|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > January 2006 > Where is the bottleneck?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Where is the bottleneck?
|
|
|
| OK. This is a pure discussion starter.
Given the enormous weight of knowledge and experience represented in
this group, the answers should make interesting reading...
Relating to the most efficient, practical, or just favorite energy
generation technology that you personally know about, where is the
bottleneck? Or put another way, what plausible technological
developement that doesn't exist yet, would make your "pin up" system an
order of magnitude better?
Regards,
Pal
| |
| Alan Combellack 2006-01-24, 10:21 am |
| For me the availability of much less costly PV panels(<$1.00/peak Watt) and
better, cheaper, more reliable batteries would make getting off grid
feasible now. We need a Manhattan type project to do this methinks. I'm
sure it is feasible and we need to do it before fossil fuels become to
scarce and costly to get the thing started.
Alan C
"Pal" <"gtsubs at tpg dot com dot au"> wrote in message
news:43d62bd4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> OK. This is a pure discussion starter.
>
> Given the enormous weight of knowledge and experience represented in this
> group, the answers should make interesting reading...
| |
| philkryder 2006-01-24, 12:21 pm |
| I'll look at this from the "glass is half full side".
Energy costs are currently too cheap.
We need oil to spike to $500 a barrel.
Then PV and Wind and oil shale will all feel like they are "an order of
magnitude cheaper".
Problem solved.
And oh yes, that's exactly what the market will do if necessary.
don't steal my money for your "manhattan projects".
| |
|
| The ability to implement Quantum Mechanics/Physics in a
generator. Second choice, affordable fuel cells.
"Pal" <"gtsubs at tpg dot com dot au"> wrote in message
news:43d62bd4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
: OK. This is a pure discussion starter.
:
: Given the enormous weight of knowledge and experience
represented in
: this group, the answers should make interesting reading...
:
: Relating to the most efficient, practical, or just favorite
energy
: generation technology that you personally know about, where is
the
: bottleneck? Or put another way, what plausible technological
: developement that doesn't exist yet, would make your "pin up"
system an
: order of magnitude better?
:
: Regards,
:
: Pal
| |
|
| Pal a =E9crit :
> OK. This is a pure discussion starter.
>=20
> Given the enormous weight of knowledge and experience represented in=20
> this group, the answers should make interesting reading...
>=20
> Relating to the most efficient, practical, or just favorite energy=20
> generation technology that you personally know about, where is the=20
> bottleneck? Or put another way, what plausible technological=20
> developement that doesn't exist yet, would make your "pin up" system an=
=20
> order of magnitude better?
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Pal
a collective conscience (sorry, it's not technological...)
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-24, 1:21 pm |
| philkryder wrote:
> I'll look at this from the "glass is half full side".
>
> Energy costs are currently too cheap.
>
> We need oil to spike to $500 a barrel.
>
> Then PV and Wind and oil shale will all feel like they are "an order of
> magnitude cheaper".
>
> Problem solved.
> And oh yes, that's exactly what the market will do if necessary.
>
> don't steal my money for your "manhattan projects".
I agree. If oil wasn't subsidized, it wouldn't be $500/barrel but PV would
be much closer to competitive.
--
derek
| |
|
| Orlando Utilities Commision has a 300MW coal plant in Orlando and twice
a week a 100 car coal train runs thru town. I looked up the price of
coal and the BTUs/lb of coal and I figure they are generating
electricity at about 3 cents a KWH, selling it to the local big
consumers like Lockheed Martin at 4 cents a KWH, and selling to the
peons at 12 cents a KWH. That seems like a wide spread from wholsale to
retail. Need some competition to get the retail price down. Using the
published fuel consumption of several diesel generators, an end user
could generate his own electricity at about 6 or 7 cents a KWH, using
current retail price of diesel in the calcs. I see the price of
wholesale non food grade oil from soy, canola, sunflowers etc is about
$1.50 a gal, so I cant see why the price of B100 biodiesel shouldnt be
less than petro diesel, except all the middlemen are charging what the
market will bear, so I cant make it 10x better, just 2x by using local
biodiesel generation.
