[Rich Grise]

in all fairness, using lox as an oxidizer would in theory increase the
hot side temperature of an ice, which would increase the carnot
efficiency. in addition, if both the oxidizer and the fuel were in
the liquid state, it *may* be possible to run an engine without the
intake and compression strokes, injecting both the lox and the fuel at
the top of the stroke under full compression and then igniting
quickly, and exhausting the waste gasses on the return stroke. This
would *if possible* increase the ice efficiency.
I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its
effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might
make tinkering with it a winter project.

You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2.

Sorry.
Rich

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

OK, then put your relatively safe "soda water" tank worth of LOx to
work within a Hummer or GM Volt, and basically go for it, especially
if it's supposedly so much better off than h2o2.

What's the combined LOx+c12h26 of clean Mj/kg worth these days?

How much LOx per gallon of c12h26 or fossil whatever are we talking
about?

What's the well insulated storage tank of that amount of LOx going to
take, in outside measured gross volume, if looking at only a 5%/month
loss?

Is that insulated amount of LOx any smaller than a locomotive tanker
car?
- Brad Guth -

Why bother when there is all this nice atmospheric O2 around to oxidize
my fuel. Sure, it has this nice regulating N2 mixed in, but that way
everything else don't burst into flames! I ain't going into outer space
in this thing, ya know! ;-)

Charlie

 

[[email protected]]

You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2.

Sorry.
Rich

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.

 

[bill]

You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2.

Sorry.
Rich

I know, was more thinking of racing, and perhaps moving some of
the transportation loading over to grid energy rather than liquid
fuels.

 

[bill]

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.

ummmm.... no, the intake stroke is to pull the air into the
cylinder. the compression stroke is to generate compression. you're
right that nothing will ignite in liquid form, however, atomising
liquids into hot cylinders tends to liquefy them rather quickly.

 

[Rich Grise]

[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
....

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.

Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd
ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need
a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[[email protected]]

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

PROBLEM WITH BATTERIES

COST

Let's talk about the cost of batteries. Lithium-ion batteries, which
is the 'gas tank' in the Tesla, store the equivalaent of 2 gallons of
gasoline in terms of energy, and last about 2 years. The problem is,
those batteries cost $25,000 - and they've gotta be replaced whether
you use the batteries or not.

So, that's a little more than $1,000 per month overhead in dealing
with the Tesla. And even if you charged and discharged the battery
twice a day, giving you 4 gallon equivalent range (with super high
mileage which is a huge benefit for EV) - you're still only using 120
gallons per month - and paying $1000 for it!!! That's $8 per gallon
just to pay for the battery. Then you've gotta pay for the fuel too.

This is one reason you won't see many of Tesla's on the road these
days.

Even less expensive batteries, like lead acid storage batteries, are
quite costly per mega-joule delivered to the wheels. Again, its in
the $8 to $10 per gallon range.

POLLUTION

And the air pollution avoided by the EV is more than counter-balanced
by the ground and water pollution of throwing away heavy metal
batteries.

Recycling helps, but does not eliminate this source of pollution.

AVAILABILITY

Finally, the amount of lithium and even the amountof lead in the world
is too small to provide more than a few tens of millions of vehicles.
So, what are billions of people going to do? Ditto with Neodymium
magnets for high power engines and so forth.

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..

STEP 1 - USE HYDROGEN IN STATIONARY APPLICATIONS

When you store hydrogen in an old oil well the stationary oil left
behind in the well is displaced by hydrogen which readily penetrates
the stationary oil film mobilizing it. So, when you retrieve your
hydrogen, you've lost part of it - but you've got oil and natural gas
mixed with your hydrogen. That's okay, you separate it out with a
molecular filter, and sell the natural gas and oil retrieved. This
more than makes up for the loss. And in a few decades when the oil
well is truly and completely scrubbed free of stationary oil, it will
be an efficient hydrogen storage and retrieval site.

STEP 2 - STORE HYDROGEN IN OLD OIL WELLS AND RESTART PRODUCTION

How much oil is left behind in an old oil well? 2 barrels of oil
remain for every barrel of oil produced, generally. Some geologies
its worse than this, some better. This is an average.

STEP 4 - REPLACE CARBOIN FUELS WITH HYDROGEN IN STATIONARY USES

But back to the solar hydrogen, where every 9.315 tons of ocean water
produces 9 tons of DI waer and 0.315 tons of salt by adding 0.7 MWh of
solar DC electrical energy to the system, and from the 9 tons of DI
water there is produced 1 ton of hydrogen gas and 8 tons of oxygen gas
with teh applicatoin of 49.3 MWh of solar DC electrical energy.

