[BradGuth]

Blue! If anyone from Earth asks you, its supposed to be Blue!

And, you ain't listening. We have given Bill a lot of support and asked
pertinent questions, to which he has given pertinent answers. He
contributes regularly to threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with
solar power or hydrogen, and everything to do with practical
electronics. You, on the other hand, don't.

Charlie

In your case, such a closed mindset of such naysayism and hocus-pocus
infowar/infomercial spewing is actually a darn good thing to waste.

BTW, of which "Bill" (aka spook, mole or rusemaster) are you talking
about (our flag and hand waving William Mook? because I don't think
so)

Yourself, Eeyore and the like, it seems as though you're the ones with
all of those unlimited global liquid/fossil fuel reserves to burn, and
with all the necessary bullets and nukes if need be for the takings of
such fuel (including yellowcake) away from others that arnt quite as
bully smart as the likes of your pretend atheist self. Good luck with
affording $10/gallon, $1/kwhr and your WWIII that'll be afforded by a
$1/gallon added fuel tax.

Oddly, our lord Mookie thinks that all of such warm and fuzzy good
folks like yourselves are somehow working so extra hard on his
behalf. Go figure, and got any examples of whatever you've actually
accomplished?.

Speaking about Mook's usual flag and hand wavings, what's your best
solution(s) to our badly AGW and otherwise polluted world w/o
affordable fossil or yellowcake fuel? Can you and others of your
kind actually afford to spend $1/mile, or something worse off than $1/
kwhr?

Offshore protected corporations most certainly do like those "patent
numbers", but why on Earth do you folks insist upon having such? Are
you planning a new and improved ENRON thing, or is it merely something
of another Zion thing??

Do you even know how many decades behind our US patent process is
running? and of what this patent fiasco of such has been costing us?

Do you know how much the global enforcement of any such nifty energy
related patent will end up costing us?

How many extra decades are you willing to make the rest of us village
idiots wait, and how many extra billions or trillions are you and your
patents willing to make us spend each decade?
- Brad Guth -

 

[krw]

But lord Mookie thinks that you're all working so extra hard on his
behalf. Go figure.

You're an idiot (again, stating the obvious).

Speaking about "hand waving", what's your best solution(s)to a badly
AGW and polluted world w/o affordable fossil or yellowcake fuel? Can
you and others of your kind afford $1/mile, or $1/kwhr?
Economics.

Offshore protected corporations most certainly like those "patent
numbers", but why on Earth do you insist upon having such? Are you
folks planning a new and improved ENRON thing?

Do you even know how many decades behind our US patent process is
running?

WTF are you talking about? You haven't a clue about the "US patent
process".

Do you know how much the global enforcement of a nifty patent will
cost us?

Us? What did you name your mouse?

How many decades are you willing to make us wait, and how many extra
millions if not billions are you and your patents willing to make us
spend?

Us? Wait? You're the one who took a month to answer my post. I
presume you like long waits.

 

[BradGuth]

You're an idiot (again, stating the obvious).



WTF are you talking about? You haven't a clue about the "US patent
process".


Us? What did you name your mouse?


Us? Wait? You're the one who took a month to answer my post. I
presume you like long waits.

Your insurmountable naysayism is noted, though at least I'm not
another born-again liar of a bigot.

Tell us why you and others of your kind don't like the h2o2/aluminum
battery or fuel cell.

Or how about the h2o2/c12h26 ICE.

Tell us why you don't ever want to see any national or much less
global cache of surplus clean energy.
- Brad Guth

 

[MooseFET]

Economics. [....]
WTF are you talking about? You haven't a clue about the "US patent
process".

[....]

Tell us why you and others of your kind don't like the h2o2/aluminum
battery or fuel cell.

From KRW, that question is "asked and answered". He has already told
you he doesn't like it because the numbers simply don't work. There
is no reason to carry the H2O2 with you when you have a large ready
supply of O2.

KRW may have many bad characteristics but, stupid isn't one of them.

Or how about the h2o2/c12h26 ICE.

Again you don't need the H2O2 so why not just use the C12H26 in an
engine.

If you need a purified O2 supply, that can be done without having to
carry it along. There are methods that extract the O2 from air and
dumps the N2 overboard. It takes an energy input to do this but the
amount of fuel needed to supply that energy is way less than the
amount of H2O2 needed to make that much O2.

Tell us why you don't ever want to see any national or much less
global cache of surplus clean energy.

