 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2005bio-diesel hybrid future
I would like to present to you the (near) future of transportation... Diesel hybrid cars (full two-mode plug-in hybrids) Diesel for motorcycles Diesel (probably 2-stroke) engines for general aviation (including rotorcraft) Extensive use of bio-diesel Hybrid cars (gasoline)are in production Diesel hybrid trucks and busses are in production Diesel motorcycles are / will be in production soon Diesel aviation engines are in production...more are coming Very soon we will see the first diesel hybrid passenger car in production Diesel for aviation or motorcycles...they have been around for some time. Think of Junkers "Jumo" 205. Decades ago there were several Diesel aircraft engines built by Guiberson, Packard, Rolls-Royce, Clerget, Fiat and others. Royal Enfield (India) has had a diesel motorcycle in production for some time. I believe it is now discontinued. Some diesel hybrid car prototypes... GM's Ope Astra diesel hybrid Citroen Berlingo diesel hybrid VW Golf diesel hybrid (so I hear) Some diesel aviation engine prototypes... SMA Morane Renault MR 200 www.smaengines.com Teledyne Continental Motors CSD-283 www.teledyne.com (Nasa GAP) DeltaHawk V-4 www.deltahawkengines.com Zoche 01A www.zoche.de Diesel Air Ltd. DAIR-100 www.dair.co.uk Some (gasoline) hybrid cars in production... Toyota's Prius and Lexus Ford's Escape Hybrid Some diesel motorcycle prototypes... Diesel Kawasaki M1030 M1 (KLR 650) F1 Engineering / Hayes Diversified Technologies (HDT) For third world countries a diesel motorcycle could be ideal. It is probably very dependable and durable and relatively easy to fix. It could be bi-fuel, meaning it could use diesel, Jet A, light heater oil and most importantly... bio-diesel and even straight vegetable oil (SVO). It could ne equipped with a small (max 200kg) 2-wheel trailer and a power take-out (PTO). The PTO would mostly be for a generator and/or (water) pump. Picture this. In a third world country, a motorcycle travels 100km @ 80kmh with 2 litres vegetable oil that they have made themselves. It then pumps (with a pump attached at the PTO) from a deep dwell 150 litres of fresh water into a tank that's on the trailer, drives back and delivers the fresh water to the families in the village. Later at night, it runs to provide electricity (with a generator attached to the PTO) for many houses in the village and to recharge the batteries. This motorcycle and its accessories the families in the village have bought together, with some help from some organisation like the UN. Of note: Of course the best way to produce electricity in these often sunny third world countries is solar panels!! I think you're mostly right for short term, but long term belongs to hydrogen. The problem with solar is storing the energy. Stick a solar panel in your back yard that converts water to hydrogen, and you can store as much as you want.  Signature"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character." www.LCTPaintball.com www.LCTProducts.com >I would like to present to you the (near) future of transportation... > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Of note: Of course the best way to produce electricity in these often > sunny third world countries is solar panels!! The problem with burning hydrogen is that solar panels can't make enough of it. To replace today's vehicular use of oil, we'd need 230,000 tons of hydrogen daily. Solar cells to make that much hydrogen would cover about 20,000 square kilometers. To get this much power -- 400 gigawatts daily -- without carbon emissions, the only cost-effective solution is nuclear plants. And that has its own political and ecological consequences. See http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/grant.htm Seth >I think you're mostly right for short term, but long term belongs to >hydrogen. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >> Of note: Of course the best way to produce electricity in these often >> sunny third world countries is solar panels!! > The problem with burning hydrogen is that solar panels can't make enough of > it. To replace today's vehicular use of oil, we'd need 230,000 tons of > hydrogen daily. Solar cells to make that much hydrogen would cover about > 20,000 square kilometers. To get this much power -- 400 gigawatts daily -- Daily, or continuously? There is no 'power daily', only energy daily. But if you mean continuously, then the energy would be 400 gigawatts (400 GW in short) * 24 hours = 9600 Gigawatthour (9600 GWh in short) daily. Now I wonder for which population you submit these figures. If it is for the world's population of about 4 billion that you are talking, then per head of the population you'd get an energy consumption of 9600 GWh / 4 billion, or 9.6/4 = 2.4 kWh (kilowatthour) daily. It is not impossible to generate this energy on a daily basis by replacing the roof materials of family houses by solar panels with a high efficiency. In The Netherlands for instance, a 150 W peak power solar panel (about 1 m^2 in size, generates on average about 15 W power continuously. So, for 2.4 kWh daily energy, which is equivalent to 2.4 kWh / 24 hours = 100 W continuous, one would need about 7 m^2 of solar panel on the roof. It's not too difficult to do this. In climates with more favourable solar conditions the area needed would decrease accordingly, but if you talk of a much smaller population, then the area needed should of course INcreasy accordingly. shakiro > without carbon emissions, the only cost-effective solution is nuclear > plants. And that has its own political and ecological consequences. See > http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/grant.htm I do not know wether this is really true. shakiro > Seth [snip> >So, for 2.4 kWh daily energy, which is equivalent to 2.4 kWh / 24 hours = >100 W continuous, one would need about 7 m^2 of solar panel on the roof. >It's not too difficult to do this. where will you get the light during ALL the 24 hours when the sun does not shine? #m SignatureThe most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein >>So, for 2.4 kWh daily energy, which is equivalent to 2.4 kWh / 24 hours = >>100 W continuous, one would need about 7 m^2 of solar panel on the roof. >>It's not too difficult to do this. > > where will you get the light during ALL the 24 hours when the sun does not > shine? Some energy storage? Maybe hydrogen? shakiro > #m > It is not impossible to generate this energy on a daily basis by replacing > the roof materials of family houses by solar panels with a high [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > / 24 hours = 100 W continuous, one would need about 7 m^2 of solar panel > on the roof. It's not too difficult to do this. The difficult part is getting the sun on it for 24 hours each day! ;-) You might want to recompute with some more realistic daylight hours. Also efficiency drops off a lot in morning and evening and I'm not sure your "average" figures take that into account. John >> It is not impossible to generate this energy on a daily basis by replacing >> the roof materials of family houses by solar panels with a high [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > efficiency drops off a lot in morning and evening and I'm not sure your > "average" figures take that into account. I'm sorry to have to inform you that in this calculation already the averages are taken as an assumption. Probably you are confused by