BradGuth snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design:
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT
>>
>> >> >> >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of
>> >> >> >photovoltaics to less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use
>> >> >> >that DC power to produce
>> >> >> >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that
>> >> >> >hydrogen in empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed
>> >> >> >for a stable national hydrogen supply system..
>>
>> >> >> 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away
>> >> >> from what anybody is doing, even at the research level. And
>> >> >> if we had such power, the first rational use is to dump it
>> >> >> into the grid, not convert it to hydrogen at absurd net
>> >> >> efficiency.
>>
>> >> >> Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link
>> >> >> to hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are
>> >> >> predicated on ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste
>> >> >> prodigiously. That ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> >> >> John
>>
>> >> >And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus
>> >> >clean energy is ????
>> >> >- Brad Guth -
>>
>> >> There's some debate about whether silicon solar cell arrays
>> >> *ever* deliver back the energy it took to manufacture them.
>>
>> >> And when I see projections of 20+ year lifetimes for solar
>> >> arrays, with no significant maintanance budget, I know I'm
>> >> dealing with dreamers. And let's not forget the batteries, the
>> >> inverters, and the fun with wind storms.
>>
>> >> Here, in San Francisco, rooftop solar is a fad, despite being
>> >> pretty far north and having maybe 1/3 of the days where the sun
>> >> actually shines. It's going to be fun when all those roofs start
>> >> leaking, and the panels need to be removed to get at the roof.
>>
>> >Again I'll kindly ask, as to what would the all-knowing likes of
>> >John Larkin otherwise do with whatever spare/surplus clean energy?
>>
>> Is such a thing existed, which it doesn't and probably never will,
>> whoever owns it will sell it at market rates.
>>
>> >BTW, topic rubbish is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and I
>> >for
>> >one do not behold rubbish. Your out of context rants are typical
>> >of yet another ExxonMobil brown-nosed minion, whereas my rants are
>> >trying
>> >to be as on-topic positive and constructive. Of course you and
>> >others of your kind wouldn't see any difference, as you'd just as
>> >soon run everything on coal and mostly N2.
>>
>> How can you run anything on N2?
>>
>>
>>
>> >William Mook's perfectly good idea of effeciently creating and
>> >then piping his H2 into those old but trusty oil wells should buy
>> >us a few spare decades worth of spendy access to our very own raw
>> >fossil fuel
>> >(though a shame to waste all of that nifty H2). However, I was
>> >thinking along the lines of more like setting up 100 of my 4+MW
>> >tower units per day, if necessary we'd also import those required
>> >10,000 assembly/installation workers at far less than $.10/dollar,
>> >especially since it's all pretty much way too complicated for the
>> >naysay likes of yourself or most other rusemasters in such naysay
>> >denial, and besides by then our dollar may not even be worth $.50
>> >anyway.
>>
>> You've gone from ranting to raving.
>>
>> Can you do the math on one of your towers? The best engineers and
>> scientists can't get wind or solar generation up without subsidies.
>> It's not like nobody has thought of these things before.
>
> That's true, as I haven't invented or even discovered one damn
> thing. It's all old science and much older physics that hasn't
> changed nor
> will it likely ever change. The hard question is about
> accomplishing clean energy alternatives, not about whatever's the
> least spendy forms of energy on Earth that disregards human safety
> as well as having otherwise pillaged, raped and trashed mother Earth
> for all she's worth in the process, not to mention the likes of
> collateral spendy, mostly innocent bloody and otherwise extremely
> polluting wars that you folks can't seem to ever get enough of.
>
> A sufficient mass production of those 100+ meter towers, along with
> their wind turbine driven generators plus whatever extent of the
> best available PVs that can also take advantage of each given tower
> without devouring or otherwise contaminating precious surface ground
> area seems entirely worth our doing, that is unless we surcome to
> the ENRON/ ExxonMobil naysay likes of yourself and of other coal
> burning and yellowcake polluting bigots for a buck, that are
> anything but birth-to- grave efficient or without having traumatised
> our frail environment past the point of no return.
>
> Can you say again as to why you folks so hate humanity, and care
> less about our environment?
> - Brad Guth -
Brad your problem is obvious:
formatting link