[John Larkin]

I understand.

But please understand I have a daughter who's mom and whom are Swiss
citizens, and since I'm eligible and there are advantages in it for
me, I'm getting my residency papers and with those will buy a couple
of houses in Geneva and a chalet in the Rhone valley.

One house is for my daughter and her mum, and the other for me, and
the chalet is to create an income neutral situation - the townhouse I
bought for them 4 years ago may be rented as well.

The rent brings in enough every season to cover recurring costs on
all households. Which the accountants like. Meanwhile Swiss real-
estate is very stable - a good inestment - so,its well worth the money
- I'm obviously not carrying any debt.

Hell, you're already a billionaire. All that level of expense is way
below the noise floor, not worth an hour of your time.

John

 

[BradGuth]

Neither wind nor solar needs storage to be economically viable. Solar
in particular complements the usual daily load curve, so its energy
can be sold at top-dollar peak pricing.

There are places where 20 or even 25% of the total load is furnished
by essentially unpredictable wind power, and the existing grid (which
used to handle 100% anyhow) adapts.

The hydrogen thing is just a good way to sink a presumably efficient
solar power generation concept.

As is the makings of h2o2, aluminum or even the reverse pumping on
behalf of hydro energy storage.

There's only 350,000 teraWatts of solar photon energy to start off
with, although perhaps only 20%(70,000 teraWatts) is surface
accessible.

Wonder what the gross solar and/or moon tidal energy is actually
worth.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

where would the water come from in front of the dam? The water is
flowing downhill in front of the dam, and so you run the turbines
backwards and water flows downhill and a little uphill and then you're
just running turbines backwards to beat the water back.

You've got to be kidding, that you and those of your all-knowing swarm
of expertise doesn't know about such things. Gee whiz, what a
surprise.

Of course it's always best to simply increase the vertical offset and
reservior capacity to start off with. Our local ROSS dam (screw
Canada) should go up by at least another 50 feet.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is?

If it's anything like the known rusemasters and orchestrated naysayism
of what most folks right here within this mostly semitic anti-think-
tank usenet land, where next to nothing ever gets fairly treated or
even allowed to coexist on its own, as then we do in fact know of what
Ponzi (most likely another Italian Yid gone bad) was all about.

Of us village idiots being continually snookered by those in charge,
and thereby so easily dumbdounded past the point of no return is the
ultimate faith-based Ponzi scheme on steroids, along with having
introduced massive collateral damage and carnage of the innocent to
boot.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

Bottom line I have the investors I need and I'm fixed for projects and
money now. The only reason I'm talking about it at all, is that you
are asking the questions. Recall this started out as a description of
where I thought the solar energy market was going. You really
couldn't say anything against the technical descriptions I've offered,
so you are now going out of your way, after enlisting help from your
buddy here, to attack me personally. haha. comparing me to crooks you
have known and making similar outlandish statements - for no damn good
reason.

One must wonder what motivates you to do all this.

This is all due to the fact that you don't want to admit that I'm
right about the costs and limitatoins of direct connect solar to the
power grid? haha.. What a weak person you must be.

They only pretend to be weak, just like they pretend to be Atheist.

It's mostly about their pro big-energy and big-government semitic/
Yiddish thing, because it's exactly what they do best, just like I'd
informed you and others from the very get-go. Of course within that
good book of Mook, there's still no such thing as a bad Yid. (go
figure)
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

OK, I take that to mean "no links."

Why am I not surprised?

Why do you so hate humanity and otherwise so disregard our
environment? Is it another one of those pesky semitic things, that
you folks of big-energy and bigger-government simply can't live
without?
- Brad Guth -

 

[John Larkin]

As is the makings of h2o2, aluminum or even the reverse pumping on
behalf of hydro energy storage.

If Willie can generate electricity for 0.2 cents per kwh, primitive
storage facilities, even inefficient things like compressed air, would
still make it the cheapest electricity source in the world, below US
market rates by about 10:1.

And yes, one certainly could electrolyze aluminum from ore while the
sun shines. Make cement, too.

So why isn't it happening? Yid conspiracy?

John

 

[John Larkin]

They only pretend to be weak, just like they pretend to be Atheist.

It's mostly about their pro big-energy and big-government semitic/
Yiddish thing,

Hey, I bet it was a Jewish _girl_ that beat you up.