the word 'peak power' (actually 2 words :). It means that if you have a solar panel that is able to generate a peak power of 150 W at full sun, in The Netherlands such a panel produces, averaged over one year, a continuous power of almost 15 W. And if you want to nitpick about decimal numbers be my guest, but not with me please, in that case please put 8 m^2 on your roof. shakiro > John > It is not impossible to generate this energy on a daily basis by replacing > the roof materials of family houses by solar panels with a high efficiency. Who is going to pay for this? And what if I don't happen to want solar panels on my roof? SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) >>It is not impossible to generate this energy on a daily basis by replacing >>the roof materials of family houses by solar panels with a high efficiency. > > Who is going to pay for this? And what if I don't happen to want solar panels > on my roof? And what happens after a hail storm? > The problem with burning hydrogen is that solar panels can't make enough of > it. To replace today's vehicular use of oil, we'd need 230,000 tons of > hydrogen daily. Solar cells to make that much hydrogen would cover about > 20,000 square kilometers. To get this much power -- 400 gigawatts daily -- > without carbon emissions, the only cost-effective solution is nuclear > plants. Not another one. Nuclear is totally unnecessary. Other measures can reduce usage, in a shorter timescale too. All theses one tracked minded people who think that producing more energy is the way forward, when the opposite is the case. The US population is increasing 1% per year. Can usage reduction alone sustain that growth? (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf ) "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message news:431096df$0$12174 > Not another one. Nuclear is totally unnecessary. Other measures can > reduce [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is > the case. I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the panels, to convert the DC to AC, to make the large-diameter/low resistance conductors necessary to carry such small voltages, and finally, the amount of land taken out of production because it is in constant shade. Bob Gardner > The problem with burning hydrogen is that solar panels can't make enough > of it. To replace today's vehicular use of oil, we'd need 230,000 tons of [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >>> Of note: Of course the best way to produce electricity in these often >>> sunny third world countries is solar panels!! We need some way to use up our existing energy supplies though. > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > >>> Of note: Of course the best way to produce electricity in these often > >>> sunny third world countries is solar panels!! > We need some way to use up our existing energy supplies though. He top posted again. Troll someplace else > > We need some way to use up our existing energy supplies though. > > He top posted again. >We need some way to use up our existing energy supplies though. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>No one seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to >>manufacture the panels, ......... This is open to much argument, but there are too many profit oriented concerns that seem to be investing heavily in new facility startups for the production of panels at today's pricing, for the panel manufacturer's costs to be any where close to the naysayer's guesses. >> .......... to convert the DC to AC, .......... The efficiency of today's DC to AC grid based inverters is very good, typically above 92% per the State of California's very conservative testing procedure results used to qualify for rebates. (Results on web) >>........... to make the large-diameter/low resistance conductors >>necessary to carry such small voltages, ......... I admit that the 12, 24, and even the 48 VDC systems that are commonly used in OFF GRID battery PV solar systems usually use large diameter conductors between the panels and the battery controllers / inverters. However, in ON GRID systems (like my own) that do NOT use ANY batteries, Much higher DC voltages are usually used. My own system right now at 5:00 PM 8/27/05 is producing 359 VDC power from the panels on a day when the temperature was 103.1 degrees F. I use the SMA Sunny Boy 2500U inverters (4). By the way, I produce enough power that I have averaged getting an credit of ($2.49) for every day since the 13th of June from my electric utility. >>.... and finally, the amount of land taken out of production .... None, its all on my out of food production roof. It is also much more efficient, because there aren't any line losses in transmission to my house for what I do use, nor, is much lost in transmission to my immediate neighbors who receive my surplus production via the grid. >>because it is in constant shade. >> Bob Gardner > <> > >>> <>The problem with burning hydrogen is that solar panels can't >>> make enough of it. To replace today's vehicular use of oil, >>> we'd need 230,000 tons of hydrogen daily. .... I can't argue this number, I've see it before, but I don't see hydrogen as even part of the "vehicular fuel" solution, it has NO existing distribution, storage, or developed vehicular power plant. Hybrid Bio-diesel vehicles using the principles proven by the Toyota, Honda and Ford's PRODUCTION hybrid gasoline vehicles in conjunction with urban solar PV power could work very well as vehicle fuel sources. These Bio-diesel fuels could utilize existing infrastructure external to the vehicle, and perhaps could be retrofitted. Note: the railroads are using hybrid diesel locomotives in some of the worst polluted cities TODAY, to improve the diesels efficiencies and for pollution reduction. >>> ........................................... Solar cells to make >>> that much hydrogen would cover about 20,000 square kilometers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>> Seth snip > >>I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. > >>No one seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to > >>manufacture the panels, ......... Question I have been informed? that current solar cells consume more energy in their fabrication than they will generate in their lifetime. Is this true? Please comment thanx > This is open to much argument, but there are too many profit oriented > concerns that seem to be investing heavily in new facility startups for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > enough power that I have averaged getting an credit of ($2.49) for > every day since the 13th of June from my electric utility. I am impressed. Where do you live. How would this system perform at latitude 51degrees N.? In the winter? thanx snip This is not true. Current PV panels generate their construction energy in 3 to 6 years. They have a life well over 25 years. They are a viable solution for off-grid situations, and will be economically viable for on-grid apps as fossil fuel costs climb higher. Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html > Question > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is this true? Please comment > thanx They have a gaurantee of efficiency of 25 years. Their life has never been determined yet. > This is not true. Current PV panels generate their construction energy > in 3 to 6 years. They have a life well over 25 years. They are a viable [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Is this true? Please comment > > thanx > They have a gaurantee of efficiency of 25 years. Their life has never been > determined yet. It is highly unlikely that a solar panel will have such a short lifespan. Solar cells are basically semiconductors, and you can pick up a transistor radio today that was manufactured with the early generation of transistors used in the 60's and it will still play (if the batteries haven't leaked all over the inside) And the semiconductor area in a transistor is hundreds if not thousands of times smaller than a solar cell. Semiconductors degrade from ion shift within the semiconductor and from overloads, all very important when the conductors are microscopic, but not much of a concern when the conductive areas are huge as in a solar cell. I wouldn' t be surprised a bit if a solar cell lifespan exceeded a century, and I suspect it is much, much longer, if the high energy light (ie: ultraviolet) that doesen't contribute to power generation is filtered from the cell. See the following for current research on what destroys solar cells: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/ou-nsw061705.php Ted I said well over 25 years. Mine are close to 30 years old. Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html > They have a gaurantee of efficiency of 25 years. Their life has never been > determined yet. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>>Is this true? Please comment >>>thanx There we go. Grandpa solar is living proof. LOL > I said well over 25 years. Mine are close to 30 years old. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >>>Is this true? Please comment > >>>thanx private opined >snip >> > >> >>I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. >> >>No one seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to >> >>manufacture the panels, ......... >Question >I have been informed? that current solar cells consume more energy in their >fabrication than they will generate in their lifetime. >Is this true? Please comment >thanx There is a guy who shows up from time to time who says that "a fully loaded" solar power system is a net energy loss. By that he includes _all_ costs: land, supports, opertunity and anything else he can think of. He then seems to put the money in a bank and then uses the capital and interest to buy energy as needed. He claims that this stratagy will get more energy than solar. I am not convinced. -ash Cthulhu in 2005! Why wait for nature? > There is a guy who shows up from time to time who says that "a fully loaded" > solar power system is a net energy loss. > By that he includes _all_ costs: land, supports, opertunity and anything else > [...] I am not convinced. He seems to be mixing up energy and money. Land and "Opportunity" doesn't cost energy, it costs money. The sun doesn't rain money, it rains energy. If he can find an exchange rate for energy to money that is better than what he can achieve himself, then it makes economic sense for him to buy the energy rather than invest in his own rig. But can he be sure that the deal he has today will continue into the future, when his rig would have been completed? Jose SignatureQuantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. Defined the problem light companies are having with solar. As it stands wind will for a fact back pay better,in less time .Than solar. NG was do the same agianst wind 4fold using combined cycle gas turbine. Utah and Texas low sulfur coal gives even NG a run for the money.(Yes, not all coals have the same sulfur content.....some are low enorgh to meet new sulfur requirement without treatment.) > > There is a guy who shows up from time to time who says that "a fully loaded" > > solar power system is a net energy loss. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. > for Email, make the obvious change in the address. > ...As it stands wind will for a fact back pay better,in less time... Ok. This is economic payback. A reasonable thing for an entrepreneur to consider <g> However, energy payback is something different, and has to do with physics. It's easy enough to measure in a closed system, but commercial power generation is not a closed system - something is coming in for free (i.e. solar radiation, high atomic weight elements...). Where you draw these boundaries influences the picture you draw. Jose SignatureQuantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. On the electric companies ,that went broke trying to use solar....since profit is the point of doing business. If the business can't breakeven ,it can't happen beyond the rim of a high dollar research project funded by someone else's money. So statements like" I didn't even need tax rebate/grant to pull it off ", sound more encouraging than like projects . Started on temperary funding 20,30,40,50+ years ago and still need help to fly.With the promise that some day it really,really,really will be able to fly on it own steam,if you willl just add a little bit more to that tax rebate/grant. I see a future a for solar direct in a fussion reactor coming faster than PV in light plant use. I see TDP of coal coming sooner than PV in a light plant. I see PV panel used at railroad crossings in remote areas or similar seconadary power source and no primary power beyond small applications(10MW or less by Fed and State liscensing definition). Energy payback is part of accounting in companies ,that want to stay in the energy business. If the collection doesn't pay for the expenses....you are out of business. If you aren't doing an average of 10 to 15% growth ...the customers will out grow you. Like in California when "Greens" were putting the brakes on a little bit of everything energy. Then wondering why they were running out. A good place to look for what not do on that topic. > > ...As it stands wind will for a fact back pay better,in less time... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. > for Email, make the obvious change in the address. > On the electric companies ,that went broke trying to use solar....since > profit is the point of doing business. > If the business can't breakeven ,it can't happen beyond the rim of a high > dollar research project funded by > someone else's money. This is absolute rubbish. Many businesses operate under the break even point very successfully. Just look at most major hospitals. > Energy payback is part of accounting in companies ,that want to stay in the > energy business. > If the collection doesn't pay for the expenses....you are out of business. More rubbish. > If you aren't doing an average of 10 to 15% growth ...the customers will out > grow you. > Like in California when "Greens" were putting the brakes on a little bit of > everything energy. > Then wondering why they were running out. > A good place to look for what not do on that topic. It wasn't the greens in CA that were the problem it was the conservative Republicans starting with Ronald Reagan who were hell-bent on pushing privatization. All these idiot conservatives who didn't know the first thing about the electric industry were jumping up and down demandng the 'gubermint' get out of the energy business. As a result the government there (admittedly run by nincompoops) passed a law that mandated that power distribution companies divest all generating capacity. The second that happend, all the price-gougers who had bought up all the generating capacity in CA found they could get more money for their power by shipping it out of state, so