of supplying the power needs of 35 even 1940
homes! Not even close.
Now take a look at the power demans of a contemporary middle class
home with a 200 Amp, 220V serviced home with air conditioning and
other of the usual modern conveniences. At full capacity, and 200 Amp,
220V service has a demand of 44 KW (not taking into account peak
demand situations). Provided that it could handle the surge demand,
and the inverter operated at 100% efficiency, the Senetric system
could accomodate the electrical demand of barely 2 homes.
If you find a flaw in my calculations, please feel free to correct
them.
My conclusion is that the sales people at Senetric are exagerating the
capabilities of their system by a factor of 10! Something not unknown
to happen with marketers and sales people.
Now, when the solar panels are combined with that inverter, and a
battery bank required to provide 24 hour service, what is the total
cost? When the cost is split between two homeowners (the system
capacity) what is the cost to each? What are the maintenance and
component replacement costs, since batteries and solar cells have a
sharply limited lifetime? What are the amortized yearly costs to each
homeowner, and in what period of time would they recoup their
investment (don't forget to include the cost of money).
Nuff said on that.
> And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
> However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
> panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
> Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
> "It's all about renewable energy and alternative fuel,” said Tom Quinn
> from High Technology Development Corp. “So we put in a hydrogen
> production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
> with renewable energy sources."
> The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
> application.
Of course, the enire idea is obviously impractical from both cost and
engineering considerations. The include hydrogen storage and the cost
of hydrogen comprssion, liquifaction, or what other storage or
transportation system is claimed practical.
Damn, the concepts that clueless promoters come up with on a daily
basis never ceases to amaze me! Most educated people realize that the
Devil is always in the details, and these guys are incapable of
discussing the details. So, in fact, they know nothing and will
accomplish nothing expept separating a few clueless and well intended
people from their money.
In my mind, they are no different from the confidence artist who
convinced people that he had designed a car that could run using water
as fuel. Just as free advice, whenever you are tempted to invest your
money in a scheme that sounds too good to be true, find an engineer or
scientist that you can trust, and have his show you how to look at the
'details' and run the numbers.
Harry C.
DanB
Bob Eld looking at the numbers?! That would be novel...
Don Lancaster
> On Sep 16, 10:07 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5febaf3b-1e2d-4d93...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
>> powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
>> from High Technology Development Corp. �So we put in a hydrogen
>> production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
>> with renewable energy sources."
>> The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
>> application.
>
> Of course, the enire idea is obviously impractical from both cost and
> engineering considerations. The include hydrogen storage and the cost
> of hydrogen comprssion, liquifaction, or what other storage or
> transportation system is claimed practical.
>
> Damn, the concepts that clueless promoters come up with on a daily
> basis never ceases to amaze me! Most educated people realize that the
> Devil is always in the details, and these guys are incapable of
> discussing the details. So, in fact, they know nothing and will
> accomplish nothing expept separating a few clueless and well intended
> people from their money.
>
> In my mind, they are no different from the confidence artist who
> convinced people that he had designed a car that could run using water
> as fuel. Just as free advice, whenever you are tempted to invest your
> money in a scheme that sounds too good to be true, find an engineer or
> scientist that you can trust, and have his show you how to look at the
> 'details' and run the numbers.
>
> Harry C.
>
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
Sam West
> Bolaleman wrote:
> > This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
> > powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
> > of Sunetric.
> > And there may be a time when the solar energy does just that.
> > However, the primary use for the electricity created by the solar
> > panels is here at this hydrogen producing plant.
> > Using renewable energy to create alternative energy.
> > from High Technology Development Corp. “So we put in a hydrogen
> > production station out there three years ago and now we're powering it
> > with renewable energy sources."
> > The hydrogen that is created in this plant has a practical
> > application.
> > "The hydrogen is used to power electric drive vehicles, whether they
> > be fuel cell vehicles or internal combustion engine vehicles burning
> > The hydrogen plant was developed through a cooperative agreement
> > between the state's center for advanced transportation technologies, a
> > division of the high technology development corporation - and the Air
> > Force.
> > The vehicles Quinn mentioned include this SUV.
> > Filling it up is as easy as pulling in to your corner gas station.
> > When the solar panels aren't producing energy for the hydrogen plant,
> > the energy doesn't go to waste.
> > "The beauty of it is also when the station, they hydrogen station, is
> > not operating - that renewable energy from the solar array actually
> > The savings will amount to nearly $43,000 a year.
> > Civilians can see the operation during the Hickam open house this
> > Saturday.
>
> > Last Update: 9/15 5:43 pm
> > Reported by: Kirk Matthews
>
> > uploaded by: 2ajobguide.com (http://2ajobguide.com/
> > wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx)
>
> > Source of Article:
>
> Fundamental thermodynamic principles involving exergy ABSOLUTELY
> GUARANTEE that hydrogen electrolysis from pv panels (or ANY other
> high value electrical source such as grid, pv, wind, or alternator) flat
> out ain't gonna happen.
>
> The process is exactly the same as 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican
> Pesos.