John

 

[[email protected]]

While its true megawatts will be direct connected at some point, the
order of battle must take into account economies of scale as well as
diseconomies of scale. And when that happens you find you need about
$2 billion for your first solar panel plant to get the $0.07 per peak
watt. At that point you need something that can throw off $2 billion
profit today and absorb your entire output for a while. And one thing
that does that is a coal liquefaction plant that strands coal to about
4 GW of coal fired capacity and and then converts the stranded coal to
gasoline. That's what I'm doing. I don't even have to sell one solar
panel.

Once the factory is up and running, and fulfilling demand for panels
at company owned fuel facilities, I can begin supplying direct connect
systems where most appropriate.

 

[[email protected]]

If Willie can generate electricity for 0.2 cents per kwh, primitive
storage facilities, even inefficient things like compressed air, would
still make it the cheapest electricity source in the world, below US
market rates by about 10:1.

And yes, one certainly could electrolyze aluminum from ore while the
sun shines. Make cement, too.

So why isn't it happening? Yid conspiracy?

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even so, there is a highest best use and most efficient order of
battle and I believe I have that. Make hydrogen from water and use it
to strand coal, and hydrogenate the coal into gasoline. This is the
first step.

 

[[email protected]]

Hell, you're already a billionaire. All that level of expense is way
below the noise floor, not worth an hour of your time.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Really? That assmes a certain level of opportunity costs and a
certain level of productivity and a competition for resources that
doesn't exist. Actually, its just my way of having fun.,

Ah well, old habits die hard. I never rented an apartment in
college. I rented a house and sublet rooms and lived for free. I
signed a long-term lease and fixed up the place in my spare time, and
made money from my housing.

I never bought a car to drive. I bought nice convertibles (usually two
and kept one to drive) in the fall that were definite fixer uppers
(I'm an engineer dammit) and fixed them up in my garage over the
school year, and in the spring sold two, at a nice profit, and drove a
nice car all summer with some spending money in my pocket! lol. Then
repeated the performance the following fall.

So, I turned my cost centers into profit centers.

Then, when I could I got a part time gig as a research associate at
the university, and got insurance and so forth...

And I began watching Wall Street Week on PBS back in the 70s and
invested in the market when it was at 780 - which also produced a nice
return and made me credit worthy citizen.

The only thing I would do differently is I would have bought my house
in school and sold it after I graduated rather than paying rent. But
like I said, you've either got the knack or you don't! What else am I
gonna do with my 'free time'? SPEND MONEY!? eew... haha..

I was thinking about breaking down and buying a boat, the 158'
Laurison Mustang Sally was for sale recently by Rich Schaden of
Quiizon's subs, but I couldn't figure a way to make it pay. So, I
vacillated and someone else bought it. ah well.

 

[Richard Henry]

While its true megawatts will be direct connected at some point, the
order of battle must take into account economies of scale as well as
diseconomies of scale. And when that happens you find you need about
$2 billion for your first solar panel plant to get the $0.07 per peak
watt. At that point you need something that can throw off $2 billion
profit today and absorb your entire output for a while. And one thing
that does that is a coal liquefaction plant that strands coal to about
4 GW of coal fired capacity and and then converts the stranded coal to
gasoline. That's what I'm doing. I don't even have to sell one solar
panel.

Once the factory is up and running, and fulfilling demand for panels
at company owned fuel facilities, I can begin supplying direct connect
systems where most appropriate.

You spend too much time posting to this group to be doing anything
profitable.

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In sci.physics, Rich Grise
<[email protected]>
wrote

Well, if it wasn't so expensive, and resource-hungry,

Why would the engine be resource-hungry? Of course the
fuel source would be -- but Brad's hypothesis, taken at
face value, would assume terawatts of power available from
these clean, simple towers, convertable into synthesizable
hydrogen peroxide.

Except that the towers are neither clean nor all that simple.

- Cleanliness: The PV aspect is the most troublesome; the
research continues and may very well solve this problem
but at present the return on investment of a simple
solar cell, at current electric rates, is approximately
its expected lifetime -- about 20-50 years. Of course
part of it is that the PV is not part of a sophisticated
solar/wind powered tower, apparently (not that that would
make all that much difference; wind power doesn't come out
of nowhere, after all).

- Simplicity. The tallest man-made structure is about
341 m in height (in the USA, anyway; I'd have to check
for buildings in other places e.g. Petronas towers
in Malaysis) with quite a bit of complexity such as a
generally tapering structure (in the case of the Empire
State Building, it's blocky). Modern skyscrapers are
designed to flex. I've already mentioned the shadowing
problem; I should mention that there's a certain issue
regarding wind shadowing as well. Presumably the wind,
hitting the blades of a windmill, gets deflected in
various interesting ways, dissipating its energy --
and rendering the wind relatively useless for a windmill
following.