CA ended up with a situation where the CA grid was short of power at the same time the generators were shipping power out of CA. The problem with your little Adam Smith analysis of the power business is it makes a big assumption - that energy resources that have extraction costs less than what you get out of them will always exist. It is the logic that it costs less to extract a barrel of oil than the value of the energy in the oil, that is why the oil companies stay in business. With energy, what is going to eventually happen is that just about ALL forms of it that are available will become more expensive to extract than the dollar value of the energy itself is worth. And the few that are cost-effective to extract - like wind energy - may be great for producing electricity but not good for producing a mobile fuel. Yet we as a specie will still need the mobile fuel. So you are going to see the extraction costs spread over the entire society for the benefit of the subgroup in the society that needs the mobile fuel. I realize this seems unfair, but this is how the automobile industry operates today. What people forget all the time is that a car by itself is worthless. A modern car couldn't operate without a road infrastructure. And if the costs of road construction were soley paid for by the vehicle owners that use the roads, nobody could afford to own a car. Instead, road construction costs are spread over every single taxpayer in society whether they own a car or not. And it's not just road construction costs that are spread over everyone, it's road law enforcement costs as well as a hell of a lot of other costs. No matter what you read, it is guarenteed that gasoline, or a reasonable substitute, will always be available at an affordable cost to the masses. Why? It is because the costs of converting the entire society over to some other kind of transportation system that isn't based on private cars is too high. Open your eyes and look around you. Roads are everywhere and society today is literally built around what can be done with an auto on the road system. Today, the extraction costs in energy for that gasoline are less than the energy contained in that gasoline. It is only because of that fact that privately owned oil companies can exist at all. But one day the energy needed to create that gasoline will be more than the energy contained in that gasoline, thus privately owned oil companies won't be able to exist. However since we sill need that gasoline, at a cost that the masses can afford, it will still be produced. Rws As bad as you seem to think Adams is .. Stalin econmomy is even worse. California shows very clearly why..... Not only are the electric companies having problems. Virtual all business in California is having trouble with California. And in most cases doing like Silicon Valley ,if they can.Leaving California.... > > On the electric companies ,that went broke trying to use solar....since > > profit is the point of doing business. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > Rws > And if > the costs of road construction were soley paid for by the vehicle owners > that use the roads, nobody could afford to own a car. Instead, road > construction costs are spread over every single taxpayer in society > whether they own a car or not. And the benefits of road construction accrue to those who don't own a car also. This is the same (valid) argument that is raised to keep general aviation services from becoming pay per use. Jose SignatureQuantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. > Today, the extraction costs in energy for that gasoline are less than the > energy contained in that gasoline. Do you perhaps mean to say: "Today, the extraction costs in energy for that gasoline are less than the *revenue that can be derived from* that gasoline."? The energy contained in gasoline is fixed by the laws of physics. The revenue that can be derived is based on what people are willing to pay, which changes as they become more or less desperate for it. Jose SignatureQuantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. > It wasn't the greens in CA that were the problem it was the conservative <blah><bla> The second > that happend, all the price-gougers who had bought up all the generating > capacity in CA found they could get more money for their power by > shipping it out of state, And just WHY might that be, Mr. Political Analyst. Could it possibly have something to do with the price fixing Californians declaring that they should have electric power on their own terms. SignatureThis is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)." Hi Jose; > He seems to be mixirng up energy and money. Land and "Opportunity" > doesn't cost energy, it costs money. The sun doesn't rain money, it > rains energy. No it doesn't. It rains power. There is no way to store "Solar" energy. Yes, you can store electric energy or chemical energy or sort of store thermal energy. But you can't store electromagnetic energy which is what the sun gives us. > Jose Duane SignatureHome of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*] Powered by \ \ \ //| Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / | Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / | Red Rock Energy \ \ / / | Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / | 1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts | White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ | USA 55110-3364 === \ | (651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ | redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ | http://www.redrok.com (Web site) === >> The sun doesn't rain money, it rains energy. > > No it doesn't. It rains power. Right. But whatever it is, it isn't cash, and the system is not closed. And therein lies the rub. Jose SignatureQuantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >>> The sun doesn't rain money, it rains energy. >> >> No it doesn't. It rains power. > > Right. But whatever it is, it isn't cash, and the system is not closed. Indeed, it's not closed, energy is coming _in_. > And therein lies the rub. > > Jose > No it doesn't. It rains power. There is no way to store "Solar" energy. > Yes, you can store electric energy or chemical energy or sort of store > thermal energy. But you can't store electromagnetic energy which is > what the sun gives us. > Duane But if you run the solar cell output into a battery, you store energy. Time integral of power is energy. You can store radiation as electrical power, heat, or, when solar energy heats water- it evaporates, condenses at higher altitude- potential energy. Or, use power to turn turbines, pump energy uphill, again storing solar energy as potential energy. And of course the potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. Or, store heat from solar as enthalpy in a boiler. > Hi Jose; > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thermal energy. But you can't store electromagnetic energy which is > what the sun gives us. True, but the sun is still providing us energy. The fact that we can't store it in the form delivered doesn't change that fact. Matt > Hi Jose; > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, you can store electric energy or chemical energy or sort of store > thermal energy. How about potential energy, you build a circular dike and fill it with water with water turbines powered by wind energy during windy and nightly periods, you let the water flow out through the water