Solar Hydrogen house

Eric

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 4:43:52 PM9/12/03

to

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/08/story4.html

"
The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.

For aesthetics, the panels will resemble stained-glass skylights. The
hydrogen, stored in carbon-fiber tanks, will be the energy source for
the house's gas-powered range, fireplace and water heater -- and even
the family's hydrogen-powered cars.

For electricity, the hydrogen gas will power a generator that keeps a
battery bank charged. And because hydrogen produces clean emissions,
the generator's exhaust "is much cleaner than the air that went into
the air intake in the carburetor," Beaulieu said.

The house's design has more solar panels than needed, so extra
electrical energy will be fed into the Arizona Public Service Co.
power grid.

Beaulieu hopes to start construction this month. The estimated cost is
$2 million.

"

Don Lancaster

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 4:56:34 PM9/12/03

to

Eric wrote:
>
> http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/08/story4.html
>
> "
> The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
> to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
> needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.
>

Too bad they never took a thermodynamics course.

Because of the staggering loss of exergy, it is ludicrously absurd to
use solar pv for electrolysis.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Chris1

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 5:58:22 PM9/12/03

to

In article <e8449128.03091...@posting.google.com>, cos...@yahoo.com (Eric) wrote:
>http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/08/story4.html
>
>"
>The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
>to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
>needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.
>
>For aesthetics, the panels will resemble stained-glass skylights. The
>hydrogen, stored in carbon-fiber tanks, will be the energy source for
>the house's gas-powered range, fireplace and water heater -- and even
>the family's hydrogen-powered cars.
>
>For electricity, the hydrogen gas will power a generator that keeps a
>battery bank charged. And because hydrogen produces clean emissions,
>the generator's exhaust "is much cleaner than the air that went into
>the air intake in the carburetor," Beaulieu said.

That's gotta be the stupidest idea ever. H2 fueled fireplace and water
heater? And why would you go from solar electric -> H2 -> I.C.E. powered
generator -> batteries, when you can just charge the batteries directly
from the solar panels? Stupid stupid stupid! I also seriously doubt his
claim about the generator's exhaust. Probably a bit of NOX in there. If
this guy follows through on this plan, he will soon learn why Hydrogen will
not save us from anything.

Chris

Dr. Bob

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 11:30:32 PM9/12/03

to

"Eric" <cos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8449128.03091...@posting.google.com...

Are you auditioning for a stand up comedy routine? If not you should
probably consider it. I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. The're
going to spend two million dollars to save two thousand dollars worth of
energy. Smart, very Smart.
Dr. Bob

Tony - aqk (at home)

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 11:18:17 PM9/12/03

to

"Eric" <cos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e8449128.03091...@posting.google.com...

$2 million, huh?
I can only comment on the old adage "If you're so smart howcum you ain't rich"
My financial predicaments notwithstanding, there's a corollary to that:
If you're so rich, how come you're so stupid?

On the other hand, maybe he has a big list of eager buyers. PT Barnum was right.

Eric

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 1:12:35 PM9/13/03

to

"Dr. Bob" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<sbw8b.2260$TQ5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...

I just cut and paste a news item. Most people don't find that very
funny, so, no I am not auditioning for a comedy routine. But I'm glad
you found it amusing. I personally find the state of housing
technology and the ignorance of the American people depressing.

Don Lancaster

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 1:21:20 PM9/13/03

to

Eric wrote:

> I personally find the state of housing
> technology and the ignorance of the American people depressing.

That's what makes the post so hilarious.

Proton Soup

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 6:01:37 PM9/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 03:30:32 GMT, "Dr. Bob" <nsmon...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Photovoltaics aren't the reason it costs $2 million. Follow the link
and read the second page.

Proton Soup

Eric

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 10:11:14 PM9/14/03

to

Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<3F635210...@tinaja.com>...

> Eric wrote:
>
> > I personally find the state of housing
> > technology and the ignorance of the American people depressing.
>
> That's what makes the post so hilarious.

ha ha. This reminds me of meeting some stinking drunk in a small town
liquor store. For sure they know more about life in that small town
than I do. But they still stink.

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 16, 2003, 8:30:29 PM9/16/03

to

Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<3F623302...@tinaja.com>...

> > "
> > The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
> > to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
> > needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.
> >
>
> Too bad they never took a thermodynamics course.
>
> Because of the staggering loss of exergy, it is ludicrously absurd to
> use solar pv for electrolysis.
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

I see Don has been getting into the cheap likker again and is
staggering about, losing his exergy. That's what happens when you
pollute your bloodstream with too much carbohydrates distilled into
hydrocarbons.