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2006-01-24, 2:21 pm |
| Stirling-engined alternator, powered by pelletized biomass waste, with
low-temp reservoir cooled by house air, thus heating same. (And/or
heating domestic water.) (Viability depends very much on climate, of
course.)
IOW, automated woodstove generating electrical power efficiently,
retailing some.
Otherwise, solar heating- whichever.
Given that the very best means of generation is eliminating waste.
J
| |
|
| I don't know if it is something thats not invented yet so much as I
would appreciate more information on building a sterling engine. And I
want to work on developing my own version of the sterling engine
(actually just one working off of the same principle of convection). If
I had more information about that then I'd be golden. Once I have the
ability to build a solid efficient sterling engine, I can find the heat
and cold to work it. The rest is simply putting it together.
I think "free" energy is dependant on what you consider free. I figure
I can actually make free energy (free as in cost to me!) and thats not
a myth. Where as free energy as in over-unity is a whole other story.
It is possible to acquire materials that are extremely cheap or free
and putting them together into a working sytem. The principles of a
sterling engine make it very easy to build and you coud use biomass or
solar or what-ever to run it. Free of monetary cost... free energy.
IMHO there are ways to acquire energy independance without spending a
fortune. or spending almost anything... So for me the bottleneck is
information on existing technology.
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2006-01-24, 5:21 pm |
| "Logan" <loggiew@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know if it is something thats not invented yet so much as I
>would appreciate more information on building a sterling engine. And I
>want to work on developing my own version of the sterling engine
>(actually just one working off of the same principle of convection). If
>I had more information about that then I'd be golden. Once I have the
>ability to build a solid efficient sterling engine, I can find the heat
>and cold to work it. The rest is simply putting it together.
>
>I think "free" energy is dependant on what you consider free. I figure
>I can actually make free energy (free as in cost to me!) and thats not
>a myth. Where as free energy as in over-unity is a whole other story.
>It is possible to acquire materials that are extremely cheap or free
>and putting them together into a working sytem. The principles of a
>sterling engine make it very easy to build and you coud use biomass or
>solar or what-ever to run it. Free of monetary cost... free energy.
>IMHO there are ways to acquire energy independance without spending a
>fortune. or spending almost anything... So for me the bottleneck is
>information on existing technology.
That is Stirling (with an I, not an E) engine.
Stirling engines depend on gasses expanding when hot and compressing
when cold. If a round balloon has a diameter of 12" when cold, it
might have a diameter of 12.25" when hot. Enclose the balloon in a
tight fitting 12" sphere of metal. Drill a hole in the sphere and
attach a piston. Heat the sphere and the piston goes out. Cool the
sphere and the piston goes in. The heat differential is comparable to
voltage or water pressure, the volume is comparable to amperage or
water volume.
There are a number of websites that sell or show you how to make a
small stirling engine. These are demonstration engines that are
actually small versions of the classic Ericsson engine.
<http://www.rustyiron.com/engines/stable/ericsson.html>
The tin can engines shown on the web, such as:
<http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~khirata/english/mk_can.htm>
don't have a sufficient volume of gas to be useful except as a
demonstrator or toy. They also don't have a proper regenerator, and
depend on the sides of an oversized displacer to act as a partial
regenerator.
When scaling up a stirling engine, the volume of gas, type of gas,
temperature differential, regenerator, and design are all factors.
| |
| Vaughn 2006-01-24, 6:21 pm |
|
"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138124172.134591.230800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Using the
> published fuel consumption of several diesel generators, an end user
> could generate his own electricity at about 6 or 7 cents a KWH, using
> current retail price of diesel in the calcs.
Is the above fuel only? They don't give diesel generators away for free
you know! Not to mention such insignificant little things such as installation,
maintenance, depreciation, operator labor, and cost of capital.
Vaughn
| |
| Alan Combellack 2006-01-25, 10:21 am |
| Thanks. You make a good point.
Some time ago I wondered if I could make a form of battery with which I
could pump water up to a high tank using PV when available and let it run
back down during the rest of the day. This makes economic sense at all
except under very suitable land profiles. I was quite surprised to find
that I would need something like 30000 lbs of water falling from 100 ft to
generate 1 kW. This needs a large tank and a lot of PV capacity to provide
a reserve. One could store about 1 kWh in a car battery costing less than
$100.