As for H2O2 synthesis from raw materials -- I'd have to look.

it could
theoretically make for a real simple internal "combustion" engine-
just get some BHP (basic hydrogen peroxide - essentially 100%
H2O2); and instead of a spark plug, a lump of catalyst, like
MnO2; it'd be a two-stroke - at TDC or so, squirt a dollop of
H2O2, it catalyzes into H2O + O2 + heat; driving the power
stroke; then there's an exhaust stroke, which consists of,
Ta-Da! water and oxygen; then you do it again. ;-)

Presumably this is Brad's notion more or less as well.
However, AIUI crystallized H2O2 is very touchy to handle
-- an issue if a vehicle has been sitting for too long.
There's also the possible problem of spontaneous breakdown.
Certain contaminants in the mix -- you mention manganese
dioxide; I know nothing about it but that's certainly one
possible contaminant! -- would break down the peroxide,
either slowly over time, yielding relatively useless water
and oxygen (from a power standpoint) -- or explosively.

At least gasoline more or less vanishes through evaporation
(though the result might be smog if there's enough of it).
It is also explosive but only under relatively controllable
conditions; it requires a rather specific fuel-to-air
ratio. Of course its flammability is a concern, but then
so are coal's, wood's, and chicken fat's, given the right
conditions.

And gasoline is long-term stable; it's not likely to do
weird things such as polymerize or spontaneously decompose,
under proper storage conditions.

 

[BradGuth]

'Dirty' would be lowering hoimself to your level of ignorance and
hatred.

Why do you and/or why would Warren Buffett hate the truth and
otherwise have such disdain against our badly failing environment?
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

He probably wants to scare up some "funding" first. ;-)

I certainly love getting my hands on just 10% of what similar R&D
efforts get.

The hybrid electric car and of its ICE that runs on such a composite
clean fuel is more doable than you'd think.

h2o2 as a monopropellant is only worth 2.9 Mj/kg, and the good blend
of low sulphur heating oil or LS diesel is worth 44 Mj/kg.

Keeping in mind that an amount greater than 7:1 as utilized of
h2o2:fossil is going require those 7+ parts of h2o2 per given part of
LS diesel.

7.25 * 2.9 + 44 = 65 Mj/kg of each consumed kg of that SL fossil fuel,
at that there's zero NOx and the absolute minimal amount of CO2
getting contributed per given kg or if you like per Hummer or GM Volt
mile.

Next taking into account, instead of getting 12.5% thermal dynamic
efficiency as obtained from the typical 4-Stroke or 4-cycle engine, of
getting at least twice that good if not nearly 4 times as much because
of using a 1-stroke or 1-cycle ICE that's not wasting all of that
kinetic energy by having to deal with going through all of those
wasted piston strokes. In other words, in addition to having the 65
Mj/kg to work with, it's entirely possible to reach a 50% worth of
thermal dynamic efficiency, and that's not to mention the small size
and minimal mass of this ICE that could be held in as little as one
hand.

The combined density of 1.32 g/cm3 for essentially obtaining 65 Mj/kg
of the LS fuel oil is in of its self impressive.
- Brad Guth -

 

[Eeyore]

h2o2 as a monopropellant is only worth 2.9 Mj/kg

Monopropellant ? Are you planing on using it's 'fizz' to provide rocket style
propulsion ?


Graham

 

[BradGuth]

Well, if it wasn't so expensive, and resource-hungry, it could
theoretically make for a real simple internal "combustion" engine-
just get some BHP (basic hydrogen peroxide - essentially 100%H2O2); and instead of a spark plug, a lump of catalyst, like
MnO2; it'd be a two-stroke - at TDC or so, squirt a dollop ofH2O2, it catalyzes into H2O + O2 + heat; driving the power
stroke; then there's an exhaust stroke, which consists of,
Ta-Da! water and oxygen; then you do it again. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Much like anything that's new and improved, h2o2 is only spendy if not
having the clean and fully renewable cache of spare/surplus energy to
start off with, and as I'd said before that Warren Buffett, William
Mook and myself will gladly provided all those spare teraWatts of
affordably clean and renewable energy.

The new and improved hybrid electric car, and of its ICE that runs on
such a composite of clean fuel, is more doable than you'd think.

h2o2 as a monopropellant is only worth 2.9 Mj/kg, and the good blend
of low sulphur heating oil or LS diesel is worth 44 Mj/kg.