I'm sure he does. He just knows that your idea consumes more energy
that it produces and thus doesn't lead to one. If you really want to
make a supply of stored clean energy, there are some ways to do so.

Solar power can be used to refine aluminum. Aluminum is a good way to
store energy because we have lots of the ore and the refined aluminum
is easy to store. If you really want to get tricky, you can alloy it
with galium. If you drop a galium + aluminum alloy into water you get
H2 bubbling out.

Solar power can be used to refine zinc. Zinc doesn't store as well
but it is easier to get the energy out. All you need is a bit of
carbon or silver and a little acid and you are ready to go.

Wind power can be used to pump air into underground structures. This
isn't a way to make portable energy but it is a low cost way to store
fairly large amounts of energy.

 

[BradGuth]

Economics. [....]
WTF are you talking about? You haven't a clue about the "US patent
process".

[....]

Tell us why you and others of your kind don't like the h2o2/aluminum
battery or fuel cell.

From KRW, that question is "asked and answered". He has already told
you he doesn't like it because the numbers simply don't work. There
is no reason to carry the H2O2 with you when you have a large ready
supply of O2.

KRW may have many bad characteristics but, stupid isn't one of them.

Or how about the h2o2/c12h26 ICE.

Again you don't need the H2O2 so why not just use the C12H26 in an
engine.

Because of all the ongoing collateral damage, blood and guts of mostly
others, as well as for cutting those horrific amounts of CO2 and NOx.
It seems you fossil and yellowcake sucking folks of big-government and
big-energy really don't get it, do you, or perhaps it's only your
offshore bank accounts that are of what's getting stuffed.

If you so happen to have an insufficient supply or even no such
c12h26, and/or it's costing you $10+/gallon because of the $1000/
barrel of crude or of the spendy birth to grave worth of whatever
synfuel process, then what?

What if that WWIII worth of c12h26 or whatever synfuel was costing you
$100/gallon, or what if the pollution was getting so bad off that you
couldn't afford to eat or hardly breath?

If you need a purified O2 supply, that can be done without having to
carry it along. There are methods that extract the O2 from air and
dumps the N2 overboard. It takes an energy input to do this but the
amount of fuel needed to supply that energy is way less than the
amount of H2O2 needed to make that much O2.

That's good for folks to know, as I always have known, that N2 can be
so easily excluded, because we really shouldn't be including the N2
portion of our badly polluted atmosphere along with consuming most any
form of energy via gas, liquids or solids that's getting burned up.
We just need to accomplish that excluding of N2 while on the fly(sort
of speak) or while driving down the road. Of course using h2o2 plus
whatever c12h26 or synfuel accomplishes that task, and then some.

I'm sure he does. He just knows that your idea consumes more energy
that it produces and thus doesn't lead to one. If you really want to
make a supply of stored clean energy, there are some ways to do so.

Your KRW either knows squat or isn't willing to share the truth about
anything that'll rock his global soot, CO2 and NOx producing boat.

Solar power can be used to refine aluminum. Aluminum is a good way to
store energy because we have lots of the ore and the refined aluminum
is easy to store. If you really want to get tricky, you can alloy it
with galium. If you drop a galium + aluminum alloy into water you get
H2 bubbling out.

Solar power can be used to refine zinc. Zinc doesn't store as well
but it is easier to get the energy out. All you need is a bit of
carbon or silver and a little acid and you are ready to go.

Wind power can be used to pump air into underground structures. This
isn't a way to make portable energy but it is a low cost way to store
fairly large amounts of energy.

That's all good information that we can all use, as I not only agree
but having always promoted that a surplus of solar, wind, geothermal
and even tidal energy can and should be utilized for the makings of
electrons, gas, liquids and whatever solid forms of stored energy. As
I'd said before; how many spare/surplus teraWatts of clean energy
would you like?

Your mostly fossil and yellowcake energy cartel thanks you for all
that you've contributed towards AGW and of all the soot that's CO2 and
NOx saturated worth of your toxic polluting of our badly failing
environment. Your profound naysayism towards promoting clean and
renewable energy is also fully understood by those of us that simply
know a whole lot better than to follow the likes of Hitler or of his
Zionist puppeteers off the edge of Earth.