Conversely you could pump that 30000 lbs up 100 ft for about 15 cents
(here in Canada) from the utility given a 100% efficient pump. That amount
of energy for so little money strikes me as somewhat mind-boggling so energy
really is drastically under priced.
Simply allowing prices to rise rapidly to a "fair" value would cause
drastic societal effects for a long time but you are right in that " that's
exactly what the market will do if necessary".
I suppose the "big oil" etc companies want to keep us addicted for as long
as fossil fuel remains available so they cam maximize their profits.
I have been thinking about solar power for many years and, apart from
insulation and direct solar heating, it has always seemed nearly, but not
quite, worth doing on economic grounds.
I still think investing a lot in making PV cheaper as soon as possible is
a good, albeit not the only, solution to our upcoming problems. We really
cannot wait until the fossil fuels are gone and in any case oil etc. is too
valuable for other uses such as plastics so should be preserved as long as
possible. No matter what we do sooner or later we will have to depend on
solar power (and, perhaps, nuclear) for all of our energy needs. We should
make the transition as painless as possible.
Alan C
..
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
news:1138116349.491559.266210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'll look at this from the "glass is half full side".
>
> Energy costs are currently too cheap.
>
> We need oil to spike to $500 a barrel.
>
> Then PV and Wind and oil shale will all feel like they are "an order of
> magnitude cheaper".
>
> Problem solved.
> And oh yes, that's exactly what the market will do if necessary.
>
> don't steal my money for your "manhattan projects".
>
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-25, 11:21 am |
| However, let'snot forget how heavily solar is subsidized also....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:3a0ia3-og7.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> I agree. If oil wasn't subsidized, it wouldn't be $500/barrel but PV
> would
> be much closer to competitive.
> --
> derek
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-25, 11:21 am |
| You are totally ignoring the costs of setup, equipment and infrastructure to
support that, and the cost of all the EPA and other environmental permits
needed to install a fuel tank and the costs of anti-pollution equipment you
will need. Not to mention repairs and maintenance.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138124172.134591.230800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Orlando Utilities Commision has a 300MW coal plant in Orlando and twice
> a week a 100 car coal train runs thru town. I looked up the price of
> coal and the BTUs/lb of coal and I figure they are generating
> electricity at about 3 cents a KWH, selling it to the local big
> consumers like Lockheed Martin at 4 cents a KWH, and selling to the
> peons at 12 cents a KWH. That seems like a wide spread from wholsale to
> retail. Need some competition to get the retail price down. Using the
> published fuel consumption of several diesel generators, an end user
> could generate his own electricity at about 6 or 7 cents a KWH, using
> current retail price of diesel in the calcs. I see the price of
> wholesale non food grade oil from soy, canola, sunflowers etc is about
> $1.50 a gal, so I cant see why the price of B100 biodiesel shouldnt be
> less than petro diesel, except all the middlemen are charging what the
> market will bear, so I cant make it 10x better, just 2x by using local
> biodiesel generation.
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-25, 1:21 pm |
| Windsun wrote:
> However, let's not forget how heavily solar is subsidized also....
It's not, here. Zero, zip, nada. In fact, American subsidies are keeping
_my_ costs up, because why should manufacturers sell for less than their
purchasers can get back in rebates.
--
derek
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-25, 3:21 pm |
| That is what always happens when anything is subsidized. Why do you think
milk is so high?
Subsidies of any type distort the market, whether it is oil, solar, wheat,
milk, or anything else. And they almost always benefit a small number while
raising prices for every one else.
And yes, I am including solar electric in that, even though we sell it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:2jmka3-i1c.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Windsun wrote:
>
>
> It's not, here. Zero, zip, nada. In fact, American subsidies are keeping
> _my_ costs up, because why should manufacturers sell for less than their
> purchasers can get back in rebates.
> --
> derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-25, 4:21 pm |
| Windsun wrote:
> That is what always happens when anything is subsidized. Why do you think
> milk is so high?
>
Who's arguing? You're right.