You know, Don, if Betty Ford could admit her problem and get help for
it, you too can put your constant staggering behind you.

There is help for your myopia too. Just check out the links below for
the beginner's level of understanding of how the Hydrogen Economy from
solar PV really works -- lots of scientists, businessmen, and just
plain folks have informed themselves rather than staggering around in
ignorance, and you can too, if you can just give that demon rum the
heave-ho and take a sober look at the world.

Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
Santa Rosa, California, USA

http://www.nrel.gov/energy_resources/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/demonstrations.html
http://www.sunline.org/clean_fuels_index/cf_index_frameset.html
http://www.sunline.org/clean_fuels/clean_fuels/hydrogen_safety_frameset.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535ah.pdf

http://www.h2fc.com/technology/hydrogen/properties.shtml
http://www.h2fc.com/technology/hydrogen/production.shtml
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405b21.pdf
http://www.hydrogensystems.be/index2.html
http://www.nrel.gov/hot-stuff/press/1998/14scienc.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/20000916/fob6.asp
http://www.hydrogenus.org/newsletter/ad23can.htm

http://www.h2fc.com/technology/hydrogen/storage.shtml
http://www.dynetek.com/products/products_front.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535ar.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535as.pdf
http://www.qtww.com/core_competencies/gf_storage.shtml
http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/0/b038cf0b757ed257852567c1004f0069/$FILE/p4603e.pdf
http://irtek.arc.nasa.gov/ZBO_Page/ZBOapproach.html
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm
http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/2001_04/routes_to_a_hydrogen_economy.html
http://www.visionengineer.com/env/h2_liquid.shtml
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/et.html
http://www.anorg.chem.uu.nl/PDF/nijkamp01a.pdf
http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/zeolites_02-2003.html
http://spd.nasa.gov/news/zeolite.html
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/sfb270/B7_E.htm
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/sfb270/B4_E.htm

http://www.h2fc.com/technology/hydrogen/h2economy.shtml
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030625-6.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iphe_framework_final.pdf
http://www.hydrogenus.org/commercializationplan.asp
http://www.axane.fr/axane/gb/r_d/hychain.html
http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=471
http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=475
http://www.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm
http://www.wspgroup.com/environmental/pdf/presentations/04Trill_Linde.pdf
http://people.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy4.htm
http://people.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com//solar-cell.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell7.htm
http://www.phoenixproject.net/faqs.htm
http://www.hydrogen.is/
http://www.hydrogen.is/ectos.asp
http://www.hydrogen.org/Knowledge/Vapour.htm

http://www.h2fc.com/technology/patents/index.shtml
http://www.h2fc.com/technology/patents/other.shtml

http://www.ergo.ee.unsw.edu.au/Watt_May2003_ppt.pdf

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm
http://www.guerrilla.net/reference/power_systems/fuelcell/h2homesystem.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,715158,00.html
The fake persuaders

Ron Herfurth

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 1:56:30 PM9/17/03

to

"Eric" <cos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/08/story4.html
> > >
> > > "
> > > The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
> > > to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
> > > needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.
> > >
> > > For aesthetics, the panels will resemble stained-glass skylights. The
> > > hydrogen, stored in carbon-fiber tanks, will be the energy source for
> > > the house's gas-powered range, fireplace and water heater -- and even
> > > the family's hydrogen-powered cars.
> > >
> > > For electricity, the hydrogen gas will power a generator that keeps a
> > > battery bank charged. And because hydrogen produces clean emissions,
> > > the generator's exhaust "is much cleaner than the air that went into
> > > the air intake in the carburetor," Beaulieu said.
> > >
> > > The house's design has more solar panels than needed, so extra
> > > electrical energy will be fed into the Arizona Public Service Co.
> > > power grid.
> > >
> > > Beaulieu hopes to start construction this month. The estimated cost is
> > > $2 million.
> > >

> I just cut and paste a news item. Most people don't find that very
> funny, so, no I am not auditioning for a comedy routine. But I'm glad
> you found it amusing. I personally find the state of housing
> technology and the ignorance of the American people depressing.

I too am depressed by the current construction technology. I believe "a
building that meets every single code is nothing more than the worst
building the law will allow."