turbines, generating power when you need it. The same applies to dikes: You fill them with water, generating electrical energy, then you pump it out with wind energy, etc. shakiro > But you can't store electromagnetic energy which is > what the sun gives us. > >> Jose > > Duane > private opined > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > capital and interest to buy energy as needed. He claims that this stratagy will > get more energy than solar. Burnin oil that's been stored during a millions of years' process is not a loss? > I am not convinced. > > -ash > Cthulhu in 2005! > Why wait for nature? [snip> >>> .......... to convert the DC to AC, .......... >>> > The efficiency of today's DC to AC grid based inverters is very good, > typically above 92% per the State of California's very conservative > testing procedure results used to qualify for rebates. (Results on web) > [more snipping> > I use the SMA Sunny Boy 2500U inverters (4). Ay! Are you sure you were able to apply for a rebate on this one? :-) shakiro >[snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >shakiro > Jim's reply I certainly did, $40,396, and in fact my system was actually audited under California's rebate compliance on site spot check audit program and passed successfully! > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. Since the only primary source of power (not stored and thus limited ) is solar ( i.e. conversion of mass to energy by fusion or fission), you are just blowing smoke. Solar *is* and always will be the only long term solution. But it is more likley to be solar power satellites so as to maximise the power per unit of collector. Concentration can be used on the surface to get similar economies of silicon vs energy conversion. Right now, wind is the best way to utilise solar power, and it can compete with coal power in many locations. >> I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Right now, wind is the best way to utilise solar power, and it can > compete with coal power in many locations. I don't know that I buy into that. Nuclear has a lot of life left it. There are lots of newer and improved nuclear technologies that can actually run off of nuclear waste produced by existing nuclear plants. There is pretty much a life time supply available...just in current waste supplies. The only thing that keeps nuclear from ready availability is fear mongering and ignorance. Heck, what do you expect in a culture where Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) had to be renamed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (RMI)...the name scared too many people so they had to rename it. Greg >>> I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final >>> solution. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't know that I buy into that. You are not required to 'buy into it'. It is a statement of fact, not belief. All other sources of stored solar energy will run out. Nuclear fission is a secondary source but fissionables ( even with breeders which have yet to prove effective ) are as limited as fossil fuels. > Nuclear has a lot of life left it. Sure. I still wonder at the stalling on that issue as nuclear power has a lot of potential for the short ( say, as long as coal) term. But, as I stated, the only LONG term power supply is solar. Every form of clean energy derives itself from current solar input and will last for billions of years (before the red giant stage ). > There are lots of newer and improved nuclear technologies that can > actually run off of nuclear waste produced by existing nuclear plants. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Greg <SNIP> > The only thing that keeps nuclear from ready availability is fear > mongering and ignorance. Heck, what do you expect in a culture where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Greg Really? I lived in Europe during Chernobyl. I was 6 years old and remember that week vividly. Chances are I'm still carrying part of that son-of-a-bitch around with me today as are all the inhabitants of Europe. I lived near a US military base at the time, and yes gigercounters were picking up radiation on my front f.cking lawn! We were told it wasn't at hazardous levels, but detectable. But I guess thats just fear mongering and ignorance talking. Perhaps you could pass on that wisdom of yours to that town that was next to the reactor. Oh, sorry, it's gone. Gee whiz, I wonder where all those fear mongering ignorant folks went. Thats right. They're all dead. Oops. -Matt > Really? Yes, Really! > I lived in Europe during Chernobyl. I was 6 years old and remember that > week vividly. Chances are I'm still carrying part of that son-of-a-bitch > around with me today as are all the inhabitants of Europe. I lived near > a US military base at the time, and yes gigercounters were picking up > radiation on my front f.cking lawn! We were told it wasn't at hazardous > levels, but detectable. Background radiation is normal. Heck, just flying in a plance considerably increases the dose of radation you get that day. You really didn't say how far about background you were, but....all said and done....this is all completely beside the point. > But I guess thats just fear mongering and ignorance talking. Perhaps you > could pass on that wisdom of yours to that town that was next to the > reactor. Oh, sorry, it's gone. Gee whiz, I wonder where all those fear > mongering ignorant folks went. Thats right. They're all dead. Oops. > > -Matt Simple fact is, Chernobyl was based on substandard 40's and 50's level technology and failed to have even the minimum of proper shielding and containment. Even during the 50's, here in the US, Chernobyl would never have been allowed to be built. Worse, the Russians then decided to disable what failsafes they had in place to see how low and unsafe they could run their reactor, without proper coolant and again, with safeties disabled. Basically, you can sanely argue that this was an act of terrorism by Russia against people in that part of the world. It's a horrible situation because Russia did *everything* they could to make is as bad as is humanly possible. The closest failure that the US has had was 3-mile island and even that place was considered technologically substandard for the period. Three mile island was properly contained (less than one millirem released to the surrounding community), contrary to many reports. To add insult to injury, had TMI actually had the proper instrumentation, which was considered the norm at the time, the disaster would have been completely avoided. Now then, advance many technology years and we now have self regulating, reator designs. Many of them in fact. Basically, what happens is...before the reactor can get close to meltdown, other components either melt (e.g. b/c of loss of coolant) within the core or vaporize within the core, which prevents futher nuclear reaction. This means, the core will continue to cool, all completely on its own. If it destroyed it self, it cools inside of its own containment shielding. From there, it can be disposed of as seen fit. Long story short, while I am sorry you were near Chernobyl, place Russia for doing everything they could of inflict it on you. Chernobyl was not a nuclear accident. Chernobyl was purposely engineered through stupidity and complete and utter lack of concern, compassion, or understanding of what they were doing. Basically, a lot of people died and/or were injured because they didn't give a