--
derek
| |
| philkryder 2006-01-25, 11:21 pm |
| My opinion is that if energy prices rose to say $500 per barrel
equivalent, there would be no shortage - there are a whole lot of tar
sands and marginal wells that would be re-opened at those prices.
I don't understand why you use descriptions like "... keep us
addicted...".
The energy companies sell a product for which there is a nearly
inelastic demand (in the short term).
That's not their fault or problem.
The "solution" would be to change expectations.
One technique (assume revenue neutral) would be to replace income and
other taxes with energy or carbon taxes -
AND (this is the critical part)
Set expectations that the energy tax will continue to increase at
10-20% per year. (Again total tax revenue neutral).
Folks would then have incentive to make the optimal choice in their own
circumstances to save or create energy....
Alan Combellack wrote:[color=darkred]
> Thanks. You make a good point.
> Some time ago I wondered if I could make a form of battery with which I
> could pump water up to a high tank using PV when available and let it run
> back down during the rest of the day. This makes economic sense at all
> except under very suitable land profiles. I was quite surprised to find
> that I would need something like 30000 lbs of water falling from 100 ft to
> generate 1 kW. This needs a large tank and a lot of PV capacity to provide
> a reserve. One could store about 1 kWh in a car battery costing less than
> $100.
> Conversely you could pump that 30000 lbs up 100 ft for about 15 cents
> (here in Canada) from the utility given a 100% efficient pump. That amount
> of energy for so little money strikes me as somewhat mind-boggling so energy
> really is drastically under priced.
> Simply allowing prices to rise rapidly to a "fair" value would cause
> drastic societal effects for a long time but you are right in that " that's
> exactly what the market will do if necessary".
> I suppose the "big oil" etc companies want to keep us addicted for as long
> as fossil fuel remains available so they cam maximize their profits.
> I have been thinking about solar power for many years and, apart from
> insulation and direct solar heating, it has always seemed nearly, but not
> quite, worth doing on economic grounds.
> I still think investing a lot in making PV cheaper as soon as possible is
> a good, albeit not the only, solution to our upcoming problems. We really
> cannot wait until the fossil fuels are gone and in any case oil etc. is too
> valuable for other uses such as plastics so should be preserved as long as
> possible. No matter what we do sooner or later we will have to depend on
> solar power (and, perhaps, nuclear) for all of our energy needs. We should
> make the transition as painless as possible.
> Alan C
> .
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
> news:1138116349.491559.266210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-01-25, 11:21 pm |
| <PLONK>
"Windsun" <wind-sun@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BMBf.1982$1n4.483@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You are totally ignoring the costs of setup,
equipment and infrastructure to
> support that, and the cost of all the EPA and other
environmental permits
> needed to install a fuel tank and the costs of
anti-pollution equipment you
> will need. Not to mention repairs and
maintenance.....
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> "BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
>
news:1138124172.134591.230800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
in Orlando and twice[color=darkred]
looked up the price of[color=darkred]
generating[color=darkred]
the local big[color=darkred]
and selling to the[color=darkred]
spread from wholsale to[color=darkred]
price down. Using the[color=darkred]
generators, an end user[color=darkred]
cents a KWH, using[color=darkred]
the price of[color=darkred]
sunflowers etc is about[color=darkred]
biodiesel shouldnt be[color=darkred]
are charging what the[color=darkred]
just 2x by using local[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| daestrom 2006-01-26, 6:21 pm |
|
"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138124172.134591.230800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Orlando Utilities Commision has a 300MW coal plant in Orlando and twice
> a week a 100 car coal train runs thru town. I looked up the price of
> coal and the BTUs/lb of coal and I figure they are generating
> electricity at about 3 cents a KWH,
Sounds about right...
> selling it to the local big
> consumers like Lockheed Martin at 4 cents a KWH, and selling to the
> peons at 12 cents a KWH.
If the state you're in was like NY, your bill would be broken down into
energy charges and delivery charges. In NY, about half the cost of
residential electric is in the delivery and the other half in the energy
charges.
If you had time-of-use metering, you could pay only 4 or 5 cents a KWH in
the middle of the night for the energy. But higher prices during the day of
course.
When on a flat-rate billing without TOU, the cost per KWH has to be a blend
of the costs from cheap coal, and the more expensive sources that the
average residential user also uses. Running A/C in July uses energy from
some much more expensive sources such as NG and even diesel fuel.