But I am also depressed by the ignorance of someone suggesting using PVs to
make hydrogen to burn to make domestic hot water when hot water can be made
in solar panels for a fraction of the equipment cost. I'm depressed by the
ignorance of someone suggesting using PVs to make hydrogen then burning it
to generate electricity to be stored in batteries when the PVs could charge
batteries directly.

I'm depressed that people think it will be cost effective to sell
electricity back to the power company. Speaking just for myself and my
average $100 a month electric bill; if I had PVs that made 10% more than I
needed I'd get a whopping $10 a month back from the power monopoly against
the initial connection fee and the minimum monthly charge for just having a
meter bolted to my house.

ron herfurth

Don Lancaster

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 2:12:25 PM9/17/03

to

Ron Herfurth wrote:

> I'm depressed that people think it will be cost effective to sell
> electricity back to the power company. Speaking just for myself and my
> average $100 a month electric bill; if I had PVs that made 10% more than I
> needed I'd get a whopping $10 a month back from the power monopoly against
> the initial connection fee and the minimum monthly charge for just having a
> meter bolted to my house.
>
> ron herfurth

No, you'd get a whopping $10 back to partially pay for the synchronous
inverter amortization.

Chris1

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 2:38:14 PM9/17/03

to

In article <18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com>, P...@ecosyn.us (Palaces For The People) wrote:
>Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> news:<3F623302...@tinaja.com>...
>
>> > "
>> > The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
>> > to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
>> > needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.
>> >
>>
>> Too bad they never took a thermodynamics course.
>>
>> Because of the staggering loss of exergy, it is ludicrously absurd to
>> use solar pv for electrolysis.
>> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>
>I see Don has been getting into the cheap likker again and is
>staggering about, losing his exergy. That's what happens when you
>pollute your bloodstream with too much carbohydrates distilled into
>hydrocarbons.
>
>You know, Don, if Betty Ford could admit her problem and get help for
>it, you too can put your constant staggering behind you.
>
>There is help for your myopia too. Just check out the links below for
>the beginner's level of understanding of how the Hydrogen Economy from
>solar PV really works -- lots of scientists, businessmen, and just
>plain folks have informed themselves rather than staggering around in
>ignorance, and you can too, if you can just give that demon rum the
>heave-ho and take a sober look at the world.

There are alot of people these days who think Hydrogen would make a great
fuel. I think they must all base this on an exploding H2 balloon in
chemistry class. "Wow, that H2 blowed up real good. It must be the fuel of
the future!" But the fact remains that molecular Hydrogen has terrible
physical properties for an energy carrier. Sure, solar might someday make
sense as a source of energy, but Hydrogen fuel will never make sense for
anything.

Chris

Fred B. McGalliard

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 3:31:08 PM9/17/03

to

"Chris1" <chris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x0Kdna0O6Ny...@dls.net...
...

> There are alot of people these days who think Hydrogen would make a great
> fuel. I think they must all base this on an exploding H2 balloon in
> chemistry class. "Wow, that H2 blowed up real good. It must be the fuel of
> the future!" But the fact remains that molecular Hydrogen has terrible
> physical properties for an energy carrier. Sure, solar might someday make
> sense as a source of energy, but Hydrogen fuel will never make sense for
> anything.

The problem Chris is that there are a lot of issues here that have to be
treated correctly to have a correct answer. H2/O2 makes a great rocket fuel.
H2 makes a great SCRAM jet fuel. H2 is and will continue to be a critical
intermediary in forming synthetic fuels and a lot of various industrial
chemical processes. A very good question is just how costly the sources of
H2 can be, and just how valuable it is in any application. I suggest that we
be very careful how we "put Hydrogen in it's place", so we do not end up
trying to shoot down exactly those applications that do, or will in the
future, make the most sense. Stick with the fairly clear issue that hydrogen
is not a suitable fuel for passenger cars. It probably makes sense as a
synth fuel intermediary for forming alcohol, or light oils, from coal and
methane. It might make sense in this application for hydrogen formed from
electrolysis or a thermally driven process using solar or nuclear power as
well, but that is a much more difficult assessment..

Chris1

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 4:41:35 PM9/17/03

to

In article <HLDI7...@news.boeing.com>, "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>"Chris1" <chris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:x0Kdna0O6Ny...@dls.net...

>....

Good points. I have a strong urge to put H2 in it's place when I read
proposals like this solar hydrogen house post. It is such a horrendous
idea, and it's only real purpose can be as pro-Hydrogen propaganda. They'll
show a lit light bulb, and say "this is powered by solar hydrogen". But in
reality, it will be much less efficient than a plain old solar - storage
battery powered house. What's the point of including H2 as a step in the
system other than hype? Hydrogen atoms probably do have their place in our
future energy sources, but not as these H2 propagandist simpletons propose.