The hydrogen is sent through teflon coated pipelines at high presure
to underground strorage in old oil wells. The US has over 1 million
of them. A 100 day supply is retained for system stability. Oil is
produced from these wells and separated in traps and the hydrogen is
purified with molecular sieves (ceramic filters with tiny pores that
allow hydrogen to pass and no other gases to pass)

The hydrogen is delivered to stationary power plants throughout the
country replacing natural gas, residual oil, and coal. The hydrogen
is traded on a heat equivalent basis for these fuels.

ONE TON OF HYDROGEN EQUALS

2.6 tons of natural gas
23.4 barrels of residual oil
6.2 tons of coal

The great advantage of using hydrogen for heating, and power
generation in existing power plants is that there is no carbon-dioxide
produced whatever.

STEP 5 - UPGRADE LOW GRADE CARBON FUELS USING HYDROGEN

The natural gas is polymerized using zeolites to produce higher
alkanes like octane - producing 0.3 tons of hydrogen plus 17 barrels
of gasoline and jet fuel..

The residual oil is upgraded through direct hydrogenation using the
Shell process by adding 0.2 tons of hydrogen gas making 24.9 barrels
of gasoline and jet fuel.

The coal is upgraded through direct hydrogenation using the Bergius
process by adding 0.6 tons of hydrogen gas making 49.8 barrels of
gasoline and jet fuel.

This generally increases the energy produced per ton of carbon
produced, and avoids the importation of foreign oil. Thus, we get on
average 3x the energy for a given carbon output, substantially
lowering our carbon footprint.

In the US approximately 1.1 billion tons of coal each year are burned
in power plants. Replacing this with 0.18 billion tons of hydrogen
ends the productoin of 3.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide. By adding
another 0.10 billion tons of hydrogen to that coal 6.7 billion barrels
of gasoline and jet fuel are produced without producing any carbon
dioxide. Now when the gasoline and jet fuel are burned, the same 3.4
billion tons of carbon dioxide are released, but we will have gotten
about 3x as much energy for the impact. That is we wouldn't be
burning 6.7 billion barrels of extracted oil which reduces the total
footprint.

STEP 6 - CONVERT TO ALL HYDROGEN

As the hydrogen infrrastructure accumulates capital and profits, it
supports the development of technologies that make use of hydrogen
directly as a fuel. Liquid hydrogen for aircraft, ships and cars.
The convesion of wankel, standard internal combustion engines,,
turbine engines, jet engines and even automotiive turbo-electric
engines to hydrogen is an easy and accessible technical path - once
the hydrogen infrastructure is in place.

Natural gas used for heating is easily replaced by hydrogen gas.

The use of carbon to refine ores - even the production of steel - can
be replaced by hydrogen gas. The amount of carbon needed to make
steel is a very tiny fraction of the carbon used to refine and smelt
iron.

The world consumes 6 billion tons of coal and 30 billion barrels of
oil each year. This may be replaced by 2.3 billion tons of hydrogen
gas produced from sunlight and sea water each year.along with 0.7
billion tons of sea salt each year. A portion of this total can be
converted to chlorine, sodium, or bleach as needed using sunlight.

Since 15,000 tons of hydrogen is produced by a square kilometer of
high efficiency low-cost solar panels each year - when located in the
desert, this total replacement of the oil and coal and nuclear
industries requires 154,000 sq km of desert lands be plated over with
solar panels. This is a strip of panels 35 km wide stretching through
the Sonora Desert along the US Mexico border.

The cost of these panels using my patented technology is $21 million
per square kilometer. The strip is $3.2 trillion.(including a canal
between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean to supply water and
provide a means to ship liquified hydrogen to Asia Europe and
Africa.

The value of the hydrogen produced at present prices is $2.4 trillion
- an annualized 72% rate of return. Making this well worth the
effort. As energy use increases throughout the world, the US can
increase this supply by building additional panels north of the strip
and increasing the shipping of hydrogen. Hydrogen throughout North
America, Central America and South America, will be by high pressure
teflon coated pipelines.

 

[[email protected]]

ummmm.... no, the intake stroke is to pull the air into the
cylinder. the compression stroke is to generate compression. you're
right that nothing will ignite in liquid form, however, atomising
liquids into hot cylinders tends to liquefy them rather quickly.