In addition to the h2o2/c12h26 or h2o2/synfuel alternatives of clean
energy usage, it seems the h2o2/aluminum battery or fuel cell for the
task of safely extracting clean electrons has also been doable,
although like most of everything else that's technically doable
doesn't ever have to ever get utilized.
- Brad Guth

 

[MooseFET]

Economics. [....]
WTF are you talking about? You haven't a clue about the "US patent
process".

[....]

Tell us why you and others of your kind don't like the h2o2/aluminum
battery or fuel cell.

From KRW, that question is "asked and answered". He has already told
you he doesn't like it because the numbers simply don't work. There
is no reason to carry the H2O2 with you when you have a large ready
supply of O2.

KRW may have many bad characteristics but, stupid isn't one of them.

Again you don't need the H2O2 so why not just use the C12H26 in an
engine.

Because of all the ongoing collateral damage, blood and guts of mostly
others, as well as for cutting those horrific amounts of CO2 and NOx.

Using the C12H26 with H2O2 produces more CO2 than not using it so this
is no reason not to just use the C12H26 and air.

It seems you fossil and yellowcake sucking folks of big-government and
big-energy really don't get it, do you, or perhaps it's only your
offshore bank accounts that are of what's getting stuffed.

No, you are the one who doesn't get it. You are suggesting a solution
that makes matters worse. You seem unwilling to look at the facts and
consider the real science.
[.. nonsense deleted ..]

Your KRW either knows squat or isn't willing to share the truth about
anything that'll rock his global soot, CO2 and NOx producing boat.

Go look at the science. He has pointed you in that direction and I
will too. If your idea produces more CO2, which it does, you should
stop supporting it.

I'd bet that his car makes very little NOx. Modern cars make very
little. You have to look elsewhere to find the biggest source these
days. You really need to get your facts right before you argue any
more.

 

[BradGuth]

Using the C12H26 with H2O2 produces more CO2 than not using it so this
is no reason not to just use the C12H26 and air.

How does 200 empg at zero NOx create more CO2 than consuming
atmosphere at 20 empg, not to mention the N2-->NOx factor?

It seems you fossil and yellowcake sucking folks of big-government and
big-energy really don't get it, do you, or perhaps it's only your
offshore bank accounts that are of what's getting stuffed.

No, you are the one who doesn't get it. You are suggesting a solution
that makes matters worse. You seem unwilling to look at the facts and
consider the real science.
[.. nonsense deleted ..]

We don't buy your LLPOF worth of big-government and big-energy
arguments. Sorry about that. You folks should go back to mount Zion
and put another one of your own kind on a stick.

Go look at the science. He has pointed you in that direction and I
will too. If your idea produces more CO2, which it does, you should
stop supporting it.

But you folks continually distort and/or lie as a regular basis of
your existing. It's what government and big-energy have always done
best.

I'd bet that his car makes very little NOx. Modern cars make very
little. You have to look elsewhere to find the biggest source these
days. You really need to get your facts right before you argue any
more.

There's no valid argument. The ICE of whatever's using of
H2+atmosphere that's of mostly N2 creates a great deal of NOx, and if
there's most anything of fossil or synfuel there's loads of CO2 to
boot.
- Brad Guth

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

If you're going to go electric car, the entire electricity
infrastructure will need upgrading, and about 10x the generating
capacity installed. Even if the perfect electric car appeared tomorrow
it would take decades to bed in.

 

[Eric Gisin]

You just pulled 10X out of your ass.
Household daily use: 20-30 kWh, small car (city driving): 10-20 kWh.
The only thing you have to avoid is charging during peak hours.

 

[Androcles]

: If you're going to go electric car, the entire electricity
: infrastructure will need upgrading, and about 10x the generating
: capacity installed. Even if the perfect electric car appeared tomorrow
: it would take decades to bed in.
:
: --
: Dirk

Although you do have a point, it isn't quite that bad. The average
car spends 23 hours a day idle and 1 hour at 50 mph commuting, which
is about 2 gallons of fuel a day, whereas heating or air-conditioning
a home or office uses more fuel than that per day. You'd need roughly
double the capacity. The total fuel expenditure is going to be the same
whether you burn the fuel in the car or in the generating station.
The biggest advantage of the electric car is the overall efficiency of the
system as a whole, and of course more use is being made of wind and
nuclear energy as oil supplies are depleted. Power stations are 34%
efficient, fuelled cars 18%, so more electric cars and generating stations,
less fuelled cars is an overall gain to society as a whole.
An even better gain would be to make more use of rail with
computer operated single vehicles delivering goods at night,
freeing up the clogged road systems from 16- and 18-wheelers.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

You just pulled 10X out of your ass.
Household daily use: 20-30 kWh, small car (city driving): 10-20 kWh.
The only thing you have to avoid is charging during peak hours.