Chris

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 2:14:53 AM9/18/03

to

chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<x0Kdna0O6Ny...@dls.net>...

Some people think it makes a great fuel because they saw the space
shuttles go up (the 99 out of every 100 that don't blow up, that is).

Lion

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 2:20:15 AM9/18/03

to

chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<UEudnUJHoYS...@dls.net>...

The guy WON the great American Capitalist lottery. He's filthy rich.
What do you care what he spends his dough on? Sure he could swill a
lot of likker til his liver gave out, and chase the skirts til his
blood was full of AIDS, but what's a multimillion spozed to do when he
uses $10,000 as toilet paper?

This is not an argument for or against H2. It's an argument whether
the American Capitalist Lottery Gambler winners actually get something
more valuable than the guys who went fishing instead.

Ron Herfurth

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 11:21:49 AM9/18/03

to

"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message

news:3F68A409...@tinaja.com...

> Ron Herfurth wrote:
>
> > I'm depressed that people think it will be cost effective to sell
> > electricity back to the power company. Speaking just for myself and my
> > average $100 a month electric bill; if I had PVs that made 10% more than
I
> > needed I'd get a whopping $10 a month back from the power monopoly
against
> > the initial connection fee and the minimum monthly charge for just
having a
> > meter bolted to my house.
> >
> > ron herfurth
>
> No, you'd get a whopping $10 back to partially pay for the synchronous
> inverter amortization.

> Many thanks,
> Don Lancaster

Wouldn't it really be the cost difference between a synchronous inverter and
a regular off-grid inverter? Either way I agree.
ron

Ron Herfurth

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 11:32:24 AM9/18/03

to

"Palaces For The People" <P...@ecosyn.us> wrote in message
news:18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com...

snip

>
> The guy WON the great American Capitalist lottery. He's filthy rich.
> What do you care what he spends his dough on?

You're right - I don't care what HE does. I care when a reporter suggests
that what the rich guy is doing is smart. I don't remember the reporter
saying that this was a really stupid idea. He should have been fair and
balanced and printed someones (Don L's perhaps) thoughtfull and tactful
analysis of the proposed design.

Sure he could swill a
> lot of likker til his liver gave out, and chase the skirts til his
> blood was full of AIDS,

ditto for Grasso

but what's a multimillion spozed to do when he
> uses $10,000 as toilet paper?

Donate it to my, er, I mean his favority charity (?)

ron

Chris1

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 1:24:07 PM9/18/03

to

In article <18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com>, P...@ecosyn.us (Palaces For The People) wrote:
>chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message

>> There are alot of people these days who think Hydrogen would make a great

>> fuel. I think they must all base this on an exploding H2 balloon in
>> chemistry class. "Wow, that H2 blowed up real good. It must be the fuel of
>> the future!" But the fact remains that molecular Hydrogen has terrible
>> physical properties for an energy carrier. Sure, solar might someday make
>> sense as a source of energy, but Hydrogen fuel will never make sense for
>> anything.
>>
>> Chris
>
>Some people think it makes a great fuel because they saw the space
>shuttles go up (the 99 out of every 100 that don't blow up, that is).

That's just as simplistic as the H2 baloon. 250 million cars are not the
same as a space shuttle. And most of the thrust at liftoff is provided by
solid fuel, which does not require cryogenic tanks, or continuous
topping-off prior to launch. Actually, that comparison is a pretty good
illustration of H2's impracticality! Note also that the cost of the fuel
itself in a space shuttle launch is an insignificant fraction of the total
cost. The cost of me driving to work every day is dominated by the cost of
the fuel. Solar - electrolytic H2 is not "free". The high cost of the
equipment, and the low energy content in the produced H2 makes it far from
free. At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no chance
of being practical, even if PV panels were free.

Chris

Chris1

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 1:26:33 PM9/18/03

to

In article <18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com>, P...@ecosyn.us (Palaces For The People) wrote:

>The guy WON the great American Capitalist lottery. He's filthy rich.

Only a rich guy can afford to waste his money this way. The rest of us
still have energy needs, but we can only afford $0.10/KW or so.

Chris

Fred B. McGalliard

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 4:07:10 PM9/18/03

to

"Chris1" <chris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:wEOdnV-5X7y...@dls.net...
...