Most of the fuel vaporization takes place during the intake stroke.

The compression stroke is to get the piston back to the top so the
ignition has something usefull to do.

Squirting LOX into a cylinder will tend to cool everything off
rather quickly, and perhaps too quickly.

 

[BradGuth]

For the makings of viable energy fluids and solid energy products,
such as LH2, LOx, h2o2, aluminum and magnesium, we need loads of spare/
surplus energy, that's as clean and renewable as possible.

Here's my latest revised rant about the absolute wealth of renewable
energy that's just about everywhere, so much so that even braille
physics and the most dumbfounded naysayism of science couldn't
possibly ignore unless directly involved in their grand fossil and
yellowcake ruse/sting of the century, or intent upon profiting from
those highly subsidised biofuel alternatives that are not simply the
commercial holy grail that's ever going to save us or our environment.

How about we take an extra .001% bite of 350,000 TW.h

The total worth of raw solar photon energy influx potential that's
continually impacting upon half of Earth at any one time, and that of
interacting within our sooty/polluted atmosphere is worth 3.5e17 w.h
or 350,000 TW.h, and by most any standard of measure it's of rather
clean energy, other than populated with loads of nasty UV b/c, X-rays
and even for having a few of its own halo CME gamma rays (less than a
0.1% portion of what gamma our naked/anticathode moon contributes)
that are not exactly human DNA friendly.

Not including anything of solar or moon tidal related energy that
transfers directly into becoming thermal dynamic issues for our 98.5%
fluid mother Earth, but just of what our sun's photosphere alone,
excluding anything of our moon's secondary/recoil IR, we've got
roughly an all-inclusive half terrestrial sphere worth of total photon
influx of 350,000 TW, of which perhaps as much as 20% of that manages
to impact and/or interact with our surface and oceans, another 45%
interacts within our atmosphere and roughly 35% gets directly
reflected by the albedo of Earth's polluted environment.

Down to Earth energy that's reasonably accessable:
Here's my none-WorldFactBook revised terrestrial energy budget from
the more than 64,000 TW worth of our direct global solar photon influx
budget that's getting through to the mostly wet surface, of which the
following analogy seem to fit, even if we only manage to obtain 0.1% =
28 TW:

16,000 TW / currents, winds, ocean tides, rivers (a conservative
estimate of clean energy that could just as easily become worth 32,000
TW)

8,000 TW / photosynthesis potential (total PV @12.5% eff, not
including Stirling options, which without much effort could become
worthy of 16,000 TW)

4,000 TW / potential of sustained geothermal energy draw w/o
foreseeable planet harm could easily be pushed to extracting 8,000 TW.

The other 16,000 ~ 32,000 TW of solar energy as being somewhere
MIA(missing in action) or simply not technically all that accessible.

- the all-inclusive human demand that's adding our global dimming soot
and AGW insult to injury -

24+ TW / humans + our industry (extracted from fossil, renewables and
nuclear)

100 TW / human+industry 2100AD (extracted from fossil, renewables and
nuclear)
-

On behalf of off-world resources of clean and renewable energy,
there's actually a great deal of nearby space-based energy that's
clearly in addition to whatever those Willie Moo SBLs that are each
solar pumped for all they are worth.

In addition there's always that warm and fuzzy dosage of secondary IR
moonshine, as well as an ongoing force of orbital gravity that's
always existing as part of our Earth/moon and solar orbital
interactive process, whereas if such a given force from just that of
our moon were converted into surface joules of energy being 2e20
Joules, and then into watt.h energy = 7.2e23 w.h (7.2e11 TW.h)

If merely 0.0001% (a millionth) of that orbital gravity/tidal energy
were getting converted into those matters of having been contributing
into our atmospheric, surface, oceans and of those toasty internal
fluids as having caused and/or sustained friction induced heating =
7,200 TW.h, or roughly speaking 2% of the gross solar energy influx.

Being that our moon's tidal influence is roughly twice that of our
solar tidal considerations, this mean that another 3,600 TW of tidal
energy is likely derived from our sun, for a grand tidal energy influx
of 10,800 TW, or roughly 3.08% of the gross solar photon influx.
Again going a touch conservative at 10,500 TW = 3% of the gross solar
influx, about the same worth as could be easily blocked by simply
relocating our moon out to Earth's L1, thus bringing our planet into a
much better thermal balance with shade to burn (sort of speak).