>
> Nobody could possibly be that dumb.
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
>
> --
> 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 athttp://www.tinaja.com
Don,
You are ignoring the cost of that exergy gain!
The cost of exergy is important! Don't forget!
Sure, 33% of the exergy gets thrown away when hydrogen is made from
solar electricity. Even so, for very low cost solar processes, this
is beneficial despite the loss!
For example, William Mook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL1
At these prices a ton of hydrogen made from 9 tons of water costs less
than $100 !!
Sure 33% of the sunlight is thrown away and panels have to be 1/3
larger than with an all electric system with higher exergy. But the
cost is acceptable with panels at this price.
That's because to get that higher exergy costs lots more than the
panels. DC electricity made from these same panels are used far more
efficiently this is the exergy gain the panels get when tied directly
to the grid. But, they cannot be tied directly to the grid at zero
cost. That's because as lighting conditions change the load the
panels drive must be adjusted. In the hydrogen unit that's
accomplished very easily at no added cost by changing the flow of
hydrogen. In the case of the grid a load of complex gear is needed.
That gear costs more money than the panels they work with.
To tie directly to the grid, the panels must go through some sort of
inter-tie process. This provides a 33% exergy gain, reducing panel
area by 1/3. That intertie costs $840 per kilowatt. A kilowatt of
panels is only $50. So, Don with these costs a direct tie system
costs more even though Exergy is less.
In this case, the electricity costs over $100 per megawatt-hour! This
is competitive, but its far behind the hydrogen route with these
panels.
A ton of hydrogen when burned in a conventional power plant generates
15 megawatt-hours of AC electricity.
So anyone who burns hydrogen in this with panels at the price Mook
claims he is capable of achieving is way ahead of anyone who ties
those same panels to the grid to get that extra 33% exergy lost by
making hydrogen.
The hydrogen may also be burned any time energy its needed. So, as
hydrogen producers these panels are capable of replacing 100% of all
conventional fuels. The panels cannot do that when tied directly to
the grid.
Check it out. Burning 1 ton of hydrogen gas made for $100 with low-
cost solar panels, avoids burning 6.2 tons of coal. Burning hydrogen
instead of coal avoids over 20 tons of CO2 as well. All with no
changes of generation infrastructure. All that's needed is very low
cost solar panels described in the literature here, and a hydrogen
pipeline network. That's it!
Mr. Mook tells us what to do with all the coal we don't burn.
Use more hydrogen to make it into gasoline.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony
According to Mr. Mook's testimony to the House of Representatives, the
USA burns 1 billion tons of coal each year and 6.8 billion barrels of
crude oil. Burning hydrogen instead of coal saves the coal.
Combining the saved coal with more hydrogen makes 7.5 billion barrels
of syncrude. Combine that syncrude with conventional domestic crude
oil and the USA then exports more oil than any other nation, including
Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Mook's vision sees the USA converting all of America's 1,100 coal
fired power plants into refineries while cutting our carbon emissions
in half.
Does it cut world carbon emissions? That's something I thought about
for a while. But, Mook explains it like this; we don't cut carbon
pollution on the demand side. We cut it on the production side.
See, how much carbon is economically recoverable depends on the market
price. Drive the market price down, and the amount of recoverable
carbon is exponentially reduced while our economy grows to afford the
switchover!
900 billion barrels of oil is economically recovered at $70 per
barrel. 300 billion barrels of oil remain to be economically
recovered at $30 per barrel.
Since $100 a ton hydrogen translates to $4 per barrel oil equivalent
pricing, and syncrude at $8 per barrel, Mook's idea not only gives us
control over our energy future, but also radically reduces our carbon
foot print in the process.
Makes sense to me.
Put it this way, money spent on developing high priced tar sands and
remote oil fields flow instead into hydrogen production which puts a
cap on oil coal and gas prices when using Mr. Mook's approach, and
expands hydrogen production at the same time.
Like I said, it makes sense to me - even accepting the 33% exergy loss
of the added conversion step.
The cost savings, logistics savings and market dominance the
production of low cost solar hydrogen give America more than outweighs
the exergy loss.
Don, you might ask again, how can this be?
Because there is a cost of exergy in this case. Sunlight is free,
Mook's solar panels nearly so. Expensive super efficient equipment is
not free.
This makes all the difference.
Eeyore
> http://www.khon2.com/content/begreen2/story/Be-Green-2-Hydrogen-Fuel-Plant-R
> un-By-Solar-Power/c_bA8ktWMUCKLJpN4yS7Xw.cspx
>
> Well let's see: 210, 180 Watt panels is 37.8kW? Not 146kW. So, where does
> that number come from? But, even using that high 146kW number the energy,
> at best, is equal to about 600kWhr each day or 24 hour period. If that
> could be converted to hydrogen at 100% efficiency which isn't possible, it
> would equal the energy of 17 gal of gasoline! Wow! That's about $50 per day
> yield! But these clowns claim $43,000 per year savings??? So why does none
> of this add up? As usual, its all hype and bull shit not based in reality,
> generated by a marketing department or worse, a local TV station by people
> who don't know a watt from a cheeseburger.
