| Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Hydrogen Fuel Plant Run By Solar Power... |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eeyore... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Eld wrote:
[quote]My biggtest issue was not the exact conversions values or even a typo but the fact that the original
post came from a TV report with the usual bimbos trying to talk technical.
They rarely get anything right.
[/quote]
Only rarely ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eeyore wrote:
[quote]Sam West wrote:
For example, William Mook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
Graham
[/quote]
Solar panels are in fact paid for and compared by the cost per peak watt.
Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
sink. Typical pricing today is $8 per peak watt and rising.
A panel producing 1 kw peak at noon typically generates 5 kwh per day in AZ.
<http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp>
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eeyore wrote:
[quote]Sam West wrote:
The hydrogen may also be burned any time energy its needed.
How do you plan to store it for later use ?
Graham
[/quote]
Convert it to electricity and synchronously invert it to the power line,
obviously.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eeyore... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DanB wrote:
[quote]Eeyore wrote:
Bolaleman wrote:
This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
panels. It's enough to power about 30 to 35 homes,” said Sean Mullen
of Sunetric.
Solar PV panels are HOPELESSLY inefficient.
Anyone thinking they are our saviour are ignorant non-scientific IDIOTS.
Graham
Wow Graham,
You are suddenly back!! Good to see you. Can't stay away from the pub, ey?
Dan.
[/quote]
Hi Dan. Thanks for the welcome back. I've been very busy lately and
living elsewhere whilst my home is extensively renovated and relying on
a wi-fi connection of very variable quality and using a borrowed laptop
that needed <ahem> a little maintenance !
Should be home again in a week or so and then I'll have to move
everything back in.
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eeyore wrote:
[quote]Sam West wrote:
For example, William Mook, in conjunction with Boeing's Spectrolab and
MokEnergy, claims that he produces solar energy using equipment that
costs as little as $50 per peak kilowatt!
You pay for energy by the kilowatt hour not by the kilowatt !
As ever someone who hasn't a clue about scientific units.
[/quote]
You must be into pints. I've pointed out before that production cost is
measured in watts.
Try google, here is the URL if you haven't heard of it...
http://www.google.com
On the other hand William Mook's claim of 5 cents/watt is ludicrous. You
do know that Sam is Mook's sock puppet don't you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Lancaster wrote:
[quote]
Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
sink....
[/quote]
Hay Don,
Did you pull that number from your stinky place? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eeyore wrote:
[quote]DanB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Bolaleman wrote:
This photovoltaic solar panel array was created by Sunetric. It is
powerful."It's 146 kilowatts. It's made up of about 210 180 watt
panels. It's enough to power about 30 to 35 homes,” said Sean Mullen
of Sunetric.
Solar PV panels are HOPELESSLY inefficient.
Anyone thinking they are our saviour are ignorant non-scientific IDIOTS.
Graham
Wow Graham,
You are suddenly back!! Good to see you. Can't stay away from the pub,
ey?
Dan.
Hi Dan. Thanks for the welcome back. I've been very busy lately and
living elsewhere whilst my home is extensively renovated and relying on
a wi-fi connection of very variable quality and using a borrowed laptop
that needed <ahem> a little maintenance !
Should be home again in a week or so and then I'll have to move
everything back in.
[/quote]
Hay! Well I'm settling in for the Winter now. Our first real front and
it is windy as hell. NE az
<http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_ir_enh_west.html> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PV... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DanB <abc at (no spam) some.net> writes:
[quote]Don Lancaster wrote:
Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
sink....
Hay Don,
Did you pull that number from your stinky place?
[/quote]
It's pretty much dead on target if you pay any attention to amortizing the
investment. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PV... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AZ Nomad <aznomad.3 at (no spam) PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
[quote]about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
[/quote]
That's why Don talks about anything less than about a quarter a peak watt
being uneconomical. Only a fool builds a plant which will take decades, if
ever, to make back the investment. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanB... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PV wrote:
[quote]DanB <abc at (no spam) some.net> writes:
Don Lancaster wrote:
Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net energy
sink....
Hay Don,
Did you pull that number from your stinky place?
It's pretty much dead on target if you pay any attention to amortizing the
investment. *
[/quote]
Really! And as you have shown no numbers...