> That's just as simplistic as the H2 baloon. 250 million cars are not the
> same as a space shuttle. And most of the thrust at liftoff is provided by
> solid fuel, which does not require cryogenic tanks, or continuous
> topping-off prior to launch. Actually, that comparison is a pretty good
> illustration of H2's impracticality! Note also that the cost of the fuel
> itself in a space shuttle launch is an insignificant fraction of the total
> cost.

I never looked into the cost of the fuel separately from the rocket. It
ain't all that cheap as a package anyway, which was why they tried to reuse
the shuttle and now have these ancient museum pieces flying into space. The
H2 becomes imminently practical because the launch process is dominated by
performance, not by the cost of the fuel. You should look some time at the
design developed for a multi stage gunpowder rocket to make orbit. It turns
out to be impossible because the gunpowder just does not have a high enough
performance. It is interesting that, in spite of hydrogen's relatively high
cost as a fuel, and in spite of it's lousy volumetric energy density, it is
so much better than fuel oil as a rocket fuel that the cost of delivering
payload to orbit goes down. BTW. The solids are very impressive, but in
terms of total performance they are pretty much clunkers. You notice how
soon they drop off? I seem to recall the drop as around mach 2 on the way to
mach 14 or so, remembering that the energy is the square of the velocity,
but in any case, the bulk of the energy delivered to the payload to make
orbit is from the LH2/LO2.

Chris1

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 5:08:30 PM9/18/03

to

In article <HLFEJ...@news.boeing.com>, "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>"Chris1" <chris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:wEOdnV-5X7y...@dls.net...

>....

All true, but not very relevant to H2 as a personal transportation fuel.
All I was trying to get across is that cars and rockets need very different
things in a fuel.

Chris

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 9:45:55 PM9/18/03

to

"Ron Herfurth" <rg...@virginia.edu> wrote in message news:<bkcj9m$jr4$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...

> "Palaces For The People" <P...@ecosyn.us> wrote in message
> news:18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com...
>
> snip
>
> >
> > The guy WON the great American Capitalist lottery. He's filthy rich.
> > What do you care what he spends his dough on?
>
> You're right - I don't care what HE does. I care when a reporter suggests
> that what the rich guy is doing is smart. I don't remember the reporter
> saying that this was a really stupid idea. He should have been fair and
> balanced and printed someones (Don L's perhaps) thoughtfull and tactful
> analysis of the proposed design.

Since when do newspapers, almost all owned by multimillionaires,
criticise the antics of the rich? America is a nation of brown-nosers
kissing millionaire crack, and I am totally supprised that you guys
let your anti-hydrogen fervor get so hysterical that you forgot your
manners, and exactly where your lips belong.

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 10:13:38 PM9/18/03

to

chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<wEOdnV-5X7y...@dls.net>...

You made assertions on a "sci" newsgroup without being prepared to
produce a citation of peer-reviewed literature and reproducable
methodology independently verifiable.

> Solar - electrolytic H2 is not "free".

With Solar PV Breeders it is the opposite of costly, it is less than
free, it is PROFITABLE. Nothing wrong with that.

> The high cost of the
> equipment, and the low energy content in the produced H2 makes it far from
> free.

You've been getting into Lancaster's moonshine stash again, and like
him, staggering around losing your exergy.

PV Breeders can pay off 100% in under one year. It is not costly,
relative to most things in life. H2 does not have "low energy
content": it has specific numerable energy content, which for the
inventive and clever is perfectly enough energy -- Just right, as
Goldilocks said.

> At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
> sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no chance
> of being practical, even if PV panels were free.

100% is currently wasted. In one single minute the sloral energy
reaching the earth surface is more than adequate to power all the the
human race for one hundred years. Mostly, it's ALL WASTED.

Let's use YOU as an example of a prime energy waster: 946,728,000. If
you are intermediate in age between the oldest and the youngest here,
your age would be about 30 years old: 946,728,000 is how many seconds
you have been here on earth available for possibly learning something.

The one square meter of earth you have occupied in that time have
received 47,139,165,000 calories of solar energy. Translated into
BTUs, because this "sci" discussion group still uses BTUs a lot, that
comes to 1.870633e+008 BTUs, or, if you like, equals 54,822.85 kWhs of
electricity-equivilent, all of which you have wasted. In fact, in what
way has your life not been a disappointing waste of our newsgroup for
dispensing your low-exergy superstitious opinions? You turn more
high-energy newsgroup into staggering loss of exergy faster than
Lancaster can program another meme-bot in his "Guru's Liar" website.