>
> Is it possible that the 146kW number is supposed to be 146kWhrs, the total
> amount of energy collected in one day? If so, the prolific yield would equal
> abut four gallons of gasoline per day. Now I'm really impressed, that's
> about $12 a day. What an investment! Checking numbers is important!
Don't confuse the gullible with FACTS, never mind SCIENCE or MATHEMATICS !
One thing for sure, there will never be a hydrogen economy. It's a
clever ruse to get 'research grants' though.
Graham
Eeyore
>
> They don't anything about the voltage that comes out of this system.
Entirely irrelevant. Only the power ( rate of energy ) or total energy
counts.
> Isn't it possible that the voltage is that low that they prefer to use
> it for feeding an electrolysis cell to produce hydrogen?
Never heard of an inverter ?
> Maybe this question is stupid but I am not really a photovoltaic
> expert.
Yes, the question IS stupid and you are indeed no photovoltaic expert.
Not to mention the huge losses in electrolysing water to hydrogen and
the problems in storing and distribution of hydrogen. Try reading up the
FACTS on it before posting idiotic nonsense.
Graham
Eeyore
>
> For example, William Mook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
> MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
> costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
Graham
Eeyore
>
> The hydrogen may also be burned any time energy its needed.
How do you plan to store it for later use ?
Graham
Eeyore
> My biggtest issue was not the exact conversions values or even a typo but the fact that the original
> post came from a TV report with the usual bimbos trying to talk technical.
> They rarely get anything right.
Only rarely ?
Graham
Don Lancaster
Solar panels are in fact paid for and compared by the cost per peak watt.
Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
sink. Typical pricing today is $8 per peak watt and rising.
A panel producing 1 kw peak at noon typically generates 5 kwh per day in AZ.
<http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp>
Don Lancaster
Convert it to electricity and synchronously invert it to the power line,
obviously.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
Eeyore
Hi Dan. Thanks for the welcome back. I've been very busy lately and
living elsewhere whilst my home is extensively renovated and relying on
a wi-fi connection of very variable quality and using a borrowed laptop
that needed <ahem> a little maintenance !
Should be home again in a week or so and then I'll have to move
everything back in.
Graham
DanB
You must be into pints. I've pointed out before that production cost is
measured in watts.
Try google, here is the URL if you haven't heard of it...
On the other hand William Mook's claim of 5 cents/watt is ludicrous. You
do know that Sam is Mook's sock puppet don't you?
DanB
>
> Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
Hay Don,
Did you pull that number from your stinky place?
DanB
Hay! Well I'm settling in for the Winter now. Our first real front and
it is windy as hell. NE az
PV
It's pretty much dead on target if you pay any attention to amortizing the
investment. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
>transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
>it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
That's why Don talks about anything less than about a quarter a peak watt
being uneconomical. Only a fool builds a plant which will take decades, if
ever, to make back the investment. *
DanB
> DanB <a...@some.net> writes:
>> Don Lancaster wrote:
>>> Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
>>> sink....
>> Hay Don,
>> Did you pull that number from your stinky place?
>
> It's pretty much dead on target if you pay any attention to amortizing the
> investment. *
Really! And as you have shown no numbers...
So take the 6kwh/day in AZ. 6 watthours/watt/day. In one year that is
2kwh. At 9 cents/kwh full payback is ~ a year and a half.
<http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/Table.html>
I will guess you are clueless as to what interest would look like on
that kind of time at the present rate.
I'll help you.
<http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx>
Do it with a kw. Put in $2500, 5%, 18 months and see what it would cost.
Stinky claim from you with, 'if you pay any attention to amortizing'.
Can you think for yourself? Do you really need to parrot Don without
checking the numbers?
(If you didn't understand the numbers, the interest is paid off in less
than a month. ~ 3 months at 50 cents/watt. It would take quite a bit
more in cost before you start chasing the interest.)
And if you haven't heard, producers are ready to get all over a buck a watt.
Don is a bible thumper of this guy:
<http://www.energyadvocate.com/bookxrpt.htm>
Do check your credibility at the door...
tj Frazir
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg Changed:4:43 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
175 MPG per -ton is the standard .
250 MPG at 277 HP and 400 mpg at 71 hp.
Don Lancaster
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>>
>> Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net
>> energy sink....
>
> Hay Don,
Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp
Breakeven is a system cost of $1 per peak watt which demands 50 cents
per peak watt for the panel.
Breakeven accomplishes nothing but "paint it green" peaking power.
Net energy from pv demands about half breakeven, or a quarter per peak
watt. And then not until many years after breakeven is achieved.
Don Lancaster
> AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>> about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
>> transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
>> it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
>
> That's why Don talks about anything less than about a quarter a peak watt
> being uneconomical. Only a fool builds a plant which will take decades, if
> ever, to make back the investment. *
Especially when it is reasonable to expect stunning advances in both
technology and learning curves in the next year or so.
Amortizing pv anything beyond two years today is monumentally stupid.
