|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > Re: OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck
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 |
Re: OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck
|
|
| Roland Mösl 2006-02-09, 3:21 pm |
|
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:i34lu19tt8p43unnu1cjr9teavjq01fq83@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:12:41 -0800, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
People which are to stupid to use solar energy deserve nothing better.
[color=darkred]
The leftist solution is cheap energy
The intelligent solution is solar energy
--
Roland Mösl
http://car.pege.org cars and traffic
http://live.pege.org building and live
http://www.pege.org
| |
| John W. Hall 2006-02-12, 2:21 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:26:31 -0500, Stuart Grey
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>Actually, I considered Arizona for a similar but far smaller scale solar
>energy project. Did you know that most of the good solar land is Indian
>reservations?...
Wind also:
http://www.nativewind.org/
--
John W Hall <wweexxsseessssaa@telus.net>
Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
| |
|
| I heard it was a land area of 100 miles by 100 miles.
It does not have to be in the same area. You could grow
sugarcane for ethanol in Alabama and do wind farming in
the Dakotas and grow soy beans in Iowa.
"John W. Hall" <wweexxsseessssaa@telus.net> wrote in message news:gdtuu1ddc5fgj22dpd72akt65h39ljbet6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:26:31 -0500, Stuart Grey
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wind also:
>
> http://www.nativewind.org/
>
> --
> John W Hall <wweexxsseessssaa@telus.net>
> Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
> "Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
| |
| Stuart Grey 2006-02-12, 3:21 pm |
| John W. Hall wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:26:31 -0500, Stuart Grey
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Wind also:
>
> http://www.nativewind.org/
>
(sorry, off on a tangent here...)
Ick. Clinton and the Sioux! Well, that Figures.
There is a Sioux tribe that gave a $300,000 bribe to the Democrats to
keep the Ojibwa from building a casino. The members of this tribe were
pulling down $600,000 per head per year from their casnino. The Chippawa
were living in abject poverty, making an average of $5000 year and
havign their feet frozen off from lack of good shoes because they
couldn't afford to buy them..
Fuck the greedy, evil bastard Sioux and their Democrat thug rats.
Clinton and the Demcorats: Sold out the poor for $300,000. Sold out the
nation (to the red Chinese) for $300,000. Sold pardons for $300,000.
| |
|
| On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:26:31 -0500, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
> Like Alaska, there is very little land to be bought in Arizona.
Try Hawaii.
--
Cliff
| |
|
| On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:26:31 -0500, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>Putting the energy in usable form IS a problem. I would suggest using
>coal + hydrogen to make gasoline and diesel.. I might have posted about
>this before.
You don't know?
BTW, Where are you going to mine the Hydrogen?
--
Cliff
| |
| Stuart Grey 2006-02-12, 10:21 pm |
| fredfighter@spamcop.net wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
>
> China's vast pool of cheap labor and potentially huge market for
> consumer
> goods has made it pretty much irresistable to every President since at
> least Reagan. As you will recall, GH Bush vetoed economic sanctions
> against China.
What the hell are you gibbering about?!
> Regarding Clinton 'selling out' just what, exactly do you claim he sold
> to the Chinese?
Clinton, via his Bag man Al Gore, accepted a $300,000 donation from the
Red Chinese army. When this came to light, Clinton gave the money back.
Clinton signed over Loral Missile technology to the Red Chinese, over
the objections of the Pentagon who said it would endanger national
security.
Clinton also hindered FBI investigations into the theft of MIRV missile
secrets.
The offical Democrat party line to explain these events is that Clinton
is a bumbling idiot. You're suppose to believe that Clinton took a
$300,000 donation, and didn't know what it was for, whom it was from, or
what they wanted. No rational human believes that. Clearly, Clinton and
the Democrats were traitors, who sold us out for a mear $300,000.
| |
| Stuart Grey 2006-02-12, 11:21 pm |
| Cliff wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:26:31 -0500, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You don't know?
> BTW, Where are you going to mine the Hydrogen?
Like most of your rapid fire idiot posts, if you had been following the
thread before you put your big stupid 2 cents in, you'd have known that
PV-H2 was talking about using solar energy to extract hydrogen from
natural rain water.
But as usual, you gibber in ignorance.
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-02-12, 11:21 pm |
| Stuart Grey wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
>
>
>
> Like most of your rapid fire idiot posts, if you had been following the
> thread before you put your big stupid 2 cents in, you'd have known that
> PV-H2 was talking about using solar energy to extract hydrogen from
> natural rain water.
>
> But as usual, you gibber in ignorance.
>
so does anyone who thinks they are going to "mine" hydrogen from water
through solar electrolization.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| Cliff 2006-02-13, 11:21 am |
| On 13 Feb 2006 00:16:15 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>GOOGLE.COM Results about 692,000 for Hydrogen Electrolysis.
>
>Me and 692,000 other people, including major corporations and
>governments and universities say you are wrong.
Sheesh.
See "catalytic hydrogenation".
Costs matter.
--
Cliff
| |
|
| On 13 Feb 2006 11:40:05 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
>Cliff wrote:
(You should snip prior sigs.)
[color=darkred]
>Yes costs DO MATTER. Catalytic cracking of water to H2 + O2 makes sense
>in certain scenarios.