So take the 6kwh/day in AZ. 6 watthours/watt/day. In one year that is
2kwh. At 9 cents/kwh full payback is ~ a year and a half.
<http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/Table.html>
I will guess you are clueless as to what interest would look like on
that kind of time at the present rate.
I'll help you.
<http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx>
Do it with a kw. Put in $2500, 5%, 18 months and see what it would cost.
Stinky claim from you with, 'if you pay any attention to amortizing'.
Can you think for yourself? Do you really need to parrot Don without
checking the numbers?
(If you didn't understand the numbers, the interest is paid off in less
than a month. ~ 3 months at 50 cents/watt. It would take quite a bit
more in cost before you start chasing the interest.)
And if you haven't heard, producers are ready to get all over a buck a watt.
Don is a bible thumper of this guy:
<http://www.energyadvocate.com/bookxrpt.htm>
Do check your credibility at the door... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tj Frazir... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg Changed:4:43 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
175 MPG per -ton is the standard .
250 MPG at 277 HP and 400 mpg at 71 hp. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DanB wrote:
[quote]Don Lancaster wrote:
Anything over 25 cents per peak watt is a gasoline destroying net
energy sink....
Hay Don,
Did you pull that number from ...?
[/quote]
Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp
Breakeven is a system cost of $1 per peak watt which demands 50 cents
per peak watt for the panel.
Breakeven accomplishes nothing but "paint it green" peaking power.
Net energy from pv demands about half breakeven, or a quarter per peak
watt. And then not until many years after breakeven is achieved.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PV wrote:
[quote]AZ Nomad <aznomad.3 at (no spam) PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
That's why Don talks about anything less than about a quarter a peak watt
being uneconomical. Only a fool builds a plant which will take decades, if
ever, to make back the investment. *
[/quote]
Especially when it is reasonable to expect stunning advances in both
technology and learning curves in the next year or so.
Amortizing pv anything beyond two years today is monumentally stupid.
And stealing subsidies only makes it MUCH worse.
Think of conventional silicon pv as an ASR33 teletype with paper tape.
Try not to stand on the tape while it is feeding.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PV wrote:
[quote]AZ Nomad <aznomad.3 at (no spam) PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
about 4.5% return a year. Subtract from that maintenance, property, and power
transmission preparation and you might as well take the half million and burn
it. Would be a cheaper endeavor.
That's why Don talks about anything less than about a quarter a peak watt
being uneconomical. Only a fool builds a plant which will take decades, if
ever, to make back the investment. *
[/quote]
Um, anything MORE than about....
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DanB wrote:
[quote]
So take the 6kwh/day in AZ.
[/quote]
As the Springerville stats <http://www.greenwatts.com/Docs/TEPSolar.pdf>
clearly show, 4 to 5 kwh per day in arizona is typical and realistic.
At ten cents per kilowatt hour peaking equivalent, 40 cents per kilowatt
panel per day.
$12 per month.
Using http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html $1000 at 10 percent for 10
years amortizes out to around $12 per month. So, a dollar per peak watt
gives you breakeven for your total system cost.
The magic "holy grail" (but totally useless and to date unattainable)
number.
A kilowatt at the synchronous inverter terminals requires about ten
square meters of panels.
Which, of course means that your $1/peak watt pv system accomplishes
absolutely nothing.
For a dollar per peak watt total system cost, the panel cost has to be
something like fifty cents per peak watt. To accomplish absolutely
nothing but greenie feelgood.
At present, amortization of the retail price of the synchronous inverter
alone is high enough to consume the value of 150% or more of the pv
electricity sent through it. With FREE panels.
For net energy production, a quarter per peak watt panel cost is thus
reasonable. Net energy breakeven can only happen many years after a
quarter per watt is reached, owing to previous subsidy stupidies and
outrageous panel costs.
Anything less than net energy breakeven destroys gasoline and other
traditional energy sources for a net loss.
Every pv panel to date has a two position switch on it. Postition "A"
destroys a lot of gasoline. Position "B" destroys even more.
pv, of course, will have to become a MUCH GREATER energy sink long
before breakeven can be anticipated. Due to startup investment in CIGS
and other workable new technology.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