And stealing subsidies only makes it MUCH worse.
Think of conventional silicon pv as an ASR33 teletype with paper tape.
Try not to stand on the tape while it is feeding.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
Don Lancaster
> AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>> about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
>> transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
>> it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
>
> That's why Don talks about anything less than about a quarter a peak watt
> being uneconomical. Only a fool builds a plant which will take decades, if
> ever, to make back the investment. *
Um, anything MORE than about....
Don Lancaster
>
> So take the 6kwh/day in AZ.
As the Springerville stats <http://www.greenwatts.com/Docs/TEPSolar.pdf>
clearly show, 4 to 5 kwh per day in arizona is typical and realistic.
At ten cents per kilowatt hour peaking equivalent, 40 cents per kilowatt
panel per day.
$12 per month.
Using http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html $1000 at 10 percent for 10
years amortizes out to around $12 per month. So, a dollar per peak watt
gives you breakeven for your total system cost.
The magic "holy grail" (but totally useless and to date unattainable)
number.
A kilowatt at the synchronous inverter terminals requires about ten
square meters of panels.
Which, of course means that your $1/peak watt pv system accomplishes
absolutely nothing.
For a dollar per peak watt total system cost, the panel cost has to be
something like fifty cents per peak watt. To accomplish absolutely
nothing but greenie feelgood.
At present, amortization of the retail price of the synchronous inverter
alone is high enough to consume the value of 150% or more of the pv
electricity sent through it. With FREE panels.
For net energy production, a quarter per peak watt panel cost is thus
reasonable. Net energy breakeven can only happen many years after a
quarter per watt is reached, owing to previous subsidy stupidies and
outrageous panel costs.
Anything less than net energy breakeven destroys gasoline and other
traditional energy sources for a net loss.
Every pv panel to date has a two position switch on it. Postition "A"
destroys a lot of gasoline. Position "B" destroys even more.
pv, of course, will have to become a MUCH GREATER energy sink long
before breakeven can be anticipated. Due to startup investment in CIGS
and other workable new technology.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
Don Lancaster
I could have sworn that was a whiteboard and not a steam engine.
Eeyore
> Eeyore wrote:
>> Sam West wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, William Mook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
>>> MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
>>> costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
>>
>> You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
>>
>> As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
>
> You must be into pints.
I enjoy drinking a few ! UK ones are bigger than US ones of course.
> I've pointed out before that production cost is measured in watts.
Then you don't understand some very basic principles. Not least the
lifetime of the generation source. It's a simplistic view to befuddle
idiot politicians and the like and confuse the public.
> Try google, here is the URL if you haven't heard of it...
>
> http://www.google.com
Google is set as the default search engine on both browsers I use, even
IE ( yes you can do it ).
> On the other hand William Mook's claim of 5 cents/watt is ludicrous.
Like his other ideas.
> You do know that Sam is Mook's sock puppet don't you?
I've been away from Usenet for a few months, so no, I wasn't aware of
this. Your evidence is ... ?
Graham
DanB
> DanB wrote:
>> Don Lancaster wrote:
>>>
>>> Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net
>>> energy sink....
>>
>> Hay Don,
>> Did you pull that number from ...?
>
>
> Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp
>
> Breakeven is a system cost of $1 per peak watt which demands 50 cents
> per peak watt for the panel.
>
> Breakeven accomplishes nothing but "paint it green" peaking power.
>
> Net energy from pv demands about half breakeven, or a quarter per peak
> watt. And then not until many years after breakeven is achieved.
>
DanB
> DanB wrote:
>
>>
>> So take the 6kwh/day in AZ.
>
> As the Springerville stats <http://www.greenwatts.com/Docs/TEPSolar.pdf>
> clearly show, 4 to 5 kwh per day in arizona is typical and realistic.
The first number I saw was 2175 hours/year, in your reference. Do you
know how to divide? That comes out to 5.95.
> At ten cents per kilowatt hour peaking equivalent, 40 cents per kilowatt
> panel per day.
> $12 per month.
$217.50/year.
> Using http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html $1000 at 10 percent for 10
> years amortizes out to around $12 per month. So, a dollar per peak watt
> gives you breakeven for your total system cost.
Now you are at a buck a watt and interest right now is more like 5%.
But what the hell, a buck a watt. At 5% a five year loan runs
$18.87/month almost the same as the income.
> The magic "holy grail" (but totally useless and to date unattainable)
> number.
You mean your stinky numbers?
<snip the rest of the same copy and paste rant that lacks any substance...>
DanB
> DanB wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Sam West wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For example, William Mook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
>>>> MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
>>>> costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
>>>
>>> You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
>>>
>>> As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
>>
>> You must be into pints.
>
> I enjoy drinking a few ! UK ones are bigger than US ones of course.
>
>
>> I've pointed out before that production cost is measured in watts.
>
> Then you don't understand some very basic principles. Not least the
> lifetime of the generation source. It's a simplistic view to befuddle
> idiot politicians and the like and confuse the public.
