RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal

RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 6:07:51 PM)
Sambo, yes but you do not have to burn fossil fuels. They have several different designs, all work in the lab, of catalytic reformation processes for Natural Gas. Basically Natural Gas goes into filter where a catalytic reaction occurs seperating the Hydorgen out, and capturing the Carbon as a solid. Then the Hydrogen can be used in a fuel cell or burned neither of which produces any Co2. Or as the earlier article I posted about Microwaving tires, also mentioned microwaving Coal in a chamber, a way it could be used with out releasing Co2 to the atmosphere. There is also a system that uses a high temp Plasma to break down the Molercules of anyting you put in it, and most of the Carbon comes out as a solid, and the Hydrogen rises to the top of the chamber, where it can be collected and used for energy. How much hydrogen you get depends on what you feed it. Hydrogen is not ready for full time use yet. But that (or possibly some sort of Tesla ZPE) is where we eventually have to get. Fuel cells, like Solar has been used quite effectivly in Space for Decades. And just like Solar is experiencing rapid Technological breakthroughs. I have seen stuff on Algae bio fuel production, that might be a very usefull tool. Agreed Corn is horrible, and there may be usefull bio fuels in the future. To me converting Food production land to fuel production seems like a bad idea. And I think that you in the NE (which like Alaska is blessed with huge amounts of fresh water) are going to have to accept that other people need it, and we have to share, and don't really have a surplus.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 6:23:24 PM)
Lucky Someone's pulling your leg- what you're describing either can't work (would require energy) or requires a naked carbon atom- which is one of the most chemically reactive things in the world. 1) Coal basically is carbon(s). It burns quite readily in air to get to CO2. 2) Anybody that says that they can get from CH4 (methane, natural gas) to C(s) and 2H2 is full of it- I don't know of any catalyst that would come close to doing that- there's an incredible energy barrier to get over. The fuel cells that do methane (and that's pretty common) go to H2 and CO2- it's just a nice efficient process- so your exhaust is water and CO2. If the catalyst could actually do that- where would the carbon go? 3) Filter? Not quite- you can't filter molecules into atoms. Sam Wanna look at a bridge in Brooklyn? I'll give you a special Christmas deal......

ncsubcharlotte -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 7:36:17 PM)
I have heard some about them. Is there any kind of spec sheet released yet that shows the efficiency?

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/24/2007 1:00:49 AM)
ncsub- I'm assuming you're asking me-here's a link to one company that's making molten carbonate fuel cells-Fuel Cell Energy http://64.226.55.6/dfc300ma.php I think the cost is around $100/kw in larger sizes, closer to $250/kw in smaller sizes. Molten carbonate will run on a variety of feed stocks including natural gas. Sam

erebus -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/25/2007 4:25:48 PM)
Every thing listed here is pie-in-the-sky. Solar: I hate to break it to everyone, but it don't work when there is no sun, such as NIGHT! Wave energy, tidal energy, etc. not cost effective. Wind, too unreliable. The only viable solution to our energy dependence on foreign oil is nuclear. Reprocessing can reduce any 'waste' to manageable levels. Remember that 'waste' came from the ground in the first place. We're just putting in back in the ground. Coal, oil and natural gas all produce greenhouse gases. Fourth generation nuclear power plants are very safe. They are more reliable now. There are several proposals to build new plants on the table (finally!). We need to stop funding the terrorist states in the mideast. Let the islamofacists rot in their oil-funded palaces while we go on and become energy independent.

ncsubcharlotte -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/25/2007 4:33:43 PM)
I do not agree with that! Why would you not utilize the sun? It is not going anywhere. Is it all or nothing for you? If everyone changed the light bulbs to CFL, do you know what an impact that could make?

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/25/2007 5:39:32 PM)
Erebus- you sound like a member of the intelligentsia since it's clear that you think you have sources of information that the rest of us are not privy to. Let me try and make a couple of things understandable for you then. 1) The largest market for electricity in the country is either residential or office use- depending on who you ask and how it's defined- not manufacture. Any guesses as to what's the largest single application? Perhaps air conditioning? Gee- do you think air conditioning requirements vary through the day- especially when the sun comes out? Increasing the amount of electricity we get from the sun will largely match air conditionings demands. 2) Denmark has had no trouble getting about 20% of it's electricity from wind. Are they smarter than we are? Yes, going to higher percentages does appear problematic in the absence of other uses (desalination) or energy storage, but you know, 20% here, and 20% there will add up. 3) Now let's look at nuclear. Lots of things came out of the ground, and we've discovered that they should have stayed there in the first place- or at least been carefully controlled- things like asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic etc. Why is nuclear riding to the rescue? Perhaps because the industry has been losing $billions/yr for decades and this is looking like their last chance to gain market share? Do you think this might explain a well funded whisper campaign- that has very little basis in fact. Yes, the nuclear industry can claim that they're cheaper at the meter in Japan- but their long term costs have yet to be addressed, whereas the longterm costs of wind and solar appear pretty reasonable. How is a nascent solar industry supposed to go up against the well funded nuclear industry? The wind industry in this country is a classic example of how NOT to be competitive globally, as we ceded our R + D lead from the 80s to European countries such as Denmark- I don't want to see the solar industry go the same way- which is what it's looking like. The nuclear industry has had its chance- it lied to the public about safety, about cost (remember too cheap to meter? I do)- and since we do have islamotowelheads running around trying to destroy things- it means that locking up the bomb making material is not a bad idea. But who pays? This is a cost for the power companies that they have to pass along- and we know how accountants love to cut costs. I'm not too worried about terrorists getting hold of solar cells or wind plants (or biodiesel for that matter.)- but like the bumper sticker says- one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day. Sam

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.199768E-02