The rates (with the fuel adjustment charges) are probably approved by your
state's public service commission (or some similar title). Ask them about
why you pay so much more per KWH than just the 3 cents worth of coal.
> That seems like a wide spread from wholsale to
> retail. Need some competition to get the retail price down. Using the
> published fuel consumption of several diesel generators, an end user
> could generate his own electricity at about 6 or 7 cents a KWH, using
> current retail price of diesel in the calcs. I see the price of
> wholesale non food grade oil from soy, canola, sunflowers etc is about
> $1.50 a gal, so I cant see why the price of B100 biodiesel shouldnt be
> less than petro diesel, except all the middlemen are charging what the
> market will bear, so I cant make it 10x better, just 2x by using local
> biodiesel generation.
Yes, if you just go by fuel costs, you can certainly can do better with such
a setup. Of course, you'll have to do your own maintenance, and pay for the
generator. So think it through carefully before 'jumping in with both
feet.'
Would you disconnect from the utility all together, or stay connected for a
backup?
daestrom
| |
|
| Would you disconnect from the utility all together, or stay connected
for a
backup?
daestrom
=================================
Right now my main breaker is 100A 240V, and it has never blown, so I've
never used 24KW all at once. My daily avg is about 30KWH, so if I had a
little changfa diesel spinning a pma alternator and a very efficient
converter that didnt load the engine too hard, I figure it could putt
putt 10hrs a day and keep the batts topped off. Less hrs if solar and
wind is working, so perhaps I could live with a 50A service instead of
a 100A service as an alternative to my alternative system.
| |
| Mark & Mary Ann Weiss 2006-01-28, 6:21 am |
|
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
news:1138116349.491559.266210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'll look at this from the "glass is half full side".
>
> Energy costs are currently too cheap.
>
> We need oil to spike to $500 a barrel.
Yes, but if that happened, this nation, and many others would collapse into
civil unrest. Imagine if 90 million working poor couldn't get to work every
day. The potential for a volatile situation is underscored by what we've
already seen in post-Katrina New Orleans. This kind of mayhem would spread
throughout the country as gasolene prices soared to $23/gallon. Imagine home
heating oil at $20/gallon. Millions would freeze to death or abandon the
northern states.
We already pay close to 20 cents/kWh here and it's been going up and will go
up again in May for a 36% increase the first half of this year. A lot of
people are already hurting. We use 1500kWh a month here, most of it used by
computers and musical instrument equipment, but if it were to go much
higher, we'd be back to a medievil state of existence.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com <--Now with Hi-Fi Stereo Streaming Audio!
-
| |
|
| Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
> news:1138116349.491559.266210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Yes, but if that happened, this nation, and many others would collapse into
> civil unrest. Imagine if 90 million working poor couldn't get to work every
> day. The potential for a volatile situation is underscored by what we've
> already seen in post-Katrina New Orleans. This kind of mayhem would spread
> throughout the country as gasolene prices soared to $23/gallon. Imagine home
> heating oil at $20/gallon. Millions would freeze to death or abandon the
> northern states.
> We already pay close to 20 cents/kWh here and it's been going up and will go
> up again in May for a 36% increase the first half of this year. A lot of
> people are already hurting. We use 1500kWh a month here, most of it used by
> computers and musical instrument equipment, but if it were to go much
> higher, we'd be back to a medievil state of existence.
>
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
I agree that realistic valuation of energy products is required to
"encourage" the general population to use energy wisely. I believe here
in Australia, our per capita energy consumption is even greater than it
is in the US, and so both our populations need a shift in mindset for
this to occur.
At the same time, I can see huge social problems in the short to medium
term if that shift had to result from a price shock. The less likely,
but more desirable option, is for groups like that represented in this
ng to become ever more visible as the flag bearers of what is possible,
and wean away enough of the "mindless" consumers, to give the
alternative energy technologies the critical mass they need to become
mainstream. Once the general population sees competition to the
traditional energy infrastructure that is proven, reliable, cost
competitive, and with enviromental benefits thrown in, then I think the
battle will be almost won.