You can claim what you want. But the industry does it in cost/watt. Last
I looked coal was $1/watt installed and $3-5/watt over the life time of
the plant. Wind, coal, nuclear, all of them do their numbers in
cost/watt. I'm talking about the industry and they have no reason to
confuse.
> I've been away from Usenet for a few months, so no, I wasn't aware of
> this. Your evidence is ... ?
If you can't see it by reading his posts, I can't help you.
Eeyore
> PV wrote:
>> DanB <a...@some.net> writes:
>>> Don Lancaster wrote:
>>>> Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net
>>>> energy sink....
>>> Hay Don,
>>> Did you pull that number from your stinky place?
>>
>> It's pretty much dead on target if you pay any attention to amortizing
>> the investment. *
>
> Really! And as you have shown no numbers...
How about you do ?
Graham
tj Frazir
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.3.jpg Changed:4:44 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Its a steam power 4 cylinder water rocket .
It drives a slide vane rotor OR you can push a boat without the rotor
with a jet nosel.
1 stroke per second the engine fires 60 per minut .
175 mpg is in fact the standard per ton.
Because a 25 ton truck gets 7 mpg thats 25 mpg per ton and is proof that
a 1 ton car will get 175 mpg if it has the same fuel gas air duration
the truck has.
You better look at the engine a bit harder .
Its a simple fucking drawing and the engine is simple as hell.
Its so fucking simple and works so fucking well you may as well kiss
the oil age good by.
1 stroke per second is 500 pounds thrust in a boat of the same stroke
your jet ski is but its at 400 strokes to my 1 stroke.
I beet the jet sli 400 to 1 .
I beet the car 100 to 1.
this engine is 10 to 1 in the pics.
tgotb is much better then this 4 cylinder water rocket but i the same
engine on steam thats injected with fuel and O² .
P-max tgotb is 2800 psi .
DanB
I, of course, did, and you snipped them. Your pints are showing...
Eeyore
PV
>You can claim what you want. But the industry does it in cost/watt. Last
>I looked coal was $1/watt installed and $3-5/watt over the life time of
>the plant. Wind, coal, nuclear, all of them do their numbers in
Coal plants can run all day, goofball. *
DanB
> DanB <a...@some.net> writes:
>> You can claim what you want. But the industry does it in cost/watt. Last
>> I looked coal was $1/watt installed and $3-5/watt over the life time of
>> the plant. Wind, coal, nuclear, all of them do their numbers in
>
> Coal plants can run all day, goofball. *
You seem to get stupider by the post......
You can claim what you want. But the industry does it in cost/watt. Last
I looked coal was $1/watt installed and $3-5/watt over the life time of
the plant. Wind, coal, nuclear, all of them do their numbers in
tj Frazir
pipe run up a mountain to a stream that drives a slide vane rotor with
inner-cam wheel and uses 1/1000th the water a water turbine uses .
Its 100 times better then the power plants today .
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/Museum/Power/RotaryEngines/Cooke1A.GIF
Look hard at th date this was built.
The pipe ran up the hill to the creek.
Befor 1800
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/Museum/Power/RotaryEngines/Cooke1A.GIF
1787 was a wile ago.
With the slide vane hyra pic above the whale engine in eng 3 pics on my
page is this same rotor built 200 years ago.
With a 20 inch pipe run up a hill 1000 feet up 3 mlies away is about
500 psi at the head.
20 x 20 inch vane at 500 psi is about 200,000 pounds turning the wheel.
It dont take much water as the rotor blocks the rotors flow and dont
change speeds when matched with a load .
100 ton thrust from a 22 inch cylinder or water pipe up a hill is all
the same.
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/Museum/Power/RotaryEngines/Cooke1A.GIF
All 8 locomotives Whale engines built ( whaling steam ships ) for train
engines got dumped in the sea off the east port usa as soon as the oil
boss found out they used just 10 % of the oil.
WHale ship builder was killed.
No one ever saw a steam power water rocket drive a slide vane rotor
again.
IF you did the math on evrything ever built then let the math build
the best engine .
What would this engine look like and how would it work if you did the
math on evrthing that ever was ?
Engine 2
Sam West
> >> MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
> >> costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
>
> > You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
>
> > As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
>
> measured in watts.
>> On the other hand WilliamMook'sclaim of 5 cents/watt is ludicrous. You
> do know that Sam isMook'ssock puppet don't you?
Someone is clearly confused here and its not Mook! lol.
First let me explain that power is the rate at which energy use and
energy is the integral of power over time.
This is plain when I revert to old English units popular in the 19th
and early 20th centuries;
It takes energy to lift something. In old English units this used to
be called a Foot-Pound. To lift ten pounds three feet take 30 foot-
pounds. Newton explained this was force (pound) times distance
(foot) For the purists, a pound is a way to measure force not mass.
A slug was the Imperial unit of mass which was 32.2 pounds since the
acceleration at Earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec/sec.
