Energy Harvested From Evaporation Could Power 70% Of The U.S.

Right but not because it's diffuse, rather because it's unreliable.

Still doesn't solve the storage problem.

You can't even follow a thread of thought???

Now I see why you aren't understanding anyone else. You just aren't able to understand what is being discussed.

If your standard of excellence is 100% efficiency and nothing else will do, then I guess everything that ever was is a failure just like everything that ever will be. So, yes, I guess we are done.

Others are able to follow but for some reason you aren't. I wonder why that is?

No, you're the one who can't (won't) follow a simple conversation.

You really are stupid. Compare must exceed

Good. Go away now.

what

er the grid can use 'technology' to overcome these physical realities?

ing

round it with technology.

lar cells. Sunlight is free (though there isn't enough of it) and "thermal efficiency" simply isn't a useful measure of anything remotely interesting.

the least useful response ever.

h solar thermal and electrical efficiency is a limiting issue with solar PV then you're an unconstructive trolling time waster. As you ever are.

ical response as a "troll" is worth the effort.

l solar plant, but I was explicitly talking about solar photovoltaic (PV) c ells, and even with thermal solar it isn't by any means the whole story. Yo u wouldn't be going for thermal solar if you weren't planning using stored solar energy as a dispatchable source, which means that you plan on wasting some of that stored energy by letting the thermal mass cool off a bit befo re you exploited it.

mment I very obviously was not. Only you were unable to grasp the totally o bvious. You really are a time wasting idiot. Plonk.

NT's "thermal efficiency" comment was merely pretentrious word salad, and t hat was totally obvious. NT may be able grasp what an ass he made of himsel f, which is presumably why he's insulating himself from the risk of having his fragile ego exposed to further assault.

By this NT presumably means cost per kilowatt-hour delivered - at the time when delivery is desired and useful.

He can't articulate the problem clearly enough to suggest that he has a clue what he is talking about

Krw does like to keep his life simple and his arguments free of content. The fact the only facts he recognises are the ones already installed in his brain does simplify his life no end, but equally makes his contributions valueless.

A "moron" in this context, is somebody who doesn't agree with krw and NT.

Practical experience suggests that only morons could agree with either.

Not to NT, whose comprehension is limited.

Efficiency is defined in terms of power out compared with power in. Sometimes this is a useful measure, but you do have to spell out what's going on.

Invoking "efficiency" as a magic word is one of the many marks of the kind of person who wants to be heard even if he hasn't got anything to say. NT exhibits most of them.

I sure do agree with keith on this one.

NT

I'm just reading what you wrote. If it's stupid, that's not on me.

You may be reading what he wrote but you understand nothing, as usual. Typical lefty.

You said you were going away... Liar, too.

what matters and

ot a road block.

er the grid can use 'technology' to overcome these physical realities?

sing solar

t round it with technology.

lar energy.

rgy in general?

rs using molten salt with ground based mirrors.

to the

ut is not

ompared to

ciency.

easure.

able to

ill do,

ing that

Rickman does understand more than krw, which means that he doesn't come to the same conclusion as krw. Since krw works on the assumption that krw is a lways right, krw sees this as evidence that Rickman understands nothing, wh ich isn't quite as evident to more objective observers.

John Larkin wrote on 9/28/2017 1:58 PM:

I realize one area where it does make sense, powering remote sensors. With a thermal probe few feet into the water and the other end into an air cooled/heated fin structure, I expect power could be generated for a number of remote sensors.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 9/28/2017 10:23 AM:

Sounds like a great Kickstarter campaign.

He's just wasting everyone's time.

True enough.

Ocean solar heat, evaporation, prevailing wind to high elevation, and the resultant precipitation drives hydropower. The gradients are low, true, but on SOME scales, it works well. We have, in a sense, access to new weather (hurricanes and wind power, anyone?) and biotechnology (black flies that concentrate oil and prefer to die in a refinery input hopper?) give us hope of some similarly outside-the-lab progress in future.

So, I keep reading those clickbait-titled energy articles. One of 'em will make sense, someday. Maybe two?

It isn't true that huge area kills small-energy-density schemes, unless you have some idee fixe that all 'huge X" is convertible into "huge cost' by some proportionality formula. Trust me, if we never paid by the acre for ocean surface, it'd STILL shed moisture into the breeze.

How many light bulb filaments did Thomas Edison try before he found one that worked well enough? Then did he quit trying?

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration"

That's funny. Edison was trying tech that had a small chance of working. The press release stuff is just junk already known to be junk.

NT

We'll all wait to hear how you propose to collect ambient energy over a huge area without a high price tag. If you have a realistic answer a useful chunk of the world's energy problem will be solved.

NT

You mean like solar and wind power? They are very affordable these days and their use is growing.

any ambient energy

their price is hopelessly uncompetitive with the main energy sources. Diffuseness makes this inevitable. Sure, maybe one day we'll make gossamer that floats over a kilometre square of ocean for tuppence, but we're nowhere near doing that now.

NT