In other words, if it were not for the energy contributed by way of
our physically dark and somewhat salty old moon that's so unusually
massive, nearby and moving right along, Earth's environment would once
again become extensively iced over because, our sun alone is simply
not as bright and toasty enough for sharing sufficient energy all by
itself, especially if mother Earth's surface were to become any more
reflective, as it had to have been a whole lot more reflective within
those multiple ice-ages of so many past times that were simply of much
worse off frosty cycles before Earth ever obtained that moon and our
seasonal tilt.

According to others in their planetology field of expertise, Earth is
continually losing roughly 40 TW.h away from our geothermal core, and
otherwise humans have been converting fossil, bio/renewable and
yellowcake derived nuclear energy into contributing roughly 24 TW.h,
that's obviously directly contributing to our AGW before such energy
eventually leaves Earth's nighttime side, for a grand energy exit
budget tally of 64 TW.h and growing because of what we humans are
doing. Of course, along with loads more atmospheric suspended h2o and
subsequently hosting greater nighttime cloud coverage is exactly why
less of that energy budget is leaving Earth before the next sunrise
picks up from whatever our last sunset had to get rid of. In other
words, it's a never ending cycle that's taking us in the wrong
direction.

Life within a sealed biosphere such as Earth, whereas only the heavy
kinds of bad stuff remains within our environment for us frail humans
and all other more important life to deal with, whereas the squeaky
clean energy that wouldn't hurt a fly just keeps radiating and/or
passing in and away. Therefore, we humans are in fact heating up our
surface environment, but having more so been contributing our energy
byproducts of our soot along with those pesky toxic elements of CO2
and NOx like there's no tomorrow. Of what we badly need is lots more
energy that's squeaky clean and the most end-user efficient usage
without imposing the all-inclusive end result that's currently
generating soot plus those invisible but toxic byproducts of CO2 and
NOx, of which this task has been doable if extracting the bulk of that
new and improved energy from the sun and our moon, as much as possible
avoiding those various other fossil or biofuel alternatives (including
the burning of hydrogen as H2) that depend upon their having to
consume such horrific volumes of our mostly N2 and sooty water
saturated atmosphere.

To argue against this logic is to show your true blue colors of denial
and naysayism, as for being in favor of greed, arrogance and
insurmountable bigotry that's of more faith-based ideology than not.
Whereas to contribute on behalf of constructively resolving such
issues in the most affordable manner is being humanly intelligent and
reasonably deductive, along with having good awareness and remorse for
those unfortunate mistakes made in the past, and otherwise for keeping
an honest focus towards taking that new and improved grip upon the
best of our talents and resources as driven or motivated in the proper
direction, instead of our being continually faith-based sequestered
back into them dark ages where only the rich get richer and the poor
that can't possibly get any poorer simply get dead (and apparently
especially dead if you're a Muslim sitting on an oily rock).

Excluding all of those extremely interesting but unavoidably spendy
off-world energy alternatives that are never quite as good for the all-
inclusive bottom line as hyped by their promoters, we have upon or
within Earth more than what's necessary in order to safely manage our
clean energy future well past the 2100AD mark, that is if we can
manage to avoid WWIII, WWIV and WWV in order to end all such silly
wars because we've used up every last available drop, m3 and/or tonne
of fossil and yellowcake reserves in our faith-based process of
exterminating one another.

If we are to effectively go off-world for supplementing our future
energy demands, as such it'll have to be accomplished in a very big
way, and eventually it'll most likely have to include the highly
beneficial aspects of obtaining a little badly needed solar shade and
moderating the gravity tidal energy influx by the relocation of our
moon's orbit, as for being resent all the way out to the halo station-
keeping realm of Earth's L1, and that's in addition to whatever nifty
William Mook GSO SBLs, as there will also have to be China's fully
tethered LSE-CM/ISS along with it's tethered dipole element that'll
reach such monster SBLs if need be to within 2r of Earth, as also
offering the one and only proper access to/from our moon that'll
become the only humanly safe and affordably doable alternative, and
that's not even to mention their absolutely terrific tethered space
based CM/ISS habitat of that depot/gateway potential, that's afforded
by having such a nearby worthy do-everything best zero gravity
outpost, as made so affordably and accessibly at our disposal.