Power is a rate of energy use. I lift 55 pounds at a speed of 10 ft/
sec (6.8 mph) and I am using energy at a rate of 1 horsepower (550
foot-pounds/sec)
So, I have demonstrated the relationships between energy (foot-pound)
and power (horsepower) and mass (slug)
Since my background is English Literature I love these old Imperial
units. Engineers and scientists have been taught SI (system
international) units.
SI units are;
one gravity pulls things down at a rate of 9.802 m/sec/sec not 32.2
ft/sec/sec
force is measured in newtons, not pounds,
distance is measured in meters, not feet,
energy is measured in joules not foot-pounds
power is measured in watts, not horsepower, and
mass is measured in kilograms not slugs.
But the physical relations are the same.
Force times distance equals energy
Force times velocity equals power
If I lift two kilograms one meter I expend 19.6 Joules of energy.
I lift two kg at a rate of 3 meters/sec (10.8 km/hr) then expend
energy at a rate of 58.8 watts.
Another little nuance I must relate here is that since a Watt is
energy used at a rate of one Joule per Second, one Watt-Second equals
one Joule. Since there are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in
an hour, there si 3,600 seconds in an hour. So, another consistent
unit used in SI is the kilowatt-hour which is equal to 3.6 mega-
joules. lol.
Now, lets apply this understanding to solar panels and the cost of
energy and power from solar panels.
A solar panel doesn't have a fuel cost, sunlight is free. Solar
panels do have a capital cost (CAPEX). Money has a time value, and
equipment doesn't last forever even if equipment has no moving parts
and doesn't require any maintenance (or not much to speak of) that's
the only cost.
First Solar announced recently that its cadmium-telluride panels cost
$0.85 per peak watt. In Ohio there is 1,310 hours of sunlight per
year on average. So, each peak watt produces 1.31 kilowatt-hours of
energy per year. A 20 year life span means that each peak watt
produces 26.2 kWh. WIth no other costs this makes each kWh $0.85 /
26.2 = 3.22 cents per kWh.
So, this is a cool relationship... $0.85 per peak watt translates to
3.22 cents per kilowatt-hour in Ohio assuming a 20 year lifespan and
no maintenance or other costs.
But there are other costs.
The major one is the fact that all those kilowatt-hours are not
available now. They're available when the sun shines over a 20 year
period. This means that the later kilowatt-hours are not worth as
much as kilo-watt hours available today. Or put differently, the
money that was used to build the solar panel was tied up for 20 years
and that opportunity cost must be accounted for.
In both cases, the time value of energy or money makes the actual cost
of energy higher when counting CAPEX.
The easiest way to account for this is to figure out what the payments
would be each year to tie up the money needed to build the capacity.
This is what traditional power plants do to pay for their capital
expenses (in addition to fuel and maintenance costs to operate the
equipment). So, I do it too for solar panels here .
That is, figure out an annual payment for the $0.85 and divide that by
the number of kWh produced each year. So, if I tie up $0.85 for 20
years at a 6.5% discount rate I will have to pay 7.11 cents per year
for 20 years. I divide that figure by the 1.31 kWh produced by the
watt of panels in Ohio each year and I get 5.89 cents per kilowatt-
hour.
This is a more realistic figure - even though other costs are not
included.
Mook claims, based on studies done by Boeing's Spectrolab division
(see page 26 of this document)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1
and by CH2MHill's IDC division
(see page 103 of this document)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22490014/Sugico-Mok-Plan-3
Costs of $0.04 to $0.05 per peak watt are possible, trending to $0.02
per peak watt once learning curve effects are taken into account.
4.25 cents per peak watt for Mook's panels is 1/20th the 85 cents per
peak watt of First Solar's panels. This means that the cost of energy
due to capital costs alone (all other costs being equal and not
counted here) are 1/20th the cost for Mook's panels.
FIRST SOLAR 85.00 cents per peak watt
3.22 cents per kWh (simple)
5.89 cents per kWh (time value of money)
MOOK SOLAR 4.25 cents per peak watt
0.16 cents per kWh (simple)
0.30 cents per kWh (time value of money)
So, no matter how you stack it up, Mook's panels cost 1/20th that of
the best panels out there. The way Mook intends to use his panels
also reduces other costs - such as land, transport, installation, and
so forth.
But the bases are clear. Energy and power both are 1/20th the cost of
the best available competing technology if what Mook's vendors say is
true.
This according to Mook provides a means to develop alternative energy
in direct competition with primary energy and beat them head to head
in the marketplace.
Sam West
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam West wrote:
>
> >> For example, WilliamMook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
> >> MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
> >> costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
>
> > You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
>
> > As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
>
>
> Solar panels are in fact paid for and compared by the cost per peak watt.
>
> Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
>
> A panel producing 1 kw peak at noon typically generates 5 kwh per day in AZ.
>
> <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp>
>
> --
> 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 athttp://www.tinaja.com
Yes, many solar enthusiasts believe as the cost of primary energy
rises then everyone will switch to solar panels. What most do not
realize is that today conventional solar panel technology is very much
a hobby of dilletantes! When the cost of energy rises, we won't be
able to afford to build solar panels. A true analysis of the cost of
conventional solar panels, in terms of what it takes to make them,
shows that above $0.25 per watt solar panels will rise in cost faster
than primary energy. Below $0.25 per watt, things are different. At
$0.05 per peak watt, which Mook's vendors claim,
Page 26 here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL1
Page 103 here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22490014/Sugico-Mok-Plan-3
We have a situation where hydrogen is made at less cost per unit
energy than any other fuel today!