Keep fighting the good fight...
| |
| philkryder 2006-01-28, 2:21 pm |
| Certainly - you make some excellent points.
People are unlikely to just "take it" if prices rise precipitously.
And the shock waves ripple through many industries and areas far from
the original source.
The key is having Known Expectations.
Oil prices have Declined for most of the past 25 years in real dollars.
People have made decisions based on that.
A small revenue neutral increase to get everyones attention - say 25
cents a gallon equivalent.
Then, a 1 percent per month continued increase with the EXPECTIATION
that it will continue forever.
Look at Ford motor.
They are in big trouble because they catered to folks who bought large
vehicles with the expectation of cheap fuel.
No one wanked about Ford and GM having a pension disadvantage back when
they were making money selling large vehicles.
But, the spikes of the past two years have caused customers to have
different expectations of future fuel costs.
Look at our cities.
They are in decline because people are willing to give their families a
better life far from the city core based on the expectation that cheap
fuel will let them drive an hour and a half a day to work.
By setting expectations that fuel costs will rise inexorably, folks
will be able to PLAN and make individual decisions to be more efficient
and consume less and create more.
The TAX could also be used to fund much larger strategic reserves that
would allow us more resilience in pricing of the final product.
Imagine something like the Federal reserve, setting a "target" of a 1-2
percent monthy increase in the cost of carbon based fuels.
They could then adjust the taxes and reserves to smooth market spikes
that exceeded say 5% per month...
They could buy oil and increase taxes when prices fell and sell and
decrease taxes when prices rose (in the short term only)...
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
> news:1138116349.491559.266210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes, but if that happened, this nation, and many others would collapse into
> civil unrest. Imagine if 90 million working poor couldn't get to work every
> day. The potential for a volatile situation is underscored by what we've
> already seen in post-Katrina New Orleans. This kind of mayhem would spread
> throughout the country as gasolene prices soared to $23/gallon. Imagine home
> heating oil at $20/gallon. Millions would freeze to death or abandon the
> northern states.
> We already pay close to 20 cents/kWh here and it's been going up and will go
> up again in May for a 36% increase the first half of this year. A lot of
> people are already hurting. We use 1500kWh a month here, most of it used by
> computers and musical instrument equipment, but if it were to go much
> higher, we'd be back to a medievil state of existence.
>
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
>
> VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
> Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
> Business sites at:
> www.dv-clips.com
> www.mwcomms.com
> www.adventuresinanimemusic.com <--Now with Hi-Fi Stereo Streaming Audio!
> -
| |
| Tom Peel 2006-01-29, 1:21 pm |
| Pal wrote:
> OK. This is a pure discussion starter.
>
> Given the enormous weight of knowledge and experience represented in
> this group, the answers should make interesting reading...
>
> Relating to the most efficient, practical, or just favorite energy
> generation technology that you personally know about, where is the
> bottleneck? Or put another way, what plausible technological
> developement that doesn't exist yet, would make your "pin up" system an
> order of magnitude better?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pal
Solar power is the solution. The cost of existing technology is the
problem. My dream technology would synthesize hydrocarbons directly from
solar energy. Hey, did someone say "trees" ?
T.
| |
| meow2222@care2.com 2006-01-29, 5:21 pm |
| Tom Peel wrote:
> Pal wrote:
>
> Solar power is the solution. The cost of existing technology is the
> problem. My dream technology would synthesize hydrocarbons directly from
> solar energy. Hey, did someone say "trees" ?
>
> T.
One day I expect we'll see low cost tarpaulins coated with a low cost
electricity conversion layer, and solar electric will be everywhere.
But there's no sign of any such tech emerging for many a year yet.
Of all the alt techs, solar pv has to be one of the least likely
contenders due to its excessive cost and lack of tech dev prospects.
Passive heating and cooling has its use, but again we need to see much
cheaper control kit to make it viable.
Solar thermal has real potential, but where is the bottleneck? I dont
know. I suspect the shortage if sufficiently skill in what is still a
fringe subject area.
Perhaps a real boost to the whole subject would come from one of the
diy sheds selling a diy solarthermal kit for 50 bucks. Its perfectly
possible to do imho.
NT
|
|
|
|
|