dang. To hold Chernobyl up as an example of why we should not use nuclear is to point to flour mill (in case you didn't know, flour mills sometimes explode) and insist the world should stop making bread. Simple fact is, more people in the last ten years have died as a DIRECT result of coal power plants than have, in total, ever been killed from nuclear power plants. But, I sure you wouldn't know that because fear mongering is just so popular and politically correct these days. Greg > > Really? > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Greg Everybody seemed to think it was important enough to stay inside for the whole week following, while Chernobyl rained down on all of us. The guys doing the checking were military, and using their special cold-war doohickeys to take measurements. You can emagine they were excited, as GI's don't get to use their special toys in the real world very often. I would assume they would be capable of telling the difference between normal background radation and elevated levels given that was their job in the event of nuclear war. It rained all that week, and all the kids in the neighborhood were locked indoors to keep from playing in the wet grass. We were probably better than a thousand miles away, and were effected. And we aren't talking about just 2 disasters. Wasn't there an experimental reactor in the midwest that iradiated its operators and bunch of firefighters? And what about that russian submarine that nearly went critical while irradiating it's entire crew. (Is that at the bottom of the ocean, or am I thinking about thresher?) So how many reactors are there world wide, while having had 4 significant accidents? So even if there are 400 reactors, we are still talking a 1% failure rate. I take your point that the USA has probably learned it's lesson, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world has. To think that there will be a reactor in Iran is some scary sh.t. And nobody is going to stop building them, or gaurantee safety until there is either a global ban, or a global enforcable manufacturing standard. In the case of Chernobyl, some humans took some servicable equipment, hosed it up and created a global natural disaster. Though I have some faith in modern American engineering, I have no reason to think that something like that wouldn't happen in say Pakistan. Given the global effect of Chernobyl, significant concern is warranted no matter where a reactor is located. And as I understand Three mile island from the documentary I saw, even when engineers where considering the possibility of meltdown, the officials from the parent energy company were telling everyone that all was cool and go home. So though I may not be an engineer, there is no reason for me to think that what I'm being told by basically the same people is anything remotely resembling truth. I would say that the deception at three mile island probably caused more fear and more domestic protest than if they would have just told everybody to evacuate and then brought them back in. Now nobody trusts Nuclear energy, and rightly so. Whether it is the technology they don't trust, or the people selling it is of no consequence. No trust, no sale. In any case I sure as well wouldn't want it in my back yard. -Matt CanDo reactors are trusted but then they have many more safeguards. > > > Really? > > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > -Matt >> > Really? [snip] > And we aren't talking about just 2 disasters. Wasn't there an > experimental reactor in the midwest that iradiated its operators and Well, I can't speak to that one, but if it was experimental, I'm sure it was dubbed as such for a reason. There are huge differences between experimental reactors and production reactors; at least here in the US. > bunch of firefighters? And what about that russian submarine that I have read a little bit about the Russian sub disaster. And again, disaster is better applied thann "accident". Once again, the Russian's proved how they can cut corners and throw caution to the win to prove they could best America during the cold war. I personally believe this falls well into the flour mill analogy. Heck, Forrest Gump can be quoted here, "stupid is as stupid does." Seems like a good fit here too. > nearly went critical while irradiating it's entire crew. (Is that at > the bottom of the ocean, or am I thinking about thresher?) So how many The Thresh sank for completley different reasons. It sank because the Navy wanted to see how far they could stress a sub, without maintenance, before it failed...and they wanted to observe the nature of the impending failures...all before the Thresh has actually gone through it actual trails. Long story short, inexperienced crew, unproven ship, and refused maintainence just for the sake of seeing how bad, bad can get...."stupid is as stupid does", once again seems like a good fit. > reactors are there world wide, while having had 4 significant > accidents? So even if there are 400 reactors, we are still talking a 1% [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > building them, or gaurantee safety until there is either a global ban, > or a global enforcable manufacturing standard. Hey, make no bones about it. I have absolute faith in nuclear technology...assuming it's done right. Places like China and Korea and Iran, scare the crap out of me. You can do anything right or wrong. > In the case of Chernobyl, some humans took some servicable equipment, "Servicable" is a nice way of putting it. Substandard, is what I would put it as. Cheers, Greg >>> > Really? >[snip] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >was dubbed as such for a reason. There are huge differences between >experimental reactors and production reactors; at least here in the US. I hope I got the attributions above right. The nasty accidents you want to read about were the Snake River (US) and Windscale (Renamed Sellafield) in the UK. They happened in the 50s. You can google the data. Snake river was experimental. The AEC made a movie about it, which I saw in an engineering class in 1964. FWIW, here's some data on nuclear production I googled together for an article: " . . . France is the most enthusiastic proponent of nuclear power generation, but the United States produces almost double France's output. Germany is generally seen as having abandoned nuclear power, but that assessment may be premature. "France operates 59 nuclear reactors that supply more than 420 Terawatt-hours per year, 78% of the country's total consumption. France is the world's largest exporter of electricity, which is the country's fourth largest export. Much of it is purchased by Italy. "In the USA, there are presently 103 fully licensed and operational nuclear power reactors. The most recent data has them producing about 750 Terawatt-hours/year, or about 20% of the country's electricity. A Department of Energy report says that even a 3% reduction in US carbon emissions will require not only license renewal for all the existing nuclear plants, but also possibly the construction of about 30 large new ones by 2012. "The political status of nuclear power in Germany is complex and predictions about what is going to happen are always hedged. Over half the country's electricity still comes from coal. However, under the Kyoto accord, Germany is committed to a 21% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. "Thus, Germany continues to operate 17 nuclear power reactors. (All the