No.
In Britain average household daily use is around 8kWh
And I was referring to replacing *all* cars, not just little city
runarounds. That includes SUVs.

 

[Eeyore]

No.
In Britain average household daily use is around 8kWh

Maybe for electricity alone but not ALL energy.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Power stations are 34% efficient,

But EVs are themselves only about 85% efficient so the overall efficiency
figure is ~ 29%.

fuelled cars 18%, so more electric cars and generating stations,
less fuelled cars is an overall gain to society as a whole.

Only GASOLINE powered cars are as inefficient as 18%. Diesels come closer to
about 25% (and account for around 50% of all new car sales now in the EU) and
both figures are improving slightly.

Add in the cabin heating requirement in cold or chilly weather which an ICE
provides for 'free' and the EV doen't look so great after all does it ?

Graham

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

But EVs are themselves only about 85% efficient so the overall efficiency
figure is ~ 29%.

So, we assume a new paradigm of EVs many decades down the road and
assume all energy will still come from today's sources.

Only GASOLINE powered cars are as inefficient as 18%. Diesels come closer to
about 25% (and account for around 50% of all new car sales now in the EU) and
both figures are improving slightly.

If the point is to mitigate the impact of peak oil, what is your the point?

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Maybe for electricity alone but not ALL energy.

Graham

Depends.
My overall use is probably around 5kWhr all sources.

 

[Eric Gisin]

No.
In Britain average household daily use is around 8kWh
And I was referring to replacing *all* cars, not just little city runarounds. That includes SUVs.

No way a house uses only 8 kWh unless water, heat, and stove are all gas.

There are no practical batteries for highway use. Just put in a 1L diesel.
SUVs and pickups for personal use should be banned anyway.

 

[Androcles]

: : > Eric Gisin wrote:
: >> You just pulled 10X out of your ass.
: >> Household daily use: 20-30 kWh, small car (city driving): 10-20 kWh.
: >> The only thing you have to avoid is charging during peak hours.
: >
: > No.
: > In Britain average household daily use is around 8kWh
: > And I was referring to replacing *all* cars, not just little city
runarounds. That includes SUVs.
: >
: No way a house uses only 8 kWh unless water, heat, and stove are all gas.
:
: There are no practical batteries for highway use. Just put in a 1L diesel.
: SUVs and pickups for personal use should be banned anyway.

As long as the SUV user pays for the energy he uses it simply isn't
appropriate to impose your brand of communism on anyone.
Are you going to "ban" houses that are not fully insulated?
As a society we have chosen to use personal means of transport
for its convenience together with all its attendant problems.
We prize that freedom. We could, and I stress "could", compel
people to use public transport instead and make them pay for it
in taxes, but in a democratic society any government that tried to
impose such a restriction would be quickly ousted.
We could use more nuclear power, but the tree hugging green shits
will complain no matter what you do. The reality is people will
use as much of anything as they can afford, regardless of need.

 

[Paul Ciszek]

runarounds. That includes SUVs.
No way a house uses only 8 kWh unless water, heat, and stove are all gas.

In the UK, that may be the case.

 

[Paul Ciszek]

But EVs are themselves only about 85% efficient so the overall efficiency
figure is ~ 29%.

If the issue is carbon or oil depletion, then you should also look at
what fraction of the power comes from non-fossil-fuel sources. In
France, this percentage is quite high.

As for cabin heating--do the batteries or motor of an EV get hot? Is
there any waste heat to be scavanged at all? If not, that is sort of
worth boasting about in its own right.

 

[Eric Gisin]

: There are no practical batteries for highway use. Just put in a 1L diesel.
: SUVs and pickups for personal use should be banned anyway.

As long as the SUV user pays for the energy he uses it simply isn't
appropriate to impose your brand of communism on anyone.

It's not communism you stupid ****, it's responsible government.

Are you going to "ban" houses that are not fully insulated?

Yup, demolish everything older than 60 years.

As a society we have chosen to use personal means of transport
for its convenience together with all its attendant problems.
We prize that freedom. We could, and I stress "could", compel
people to use public transport instead and make them pay for it
in taxes, but in a democratic society any government that tried to
impose such a restriction would be quickly ousted.

Idealistic amerikan ranting.