Mook relates this here;
With $2 per giga-joule added to account for carbon costs to the
figures Mook gave at the hearing;
Conventional Solar: $139 per giga-joule
Electricity: $ 30 per giga-joule
Crude Oil: $ 16 per giga-joule
Natural Gas: $ 6 per giga-joule
Coal: $ 3 per giga-joule
Mook Hydrogen: $ 1 per giga-joule
Clearly, we are ready to transition from today's dirty fossil fuels
and dangerous nuclear power to Mook's clean efficient 'sun-fuels'
Mook's plan is to first make hydrogen and pipe it to coal fired power
plants along rail lines now feeding coal to those plants. This
eliminates half of our carbon use. Next, Mook wants to combine added
hydrogen with the stranded coal to make liquid transportation fuels.
Then, Mook wants to sell these 'sun-fuels' in direct competition with
oil acquiring retail operations. Then, Mook wants to use the hydrogen
infra-structure made in the first step to feed hydrogen to the
retailers. Once that is in place then Mook will use the liquid fuels
as 'loss-leaders' to drive the major oil companies out of business,
expanding the use of hydrogen everywhere fossil fuels are used. Then,
the use of coal as sun-fuel feedstock, will decline and eventually be
eliminated. Mook wants to zero out carbon emissions by 2025 using
this process.
Don Lancaster
>
> A solar panel doesn't have a fuel cost, sunlight is free.
Not even wrong.
There are three major factors to an energy infrastructure: The cost of
the feedstock, the cost of the infrastructure, and the cost of the
amorization.
The solar fuel costs on the latter two factors remain outrageously high.
All pv systems to date remain gasoline destroying net energy sinks.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
Sam West
> Sam West wrote:
>
> > A solar panel doesn't have a fuel cost, sunlight is free.
>
> Not even wrong.
Buy a 1 kW Honda Generator and Buy $850 worth of First Solar Panels.
The First Solar panels will operate when the sun shines at no
additional cost. The Honda generator won't operate unless you feed it
gasoline and oil continuously. Lets assume too the Honda generator
is run at a rate equal to the power output of the solar panels. So,
they have the same power output - to make things simple.
So we have in a year;
$500 $850 CAPEX
$45 $71 (annual payment for CAPEX)
$371 $ 0 (annual fuel cost)
$55 $ 0 (annual maintenance (air filter/oil/etc.))
$471 $71 TOTAL ANNUAL COST
1,310 kWh/year
$0.36 $0.06 cost per kWh
Which explains why we don't use Honda generators (or solar panels for
that matter) to power our homes today. A coal battery changes that,
but that's a totally different kettle of fish.
>
> There are three major factors to an energy infrastructure: The cost of
> the feedstock, the cost of the infrastructure, and the cost of the
> amorization.
Yes, there are basically two costs - the cost of capital and recurring
costs to keep that capital running. The US Department of Energy
reports the major factors here;
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices
9.1 cents/kWh total cost
6.0 cents/kWh generation
2.4 cents/kWh distribution
0.7 cents/kWh transmission
>
> The solar fuel costs on the latter two factors remain outrageously high.
Yes, that's primarily due to the high capital expense, as was said
previously. Lower those costs - including balance of system costs,
which Mook says hydrogen production achieves, and total costs are
lower. This is the true business opportunity available to innovators
like Mook. Generate energy or fuels at costs lower than the market
now pays for fuels and energy and sell them at market rates to make
tremendous profit.
According to Accenture, Mook's solar-assisted Bergius process using
his ultra-low-cost solar panels, makes a barrel of syncrude for
$8.57 !! Mook can even make syncrude from stranded coal and reduce
carbon emissions in the process!
I take five acres of Mook solar panels and electrolyzers that cost
$635,000 and feed it with 3,465 gallons of water each day to make
3,080 pounds of hydrogen gas each day in Ohio. I then take 2,200
pounds of hydrogen gas and burn it to make steam in a conventional
coal fired generator. To pay for the hydrogen I take the 13,640
pounds of coal that is not longer burned in the process. The utility
has no added costs here and avoids 42,500 pounds of CO2 emissions for
each 2,200 pounds of hydrogen burned in this way. At today's rate for
avoided carbon, each 2,200 pounds of hydrogen burned in this way, $350
is made by the utility - at no added costs to anyone. At the end of
the day, I would have 13,640 pounds of coal I took in trade for the
2,200 pounds of hydrogen (they both have the same heat value when
burned) and another 1,265 pounds of hydrogen left over. I then
combine the coal and hydrogen directly in a Bergius reactor and
produce 43 barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel blend. At
$80 per barrel that liquid transportation fuel is worth $3,440 for
that day's worth of sunlight and a few dollars worth of water. The
Bergius reator isn't free. It costs $770,000 for that.