Soviet-designed reactors in the old East Germany have been shut down and are being decommissioned.) Output in 2004 was 167 Terawatt-hours, roughly a third of the country's consumption. Here's a table of the rest of the countries around the world producing commercial power, ranked by output. The data is from 2003. Country Terawatts (2003) Japan 314 Russia 141 Korea 113 United Kingdom 81 Ukraine 78 Canada 76 Sweden 65 Spain 63 Belgium 45 Taiwan 38 Switzerland 26 Peoples Republic of China 23 Finland 21 Bulgaria 20 India 20 Slovakia 18 Lithuania 14 Mexico 10 The rest of the article is here: http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=10607 There's some current info on pebble bed reactors, but nothing anybody couldn't get off the Web. You have to read past the fuelcell and solar sections to get to the nukes. Don >>I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Right now, wind is the best way to utilise solar power, and it can compete > with coal power in many locations. Well, I suppose you could say that at its root, wind energy is essentially solar, but I see a lot more of it being generated around here (upper midwest) than solar. AND, the land can be used for other things, like grazing cattle. A lot of farmland here in Minnesota and Iowa is being fitted with large windmill arrays- the cows don't seem to mind. Wind turbines seem to scale up reasonably efficiently. >>> I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final >>> solution. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > essentially solar, but I see a lot more of it being generated around > here (upper midwest) than solar. Certainly. Note: my statement must be taken in context to the fact that all incoming energy other than fission is essentially solar or stored solar. i.e. The only PRIMARY source of energy is conversion from matter as in the solar phoenix reaction. You could also say that hydroelectric power is 'solar' though generally they tend to limit the term to direct EM radiation or heat capture. It is this obscuring confusion that I am addressing. > AND, the land can be used for other > things, like grazing cattle. A lot of farmland here in Minnesota and > Iowa is being fitted with large windmill arrays- the cows don't seem > to mind. Wind turbines seem to scale up reasonably efficiently. A few of those 5 MW monsters ( see National Geographics ) and people would stop calling wind power "small scale"... ;-) > A few of those 5 MW monsters ( see National Geographics ) and people would > stop calling wind power "small scale"... ;-) Just west of I35, just south of the border with Mn, in Iowa, there is a wind farm with over 100 very large generators :-) >> A few of those 5 MW monsters ( see National Geographics ) and people >> would stop calling wind power "small scale"... ;-) > > Just west of I35, just south of the border with Mn, in Iowa, there is > a wind farm with over 100 very large generators :-) Piddling compared to European developments, I'm afraid. The scale of wind development there is as least ten times that of the U.S. not only in technology but in deployment. Maybe deployment, but ten times technology is hard to believe in these days of multinationals, the Internet, etc. unless patents are in play. Much of US east of the Mississippi is not good wind territory. >>> A few of those 5 MW monsters ( see National Geographics ) and people >>> would stop calling wind power "small scale"... ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > development there is as least ten times that of the U.S. not only in > technology but in deployment. "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote > Piddling compared to European developments, I'm afraid. The scale of wind > development there is as least ten times that of the U.S. not only in > technology but in deployment. Do you have some Web sites, where we could view examples of some of these? SignatureJim in NC > Do you have some Web sites, where we could view examples of some of these? Go to http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature1/index.html . Click on the "Photo gallery" button. The second photo is a Danish wind farm. The print article says that some of the German designs have a 600' tall tower. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. >> Do you have some Web sites, where we could view examples of some of >> these? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wind farm. The print article says that some of the German designs > have a 600' tall tower. That woudl be the 5MW unit featured in the National Geographic. The picture of it is worth the price of the issue. > George Patterson > Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person > to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. >> Do you have some Web sites, where we could view examples of some of these? >Go to http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature1/index.html . Click on >the "Photo gallery" button. The second photo is a Danish wind farm. http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature1/gallery2.html >The print >article says that some of the German designs have a 600' tall tower. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=35745 Spain has overtaken Germany as the world's leader in the most installed wind power capacity. --kyler > >> Do you have some Web sites, where we could view examples of some of these? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Spain has overtaken Germany as the world's leader in the most > installed wind power capacity. From the web site: "This piece is highly inaccurate - Spain may have had the fastest growth in the last year, but Germany is still by far the world leader in installed capacity. Check http://www.ewea.org to confirm that Germany has over 15,000 MW installed." >> A few of those 5 MW monsters ( see National Geographics ) and people >> would stop calling wind power "small scale"... ;-) > > Just west of I35, just south of the border with Mn, in Iowa, there is > a wind farm with over 100 very large generators :-) and just south of that, Clearlake south to Williams they are building one that is starting with, if I remember right, 130 of the biggest ones and plan to add 50 or so more. supposed to be the largest in the country so far. KB SignatureThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice 460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on >I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one >seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the >panels, to convert the DC to AC... Let's keep in mind that solar heat can be 100X cheaper than solar electricity, with cheaper storage (warm water) as well... Nick >> I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final >> solution. No one seems to consider the amount of energy it would >> take to manufacture the panels, to convert the DC to AC... > > Let's keep in mind that solar heat can be 100X cheaper than solar > electricity, with cheaper storage (warm water) as well... don't encourage him. Now he'll whine about the energy costs of growing/harvesting/cutting the wood for the framing and the sheet rock panels for the exterior, along with the foam for the insulation... THe only way to gain a 'positive' energy output by his terms is not to build the house at all.. This is how small brains work.. > Nick >Let's keep in mind that solar heat can be 100X cheaper than solar electricity, >with cheaper storage (warm water) as well... Agree This is where solar really has potential.... ie.e home heating methods >>Let's keep in mind that solar heat can be 100X cheaper than solar electricity, >>with cheaper storage (warm water) as well... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is where solar really has potential.... ie.e home > heating methods An option I have heard about that is basically solar is bioengineered single cell organisms that "breath" hydrogen rather than methane (there are lots of those already). A solar heated "pond" that is transparent-covered to collect the hydrogen seems pretty green. I agree Nick. Many people overlook solar thermal as a way to reduce fossil fuel usage. - Paul >>I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No >>one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nick > >I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > >seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nick Yep, it certainly is. > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the > panels, At the moment, complete photovoltaic systems which have a life time of about 30 years, recover the energy used for the total production, so including the converters, in about 4 - 8 years. By the way, the decentral positioning of photovoltaic, if built on home roofings, almost _eliminates_ the huge amount of distribution losses, of about 20% of all produced electrical energy, as a premium because the energy can be used where it is produced: in the house. > to convert the DC to AC, to make the large-diameter/low resistance > conductors necessary to carry such small voltages This can be avoided by switching the solar panels in series, instead of in parallel as your assumption seems to be. >, and finally, the amount > of land taken out of production because it is in constant shade. The occupation of huge areas by the panels can be avoided by placing them on the roofings of the houses. shakiro [snip> The earth is a huge dynamo. Need to figure out how to harvest the ionosphere...still solar but more electromagnetic than photonic... > The earth is a huge dynamo. Need to figure out how to harvest the ionosphere...still solar but more electromagnetic than > photonic... To what are you exactly replying? shakiro > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the > panels, to convert the DC to AC, to make the large-diameter/low resistance You better stop chuckling. Of course this is always a consideration among the experts, and broadly discussed, not only when it comes to solar energy. There is even a technical term for this energy. Stefan >I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No >one seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the >panels, to convert the DC to AC, to make the large-diameter/low resistance >conductors necessary to carry such small voltages, and finally, the amount >of land taken out of production because it is in constant shade. I'm afraid you missed my statement. It would be too costly to transmit the energy as electricity. I intend to use the solar power to create hydrogen, then use the hydrogen to produce the energy in whatever form you need it. <Irony boosters on full> The big chuckle in this thread is a the agitation from Iowa which is the center of the biggest negative BTU energy boondoggle mandated by Congress critters - ethanol. >I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. >No one seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bob Gardner > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob Gardner Solar is more efficient producing hot water for DHW and low temp under floor heating, than direct electricity, which would then heat the DHW. Solar and PV panels are a major part of the answer. I wonder why Bob thinks solar panels take land out of production? Maybe he never heard of roofs? Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html >>I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > heating, than direct electricity, which would then heat the DHW. Solar and > PV panels are a major part of the answer. > I wonder why Bob thinks solar panels take land out of production? Maybe > he never heard of roofs? Roofs aren't adequate in most situations. They are OK for single level homes in the southern lattitudes. They won't suffice for a high-rise building or even a two or three story structure in the northern lattitudes. Matt >> I wonder why Bob thinks solar panels take land out of production? >> Maybe he never heard of roofs? > > Roofs aren't adequate in most situations. They are OK for single level > homes in the southern lattitudes. They won't suffice for a high-rise > building or even a two or three story structure in the northern lattitudes. Perhaps parking lots, roads, railroad right of ways, deserts and the occasional orbital platform could fill in for those places that don't have enough roof space. Anthony > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob Gardner Why do we have to have low voltage, high current. Why not hook batteries of cells in series and generate high voltage? And current DC to AC converters are really quite efficient. However, if the idea is to generate hydrogen, we don't need to convert it to AC, the electrolysis requires DC. Why not generate the hydrogen at the same place as the solar cell arrays. I DO see a problem with the cost (and energy input) of that much high purity silicon, but don't see an electrical problem that is of any consequence. Hello fellow A.E.R. readers. I'm Bob Gardner the computer programmer from Orlando, not to be confused with Bob Gardner the aviation author from out west. I've bumped into a couple of other Bob Gardners in my 50 something years. My great grandfather was John W Gardner, chief engineer on the steam war sloop Kearsarge when it fought the Alabama off Cherborg harbor in the civil war. So thats where my folks hail from. What about your folks Bob the pilot? Right on, Bob. It has been said that the energy required to produce a solar cell is greater than the energy it is likely to produce in its life. Bummer. A similar argument can be made about bio-fuels. The energy required to plant, cultivate, harvest and distil is greater than the resulting energy produced. Rod > I have to chuckle when I see solar recommended as the final solution. No one > seems to consider the amount of energy it would take to manufacture the [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > >>> Of note: Of course the best way to produce electricity in these often > >>> sunny third world countries is solar panels!! > A similar argument can be made about bio-fuels. The energy > required to plant, cultivate, harvest and distil is greater > than the resulting energy produced. Forgive me, but isn't this just a way of saying that no process is 100% efficient? > Forgive me, but isn't this just a way of saying that no > process is 100% efficient? Only if you count the solar energy as part of the deal. The point of bio-fuel is to capture the solar energy and store it so that it can be utilized later on. (Of course this is also the point of fossil fuels). If it takes more energy to crack the nut than you get out of the nut, you are better off leaving the nut intact and using the energy you =would= have used cracking the nut to just run your car (or whatever) directly. But if you can use otherwise unavailable energy (such as solar) to crack the nut, then you are ahead. Jose SignatureQuantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And mayb |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message