What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper :

Oh, the irony...

--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Casanova
Loading thread data ...

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:05:47 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova :

oxides

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!

--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Casanova

**Indeed. Which, when you think on it, should take a little longer than a single block.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

LOOK ABOVE!

ves of oxides

ndary

annot

you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

****

H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP! It's FREE!

Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard in perspex)

was $5/square meter?

The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from fuel.

The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!! Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!

You don't need H2 production at night! That's the point! It's stored SOLAR ENERGY.

O2 (if it's even needed) comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

Herc

Reply to
Graham Cooper

gives of oxides

condary

cannot

d

It has actually been better put across by William Mook (aka Mokenergy), and the mainstream status-quo of forever hydrocarbons hasn't bought into any of it.

Yes, H2 can become relatively cheap, though perhaps not ever as cheap as offered by William Mook, and otherwise it's ideally suited for fuel- cell applications, as well as for dozens of applications in commercial, industrial and retail/end-use.

Supposedly the Boeing solar panel division (Spectrolab) has actually broken the 100% PV efficiency by converting IR through UV, although that's with a rather spendy advanced product that most of us can't possibly afford. Commercially and otherwise for space or military applications they currently offer a spendy 43% efficiency factor.

formatting link

formatting link
formatting link
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/=94Guth Venus=94

Reply to
Brad Guth

red

Yeh but the sunlight just hits the DIRT anyway!

there's a million spare acres outside every city.

You could use 0.00000001% efficient Solar Panels and just put up more of them!

Sure you have to get the technology as economical as feasible 1st.

This isn't a put-as-many-panels-on-your-roof-as-you-can-fit problem!

If you can mass produce 5% efficient panels for 1/4 the price of 10% efficient panels then that's what you would use at a Power/H2 plant.

Herc

Reply to
Graham Cooper

tored

=94

Exactly correct, and I never once accepted the higher level of conversion efficiency touted by Mokenergy, although the basic concept of utilizing such spare/surplus land for accommodating his custom solar collectors was never in doubt of offering a perfectly viable clean energy alternative. Mook's hydrogen even at twice his suggested production cost was still a very good return on investment, not to mention squeaky clean and renewable, other than solar farm maintenance that would always represent a small carbon footprint.

A solar farm using 20% efficient PVs would still be a whole lot less all-inclusive spendy than any conventional nuclear reactor, not only per GW but per acreage once everything (aka birth-to-grave) about conventional nuclear generated energy is taken into account. Mass produced PVs by China and India could do those items for as little as $1/watt installed, and because hardly any skilled labor is necessary once this solar farm process is set in motion is why the annual upkeep shouldn't have to exceed 10 cents per installed watt (roughly $7.50/m2/ yr).

Once the H2 and Ox plus amounts of LH2 and LOx is made and stored it can be further distributed and/or directly used on demand in order to generate a great deal of clean energy via fuel-cells.

You really should compare notes with Mook, although be forewarned that he usually has to run the whole show, taking most if not all of the credit for the best methods of doing just about everything. Otherwise Mook is a relatively harmless but way better than average educated person that only happens to come across as a know-it-all.

formatting link
formatting link
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/=94Guth Venus=94

Reply to
Brad Guth

It wouldn't be the gearbox dissipating that power (unless the bands needed adjusting) it would be the torque converter.

Having thought about it, no it shouldn't. I went out this morning, the ambient temperature was 11 C, hot air started coming out of the heater at about 0.4Km, the temperature was in the working zone just before

0.7Km. Car manufacturers have been using the ECU setting to promote fast warm up for some years in order to meet pollution requirements.
Reply to
keithr

**Thanks for doing the test. That is certainly a little quicker than vehicles I have experience with. I've never driven a Subaru from cold. I still reckon the Subaru should take a little longer, due to the greater total block mass (required for strength) and greater surface area.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

stored

l-

s=94

it's cheap as chips! another alternative is thin black piping like that used on roofs to solar heat pools.

You can collect heat from the sun very cheaply, but the peltier devices to get electricity from hot water would cost more than solar panels.

Or a transparent plastic cover over a shallow Lake would heat up in only a couple days. Those bubble wrap pool covers are like steam baths in summer!

Stirling Engines would only be say DELTA 30 DEGREES / 270 efficient.

My Evap Cooler Droplet Catching design was meant to get the COLD Terminal down an extra 10-20 degrees to double the efficiency of Solar Sterling Stations.

Bit of a nightmare generator to build though.

formatting link

formatting link

G. Cooper (BInfTech)

--
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-THEOREM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURING
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Graham Cooper

yeah it should, the pair has two more bolts, and two more ends than a single four-pot block would...

--
?? 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net
Reply to
Jasen Betts

Doesn't matter, the impact of rotting humans is the same regardless of what time in life death occurs but the environmental impact as far as resource use and emissions goes is greatly reduced if a human is killed prematurely in Herc's contraption compared to having lived their full lifespan.

So yes, Herc's contraption reduces CO2 emissions but not neccessarily for the reasons he thinks it might.

Reply to
Clocky

Nothing like twice as quick.

Reply to
Clocky

Well spotted. Now, the premature death doesn't have to be caused by Herc's machine. Any cause will do. Including self-infliction. This allows us to test the resolve of Greenies. If they really believe there's an issue, they have a course of action available to them to mitigate it.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:38:32 +0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Clocky" :

Apparently Graham thinks(?) that there's more energy in 98 octane fuel. Graham thinks(?) a lot of things that conflict with reality.

--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Casanova

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper :

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right below:

of oxides

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer source...

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless combustion takes place in pure O2.

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved with the storage of hydrogen?

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build photovoltaic panels.

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumps.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source. They're not.

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are "FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".

--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Casanova

formatting link

Put a Mylar blanket on the bottom of a 2m deep lake and clear Mylar on the top to stop evaporation.

Like parking a black car in the sun all day, the entire lake will reach 60 degrees in 2 days sun.

It's Easy to tap Unlimited Energy when it's shining in your face all the time.

Herc

Reply to
Graham Cooper

gives of oxides

econdary

n cannot

ed

OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.

Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!

*****

All energy comes from the mass of the Universe collapsing in on itself

gravity -> suns -> H->He -> light

light -> planets -> solar panel / plant leaves

solar panel + water -> H2 + O2 -> vroom!

plant leaves + water + CO2 -> C6 H12 O6 glucose -> yumm!

million year old plant leaves -> petrol -> old smokers #$#$@%

*****

Herc

Reply to
Graham Cooper

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper :

gives of oxides

secondary

cannot

Take your meds, and stop trying to do whatever it is that you call "thinking"; the results are unfortunate.

Everything I posted contradicts what you wrote, and anyone can read the above exchange to see that it does. Apparently comprehension isn't your strong suit.

--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Casanova

!

ine gives of oxides

ve

a secondary

s.

ogen cannot

tored

BOBC - "Dirty H2 engines are dirty!"

Thanks for the tip bro!

Herc

-- BIG BANG ..\ ....\ .. .. \ .. .. ..\ Expansion . . . . . \ . . . . . . \ HYDROGEN. . / Billion Years Old . . . . . / .. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity .. .. / ..../

1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!" |-| |-| |-| .. \\\\\\ .........\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F .. 99% HYDROGEN/ . . . . . / .. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity .. .. / ..../ 2G STAR |-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star |-| o o O -O- o Planets Cool |-| o Baywatch! |-| YOU ARE HERE! 13,700,000,000 Years
Reply to
Graham Cooper

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.