So, for my $1.45 million investment, on five acres, I make enough
hydrogen to generate 620,000 watts of AC electricity continuously,
while avoiding over 20 tons of CO2 while earning $3,440 per day,
$103,200 each month, $1,256,460 per year, and $25,129,200 over a 20
year period -by selling US made gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel.
America's 1,100 coal fired power plants fed 184 million tons of
hydrogen from Mook's ultra-low-cost solar panels each year, avoids
burning 1.14 billion tons of coal which avoids producing 3.5 billion
tons of CO2, while making 7.7 billion barrels of crude oil, nearly 1
billion more barrels than Americans consume. When this extra crude
oil is combined with America's conventional crude oil production,
America is the biggest oil exporter in the world - setting the price
somewhere above $9 per barrel and below $29 per barrel. At these
prices very large rates of return are earned by investors at zero cost
to utilities or the taxpayer. Beneficiaries include not only America,
but any emerging industrial economy that benefits from low energy
prices.
This was Mook's plan from 2004 onward, and people at the highest
levels of government and business have known it, and no one has done
anything to bring it about. There is absolutely nothing technically
that can be said against it. The only real losers are the owners of
high priced oil reserves who have bet that the price of oil will
continue to rise and plan to develop those reserves as soon as it is
profitable to do so.
Mook's plan takes that carbon out of the equation, cap's coal sources
at present levels and creates the infrastructure needed for a hydrogen
economy including the ability to use oil as a loss leader at stations
that sell both gasoline and hydrogen, which drives the oil companies
out of business while building hydrogen business.
>
> All pv systems to date remain gasoline destroying net energy sinks.
You made an illogial leap there. PV systems costing more than $0.25
per peak watt don't pay for themselves, and add substantially to the
cost of energy production. They're not energy sinks until they cost
me $1 or more per peak watt.
Sam West
So can solar plants if properly designed. For example, the Centurion
Airplane at Dryden Research Center charges itself throughout the day,
and discharges at night
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-056-DFRC.html
Surplus solar power throughout the day drives fuel cells in reverse
which turns water into hydrogen and oxygen all of which is stored on
board. Stored hydrogen and oxygen is passed through the fuel cells
again, to generate electricity for the engines, producing water, which
is also stored on board for use the next day.
Boeing is working toward an all-electric airplane;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_Fuel_Cell_Demonstrator_AB1.JPG
A ducted fan driven by a high performance electric motor produces 3.2
kW/kg A fuel cell produces 2.5 kW/kg. Hydrogen and oxygen contain
15.8 MJ/kg - so, 1 kg of fuel/oxidizer runs 1 kg of engine for 65
minutes - with an 80% efficient system.
186 kW (250 hp) system masses 132.5 kg for the power train. To
operate the engine four hours at full output requires 530 kg of
hydrogen and oxygen. (414 liters of LOX, 842 liters of LH2)
A Continental IO-360 A masses 133 kg and produces 145 kW (195 hp)
This engine burns 53 liters per hour at full bore, so a total of 212
liters of av-gas are used. That's 153 kg of fuel burned over four
hours. Lots of air is consumed in the process which isn't carried on
board.
Rechargable Hydrogen Only Hyrogen Only Av-gas
Electric Electric
Thermal Thermal
133 kg 133 kg 133
kg 133 kg Power train
250 hp 250 hp 195
hp 195 hp Max Power
186 kW 186 kW 145
kW 145 kW
471 kg -
- - Oxygen
59 kg 59 kg 50
kg 153 kg Fuel
663 kg 192 kg 183
kg 186 kg TOTAL
Its easy to see that anything that can be done in an airplane, can
also be done in a car.
These are all possible to build and provide power whenever its
needed. Why don't we do it in our homes and businesses and
automobiles? Cost. Pure and simple. Reduce the cost of solar panels
and other balance of system costs, and a new energy business is
created.
An average US home uses energy at a rate of 1,000 watts 25/7/365.
So, the 133 kg system described above is replaced by something that's
less than 1 kg for the generator. To power it with solar panels 24/7
requires 6,700 watts of panels in Ohio. At 400 W/m2 that's 6 four
foot by eight foot panels totaling nearly 17 sq meters. 12 ft x 16 ft
patch. Each day consumes 6.8 kg of hydrogen and oxygen. The fuel
tank for the four hour aircraft runs a home for 90 days.
The solar panels at $0.05 per peak watt is $335. The electrolyzer
costing $0.02 per peak watt costs $135. The fuel cell and storage
system, if it could be made for $2,000 - would cost $2,470 for the
entire system.
The cool part is it would require no additional fuel. Lasting 20
years, the system would cost less than $10 per month and operate
anywhere.
This is what scares fuel companies and utilities which have huge sunk
costs in the way things are now and need prices to be 10 to 20x higher
than this.
Imagine homes equipped with their own power systems, and energy
storage systems with the ability to recharge electric cars and
airplanes that cost very little to operate and maintain.