Keeping in mind that an amount greater than 7:1 as utilized of
h2o2:fossil is going require those 7+ parts of h2o2 per given part of
LS diesel.

7.25 * 2.9 + 44 = 65 Mj/kg of each consumed kg of that SL fossil fuel,
at that there's zero NOx and the absolute minimal amount of CO2
getting contributed per given kg or if you like per Hummer or GM Volt
mile.

Next taking into account, instead of getting 12.5% thermal dynamic
efficiency as obtained from the typical 4-Stroke or 4-cycle engine, of
getting at least twice that good if not nearly 4 times as much because
of using a 1-stroke or 1-cycle ICE that's not wasting all of that
kinetic energy by having to deal with going through all of those
wasted piston strokes. In other words, in addition to having the 65
Mj/kg to work with, it's entirely possible to reach a 50% worth of
thermal dynamic efficiency, and that's not to mention the small size
and minimal mass of this ICE that could be held in as little as one
hand.

The combined density of 1.32 g/cm3 for essentially obtaining 65 Mj/kg
of the LS fuel oil is in of its self impressive.

BTW, that LS diesel can be easily replaced by just about anything,
including the clean alternative fuel obtained from coal gassification
or any number of interesting biofuels, as they'll each burn hot an
clean along with having contributed zero NOx.
- Brad Guth -

 

[BradGuth]

In sci.physics, Rich Grise
<[email protected]>
wrote



Why would the engine be resource-hungry? Of course the
fuel source would be -- but Brad's hypothesis, taken at
face value, would assume terawatts of power available from
these clean, simple towers, convertable into synthesizable
hydrogen peroxide.

Except that the towers are neither clean nor all that simple.

- Cleanliness: The PV aspect is the most troublesome; the
research continues and may very well solve this problem
but at present the return on investment of a simple
solar cell, at currentelectricrates, is approximately
its expected lifetime -- about 20-50 years. Of course
part of it is that the PV is not part of a sophisticated
solar/wind powered tower, apparently (not that that would
make all that much difference; wind power doesn't come out
of nowhere, after all).

- Simplicity. The tallest man-made structure is about
341 m in height (in the USA, anyway; I'd have to check
for buildings in other places e.g. Petronas towers
in Malaysis) with quite a bit of complexity such as a
generally tapering structure (in the case of the Empire
State Building, it's blocky). Modern skyscrapers are
designed to flex. I've already mentioned the shadowing
problem; I should mention that there's a certain issue
regarding wind shadowing as well. Presumably the wind,
hitting the blades of a windmill, gets deflected in
various interesting ways, dissipating its energy --
and rendering the wind relatively useless for a windmill
following.

As forH2O2synthesis from raw materials -- I'd have to look.


Presumably this is Brad's notion more or less as well.
However, AIUI crystallizedH2O2is very touchy to handle
-- an issue if a vehicle has been sitting for too long.
There's also the possible problem of spontaneous breakdown.
Certain contaminants in the mix -- you mention manganese
dioxide; I know nothing about it but that's certainly one
possible contaminant! -- would break down the peroxide,
either slowly over time, yielding relatively useless water
and oxygen (from a power standpoint) -- or explosively.

At least gasoline more or less vanishes through evaporation
(though the result might be smog if there's enough of it).
It is also explosive but only under relatively controllable
conditions; it requires a rather specific fuel-to-air
ratio. Of course its flammability is a concern, but then
so are coal's, wood's, and chicken fat's, given the right
conditions.

And gasoline is long-term stable; it's not likely to do
weird things such as polymerize or spontaneously decompose,
under proper storage conditions.

Thanks for all the constructive feedback, as I never once said it
would be easy, nor have I suggested that it's the least spendy
alternative for getting that Hummer down the road.

You have to admit there's number of primary and secondary advantages
in burning h2o2:fossil, instead of complex gasoline and that of a
mostly N2 atmosphere that's only getting more polluted by the minute.
- Brad Guth -

 

[Rich Grise]

You have a serious inferiority complex. Did some Jewish kid beat you
up or something? Or is it just that you know you're not as smart as
they are?

I filtered this guy after about his third post, but would have said,
"Sure, you're welcome to join in, but beware that if you say really
stupid stuff, people will call you on it."

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

In sci.physics, Rich Grise

Why would the engine be resource-hungry?

I didn't. I said that making H2O2 is expensive and resource-hungry.

Thanks,
Rich