Thanks for the entertainment. I have always enjoyed your profession
and have warm feelings for professional clowns.

... Lion Kuntz

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 10:20:22 PM9/18/03

to

chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<2pudnaT0E98...@dls.net>...

> In article <e8449128.03091...@posting.google.com>, cos...@yahoo.com (Eric) wrote:
> >http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/09/08/story4.html
> >
> >"
> >The home is called "the hydrogen house" because solar panels designed
> >to function as the structure's eaves will provide electrical energy
> >needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen.
> >
> >For aesthetics, the panels will resemble stained-glass skylights. The
> >hydrogen, stored in carbon-fiber tanks, will be the energy source for
> >the house's gas-powered range, fireplace and water heater -- and even
> >the family's hydrogen-powered cars.
> >
> >For electricity, the hydrogen gas will power a generator that keeps a
> >battery bank charged. And because hydrogen produces clean emissions,
> >the generator's exhaust "is much cleaner than the air that went into
> >the air intake in the carburetor," Beaulieu said.
>
> That's gotta be the stupidest idea ever.

No, the stupidest idea ever is selling 140 MPH-capable cars in a
country that don't allow you to go more than 75 mph anywhere (and not
even close to 75 mph on the most miles of roads). ICE's are most
efficient at the top of their range, and woefully inefficient at city
and highway traffic averages.

Don W.

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 1:53:33 AM9/19/03

to

"Palaces For The People" <P...@ecosyn.us> displayed his ignorance in message
news:18dcc201.0309...@posting.google.com...
<snip>

>
> You made assertions on a "sci" newsgroup without being prepared to
> produce a citation of peer-reviewed literature and reproducable
> methodology independently verifiable.
>

<snip>

>
> With Solar PV Breeders it is the opposite of costly, it is less than
> free, it is PROFITABLE. Nothing wrong with that.
>

<snip>

>
> PV Breeders can pay off 100% in under one year. It is not costly,
> relative to most things in life. H2 does not have "low energy
> content": it has specific numerable energy content, which for the
> inventive and clever is perfectly enough energy -- Just right, as
> Goldilocks said.
>

<snip>

> Thanks for the entertainment. I have always enjoyed your profession
> and have warm feelings for professional clowns.
>
> ... Lion Kuntz

So do you have a "Solar PV Breeder" and why not?

Don W.

Fred B. McGalliard

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 10:49:54 AM9/19/03

to

"Chris1" <chris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:7LqdnRMj4eN...@dls.net...
...(some junk I wrote about the shuttle)

> All true, but not very relevant to H2 as a personal transportation fuel.
> All I was trying to get across is that cars and rockets need very
different
> things in a fuel.

No argument there. I just like big rockets.

Peter_purple

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 10:04:55 PM9/19/03

to

Have you or anyone actually done the maths and factored in the interest value,

This is why power companies dont sell or rent PV systems,

Its pointless to generat hydrogen to run a 'generator' to charge batteries.

Why not put the PV directly into batteries via Maximum Power Point Tracking, thats
what we do in Australia for remote locations, making H2 is a waste and damn
dangerous.

Its an ionic explosive that 'sticks' to all sorts of insulators, any fire fighter worth
his salt will steer clear of it, even with long long poles...

The only use for PV that I can see is on space stations and remote communities
that dont have a source of fuel, like coal or wood or organic matter.

For gods sake, a internal combustion engine ah lah supercritical water plant can
at least make fuel and the input is zero, why bother with PV for any serious
use in urban areas where power is much much much much cheaper than PV
to H2 to batteries <sigh>

peter purple not so perplexed with bad maths

Peter_purple

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 10:11:32 PM9/19/03

to

Lion,

Lets see your basic maths of cost of PV panel, cost of equipment to make H2,
cost of etc etc and ADD the interest, vs the cost of energy at the moment ?

rgds

peter purpl in perth on his puter

Chris1

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 4:00:19 PM9/19/03

to

In article <18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com>, P...@ecosyn.us (Palaces For The People) wrote:

>"Ron Herfurth" <rg...@virginia.edu> wrote in message
> news:<bkcj9m$jr4$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
>> "Palaces For The People" <P...@ecosyn.us> wrote in message
>> news:18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >
>> > The guy WON the great American Capitalist lottery. He's filthy rich.
>> > What do you care what he spends his dough on?
>>
>> You're right - I don't care what HE does. I care when a reporter suggests
>> that what the rich guy is doing is smart. I don't remember the reporter
>> saying that this was a really stupid idea. He should have been fair and
>> balanced and printed someones (Don L's perhaps) thoughtfull and tactful
>> analysis of the proposed design.
>
>Since when do newspapers, almost all owned by multimillionaires,
>criticise the antics of the rich? America is a nation of brown-nosers
>kissing millionaire crack, and I am totally supprised that you guys
>let your anti-hydrogen fervor get so hysterical that you forgot your
>manners, and exactly where your lips belong.