>Some (not all) fuel cells are reversable to
>catalyze water to "mine" hydrogen for later: PEM (using precious metal
>catalyists) and SOFC (using cheap ceramic catalyists). The systems
>costs are substantial in either case.
You don't need a "later" with catalytic hydrogenation.
>Consumable graphite electrodes
What are those?
>are cheap and the material is plentiful, by contrast.
Perhaps the current oil refineries have it all backwards .....
>A discussion of some of the variables of system costs has been uploaded
>for your edification:
>http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
Some of that seems a bit confused.
HTH
--
Cliff
| |
| Stuart Grey 2006-02-15, 6:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
> so does anyone who thinks they are going to "mine" hydrogen from water
> through solar electrolization.
I have no problem with the word "mine" used by PV-H2, or what ever he
calls himself. His intent was clear, and the concept sound. The only
think I had issues with was scale and practicality, he grossly
overstated the case for doing so, according to the numbers I came up with.
I asked him to back up what he said, and he went wacky on me off on all
kinds of subjects.
Now, you're going to quibble about the word "mine"? Mine, extract,
produce... whatever.
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-02-15, 11:21 pm |
| Stuart Grey wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
>
> I have no problem with the word "mine" used by PV-H2, or what ever he
> calls himself. His intent was clear, and the concept sound. The only
> think I had issues with was scale and practicality, he grossly
> overstated the case for doing so, according to the numbers I came up with.
>
> I asked him to back up what he said, and he went wacky on me off on all
> kinds of subjects.
>
> Now, you're going to quibble about the word "mine"? Mine, extract,
> produce... whatever.
>
>
I'm not quibbling over the word, just the practicality of the process.
It sucks energy, literally. His intent is quite clear, and stupid.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Stuart Grey 2006-02-18, 12:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
> I'm not quibbling over the word, just the practicality of the process.
> It sucks energy, literally. His intent is quite clear, and stupid.
Could this process be done better? Yeah, you 'betcha.
Are his required area estimates correct? Hell no.
Is he arrogant? Yep.
Is the idea stupid? I don't think it is totally without merit, but
HPVIV-2 needs to get his act together, and stop insulting everyone with
a question and answering in ignorant platitudes that have nothing to do
with the question, like making reference to the Mars rovers, which is
something utterly different and not even of this planet.
| |
| J. Clarke 2006-02-18, 3:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
> I'm not quibbling over the word, just the practicality of the process.
> It sucks energy, literally. His intent is quite clear, and stupid.
Well, yes, it does. The idea is that hydrogen is used as an energy-storage
medium, not a primary energy source. This is attractive because existing
vehicles can in principle be modified to run on hydrogen just as they can
with natural gas (most gas companies have fleets of cars and trucks
retrofitted to run on gas). The three downsides are that it's doubly
inefficient in turning primary energy into transportation (you have the
inefficiency of the engine driving the generator at one end and the
internal combustion engine at the other), that a hydrogen distribution
infrastructure has to be built up, and that sufficient generating capacity
from whatever source has to be put in place to produce the hydrogen.
If we eliminate the internal combustion engine in the vehicle and go to
fuel-cell electric, then hydrogen can from an energy-consumption viewpoint
become very attractive, as hydrogen fuel cells have very high efficiencies
and fixed base-load power plants have much higher conversion efficiencies
than mobile internal combustion engines, so the net balance could easily be
a reduction in overall energy consumption without compromising the
efficiency of transportation.
Note that fuel cells are not any kind of pie in the sky--hydrogen-oxygen
cells have been in regular use for various purposes since the mid '60s and
hydrogen-air cells are so widespread that you can find them on ebay. Small
methanol fuel cells are commercially available as well, however they seem
to be running afoul of a couple of those outfits that collect patents for
the purpose of suing everybody in sight who tries to actually bring a new
technology to market, so they're probably dead until the patents run out.
There is at least one 5 MW fuel-cell generating plant in operation and the
Japanese have some in residential use supplying electric power in a pilot
program.
On the other hand, using a catalytic reformer, it's possible to construct a
fuel cell vehicle that runs on gasoline, which won't be as efficient as
using a straight-hydrogen cell but eliminates the distribution problem in
the short term and allows the same performance as a conventional vehicle
with half the fuel consumption in principle such a vehicle can be made
dual-fuel, running on gasoline or hydrogen, with higher efficiency on
hydrogen. It's not clear how efficient a reformer-based fuel cell vehicle
will be though--the developers are talking 60% vs about 30% for a
conventional internal combustion engine, but whether they can achieve that
in the real world has yet to be seen.
In any case, this isn't "stupid", it's just what is. It costs "x"
dollars/passenger mile to fuel vehicles with petroleum derived energy.
That "x" changes with time as reserves and production technology change.
It costs "y" dollars to use hydrogen, with "y" changing with time depending
on volume produced, production technology, utilization technology, etc. It
costs "z" dollars to do something else (electric vehicles charged from the
grid for example, or widespread mass transit, or some other alternative
that I'm not smart enough to think of). If at any time "y" looks to be
less than "x" or "z" for an extended period of time then hydrogen will be
the way to go. Until then it's going to be a hard sell.
The BIG problem with hydrogen is activists like "H2-PV NOW" who don't really
have a clue about the engineering or economic or political problems
inherent in its implementation but who want it NOW regardless of the costs
or advisability of that course of action.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|
|
|
|