Too bad this sorry and/or pathetic Usenet and most every other
internet forum of physics and science is so badly skewed into the
nearest status quo toilet, of their being forever stuck in such
profound naysayism denial of their denial, and without so much as a
speck of remorse at that. Apparently it doesn't get any better, no
matters what the physics or best available science truth has to
offer.
- Brad Guth -

 

[John Larkin]

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

 

[me]

[email protected] wrote in

snip


The hydrogen is sent through teflon coated pipelines at high presure
to underground strorage in old oil wells. The US has over 1 million
of them. A 100 day supply is retained for system stability. Oil is
produced from these wells and separated in traps and the hydrogen is
purified with molecular sieves (ceramic filters with tiny pores that
allow hydrogen to pass and no other gases to pass)

1 million? So we have drilled 20 per day for the last 136.986 years (roughly) ?

rubbish!

I'll leave the rest of the idiocy for others....

 

[[email protected]]

[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
...

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.

Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd
ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need
a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however.

Liquids don't ignite.

 

[BradGuth]

As long as oil, gas, and coal are cheap, more expensive alternative
sources won't get developed. We *will* pump all the available oil out
of the ground, and all the gas, so energy prices will creep up. That
will force conservation and allow at least some alternate energy
sources to become commercially viable. The big impediment to
increasing the cost of energy is coal, which there's still a lot of.

So relax. Most perceived problems fix themselves, as this one will.

That's more than true enough, especially with WWIII about to happen,
the US dollar becoming worth all of $.50, and the cost of our road
fuel soaring to $10/gallon plus our residential electrical rates
federally mandated at $1/kwhr, whereas soon enough thereafter
everything will only get better as the rich and powerful get a whole
lot richer and more powerful, and then we (the rich and powerful plus
those of us as their their poor minions) can all watch as Greenland
melts and physically rises at the same time, as well as see those
wussy storms of category 5's turn into 6s, along with their CO2 pumped
thermal dynamic core that'll kick serious butt (too bad we can't use
those nifty storms as our own WMD against those pesky Muslims that
will not fork over their oil).

Also, by then there will not be nearly as much of our badly damaged
environment left to salvage, thus yet another sooty plus CO2 and NOx
puking win-win for the old ExxonMobil gipper.

Great plan of stay-the-course inaction you've got there, John Larkin.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

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 -

 

[BradGuth]

[email protected] wrote in

1 million? So we have drilled 20 per day for the last 136.986 years (roughly) ?

rubbish!

Rubbish is in the eye of the beholder, and I do not behold rubbish.

William Mook's perfectly good idea 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 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 way too complicated for
the naysay likes of yourself, and besides by then our dollar may not
even be worth $.50 anyway.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

[about LOX, H2O2, etc.]
...

Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake
and compression strokes are for.

Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd
ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need
a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however.

Use at least 100 bar injection, if not 1000 bar.

Using h2o2 + fossil whatever will likely ignite itself, as should LO2--

O2 and fossil whatever.

- Brad Guth -

 

[John Larkin]

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.

John

 

[John Larkin]

That's more than true enough, especially with WWIII about to happen,
the US dollar becoming worth all of $.50, and the cost of our road
fuel soaring to $10/gallon plus our residential electrical rates
federally mandated at $1/kwhr, whereas soon enough thereafter
everything will only get better as the rich and powerful get a whole
lot richer and more powerful, and then we (the rich and powerful plus
those of us as their their poor minions) can all watch as Greenland
melts and physically rises at the same time, as well as see those
wussy storms of category 5's turn into 6s, along with their CO2 pumped
thermal dynamic core that'll kick serious butt (too bad we can't use
those nifty storms as our own WMD against those pesky Muslims that
will not fork over their oil).

Also, by then there will not be nearly as much of our badly damaged
environment left to salvage, thus yet another sooty plus CO2 and NOx
puking win-win for the old ExxonMobil gipper.

Great plan of stay-the-course inaction you've got there, John Larkin.
- Brad Guth -

Damn, no wonder you're so depressed.

John

 

[BradGuth]

As an example of the scale of the issue, you can go to the local
welding supply store and for $100 get a 50 gallon tank of LOX, 50
gallons of high purity H2O2 cannot be purchased *anywhere* without
some rather extravagant licensing and permitting.

That's because h2o2 is clearly so much better at giving back its
energy than LOx. (too damn good in many situations, so you'd best
know exactly what you're doing, or else)
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

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?

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.

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.
- Brad Guth -