Man, you are just full of shit!

Don Lancaster

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 10:30:52 PM9/19/03

to

Chris1 wrote:
>
At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
> sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no chance
> of being practical, even if PV panels were free.
>
> Chris

No way will he even remotely approach 1%.
The whole process is an enormous energy sink.

Proton Soup

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 4:51:40 PM9/20/03

to

Actually, you're getting $1320/yr back, the $100/mo you would have
paid, plus the $10/mo you get back.

Proton Soup

Harry Conover

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 6:40:34 PM9/20/03

to

chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<wEOdnV65X7x...@dls.net>...

Amen to that, although I'm not sure he won any lottery. My guess is
that he is simply some rich kid living on a parasitic relationship
with his parents and who is, so far, out of touch with reality that he
doesn't even realize it.

Beyond that, obviously science study did not a big role in his daily
agenda! :-)

Harry C.

Harry Conover

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 6:48:46 PM9/20/03

to

Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<3F6BBBDC...@tinaja.com>...

> Chris1 wrote:
> >
> At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
> > sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no chance
> > of being practical, even if PV panels were free.
> >
> > Chris
>
> No way will he even remotely approach 1%.
> The whole process is an enormous energy sink.

Indeed! It makes me wonder why we have not yet witnessed an uprising
of those truly interested in the welfare of our environment
(ecologists, environmentalists, etc.) protesting this hydrogen fuel
nonsense.

Harry C.

Harry Conover

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 7:09:07 PM9/20/03

to

Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<3F635210...@tinaja.com>...

> Eric wrote:
>
> > I personally find the state of housing
> > technology and the ignorance of the American people depressing.
>

> That's what makes the post so hilarious.

I gotta agree with that! :-)

More pathetic still are the 'humble' living arrangements accepted as
normal by most Brits and Europeans who are taxed up the ass to support
their queen, royal families and whatever. The poor brits are arguably
the worst example of exploitation, being taxed for, among other
things, the queens rectal purge and colonics!

I'm sort of interested in why the British public still supports their
royal family other than tradition. Still, why any nation of peoples
can continue to support an inbred familiy of demonstrated idiots that,
in their entirely, fail to provide a single, enviable, adult role
model is a bit beyond me.

Sorry for straying off topic.
Harry C.

David HARRISON

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 7:55:14 PM9/20/03

to

: I'm sort of interested in why the British public still supports their

: royal family other than tradition. Still, why any nation of peoples
: can continue to support an inbred familiy of demonstrated idiots that,
: in their entirely, fail to provide a single, enviable, adult role
: model is a bit beyond me.

: Sorry for straying off topic.
: Harry C.

Sorry, are we talking about the Kennedey's or the Bush's?

Dean Hoffman

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 12:13:43 AM9/23/03

to

On 9/20/03 6:09 PM, in article
7ce4e226.03092...@posting.google.com, "Harry Conover"
<hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> More pathetic still are the 'humble' living arrangements accepted as
> normal by most Brits and Europeans who are taxed up the ass to support
> their queen, royal families and whatever. The poor brits are arguably
> the worst example of exploitation, being taxed for, among other
> things, the queens rectal purge and colonics!
>
> I'm sort of interested in why the British public still supports their
> royal family other than tradition. Still, why any nation of peoples
> can continue to support an inbred familiy of demonstrated idiots that,
> in their entirely, fail to provide a single, enviable, adult role
> model is a bit beyond me.
>
> Sorry for straying off topic.
> Harry C.

I mentioned something like that to a couple Brits in another newsgroup
long age. One responded that the Royal Family is actually a plus budget
wise. I think he said the royals pay taxes. He said tourism due to the
Royal Family brings in a ton of money also.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Roland Paterson-Jones

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 4:13:03 PM9/23/03

to

chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<wEOdnV->

> That's just as simplistic as the H2 baloon.

???

> ... At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the

> sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no chance
> of being practical, even if PV panels were free.

I have to take issue with your numbers.

Optimistically, 30% PV conversion and 40% fuel cell conversion will give you 12%.

Pecimistically, 15% PV conversion and 30% fuel cell conversion will give you 5%.

Roland

Roland Paterson-Jones

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 4:26:23 PM9/23/03

to

Peter_purple <pur...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:<3F6BB754...@iinet.net.au>...

>
> peter purpl in perth on his puter
>

Are you the purple person previously proposing super-heated water combustion?

Did you delve any deeper?

Roland

Roland Paterson-Jones

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 4:56:55 PM9/23/03

to

(Harry Conover) wrote in message

> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message

> > Chris1 wrote:
> > >
> At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
> > > sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no chance
> > > of being practical, even if PV panels were free.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > No way will he even remotely approach 1%.
> > The whole process is an enormous energy sink.
>
> Indeed! It makes me wonder why we have not yet witnessed an uprising
> of those truly interested in the welfare of our environment
> (ecologists, environmentalists, etc.) protesting this hydrogen fuel
> nonsense.

Mmm, where do you get your figures?

I get 5% to 12% (see my previous post).

However, I see no virtue in converting solar PV to H2 to electricity.

I have to assume that the man with the house is interested in H2
generation per se, or the reporter has misrepresented things somewhat.

Roland

Don Lancaster

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 5:32:49 PM9/23/03

to

PV conversion above zero is not possible because you have a net energy

No One

unread,

Sep 24, 2003, 11:04:12 AM9/24/03

to

> > That's just as simplistic as the H2 baloon.
>
> ???
>
> > ... At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
> > sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no
chance
> > of being practical, even if PV panels were free.
>
> I have to take issue with your numbers.
>
> Optimistically, 30% PV conversion and 40% fuel cell conversion will give
you 12%.
>
> Pecimistically, 15% PV conversion and 30% fuel cell conversion will give
you 5%.

What about losses from storage and transport as well as from the ele->H2
cycle?

Roland Paterson-Jones

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 7:00:49 PM9/26/03

to

"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message

news:3F70BC01...@tinaja.com...

> Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> > chris...@hotmail.com (Chris1) wrote in message news:<wEOdnV->

> > > ... At his end use where he burns the H2, he'll probably get 1% of the
> > > sun energy that hits the solar panels. This is so bad that it has no
chance
> > > of being practical, even if PV panels were free.
> >
> > I have to take issue with your numbers.
> >
> > Optimistically, 30% PV conversion and 40% fuel cell conversion will give
you 12%.
> >
> > Pecimistically, 15% PV conversion and 30% fuel cell conversion will give
you 5%.
> >
> > Roland
>
> PV conversion above zero is not possible because you have a net energy
> sink.

Don, that conclusion is only possible if you assume, as axiom, as you do,
that PV's are energy sinks.

It might have been true in the 60's, but it's no longer true.

Roland

--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com

Palaces For The People

unread,

Sep 30, 2003, 7:44:08 PM9/30/03

to

hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.03092...@posting.google.com>...

> > In article <18dcc201.03091...@posting.google.com>, P...@ecosyn.us (Palaces For The People) wrote:
> >
> > >The guy WON the great American Capitalist lottery. He's filthy rich.
> >
> > Only a rich guy can afford to waste his money this way. The rest of us
> > still have energy needs, but we can only afford $0.10/KW or so.
>
>
> Amen to that, although I'm not sure he won any lottery. My guess is
> that he is simply some rich kid living on a parasitic relationship
> with his parents and who is, so far, out of touch with reality that he
> doesn't even realize it.
>
> Beyond that, obviously science study did not a big role in his daily
> agenda! :-)
>
> Harry C.

As usual, Harry the Conman hopes one forgot the thread topic starting
message: a news article, which can be read by anyone who doesn't trust
the conman be the truth-teller. The guy got rich in industry, not
"some rich kid living on a parasitic relationship with his parents".
Since most businesses fail within the first 5 years, it is essentially
a gamble (akin to buying a lottery ticket, and winning is not
necessarily based on merit).

The guy is showing a little social conscience, using his money to
finance experimental developments in a house he can afford to splurge
on anything he desires. But moostly, it shows signs of vanity and
publicity stunt. Unlike conman, he is not spending his life telling
lies to youngsters coming to a usenet group looking to learn about
hydrogen.

Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
Debunking "Anti-Hydrogen Psuedo-Science" since 1973.