| Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Honda Fcx Clarity First Hydrogen Car... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sam West... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 6:39 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote:62dc645ee0]On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:07:50 -0700, Don Lancaster wrote:
PV wrote:
Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
I recall a paper I read by Mr. Mook that said there is a carbon
component to making a solar panel. Mr. Mook's CPV panels operate a
5,800x solar intensity. That means they avoid all the carbon it cost
making them in about a day.
What does solar magnification have to do with the energy and resources
needed to build a panel? *
One of the many, many unsolved problems with pv magnification is this:
If you turn off the output, the panel melts.
First, there has to be a panel.
[/quote:62dc645ee0]
http://twitpic.com/photos/williammook
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20047598/Mook-Patent-Application
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbWNnVsBhOg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 8, 11:40 am, Don Lancaster <d... at (no spam) tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote:f33579fa42]Sam West wrote:
The carbon footprint comes from the mass of silicon used. A ton of
silicon consumes a ton of carbon. Reduce the area and the mass of
silicon is reduced. Reduce the mass of silicon and carbon mass is
reduced.
The silicon carbon is utterly negligible compared to the amortization
carbon. It is noise on the graph.
--
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: d... at (no spam) tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
[/quote:f33579fa42]
There you have it, Don admits he's over-estimating the carbon to force
his stupid point down our throats.
Your GURU's lair has gotten wrong from the very start - its full of
shit.
Check it out. I'll take the cheapest carbon and the most expensive
solar panel and wildly over-estimate the carbon and see what happens.
The cheapest carbon around is coal. The place to buy it at the lowest
possible price is the mine site. The DOE says coal costs $25 a ton at
the mine in 2008.
The cost of a kilowatt of installed capacity is $3,500 using
conventional PV technology.
A wild over-estimate of carbon is 140 tons. This is 80x the carbon
estimated before using a rational analysis of actual carbon produced
in making the panel.
Don's foolishly wild over-estimate which Don is wrongly pushing down
out throats is saying ALL the panel's cost pays for coal at the mine
site which gets burned and put into the air.
This cannot be the case, but that doesnt' stop Don from lying about
this.
A kilo-watt of panels generates 1,300 kWh in Ohio and 1,700 kWh out
West. Each year the electricity produced by the solar panels avoids
the combustion of 0.27 metric tons in Arizona and 0.20 metric tons in
Ohio. Over 30 years that adds up to between 6 and 8 metric tons of
carbon avoided.
So, this is what he's talking about.
Of course, the actual carbon footprint is not nearly as high as Don
says.
Don's estimate is 100x too big.
Divide the over-estimate by 100 an get carbon equivalence in about 9
to 12 months with conventional panels.
Now look at Mook's CPV technology. Mook claims $70 per kilowatt
capacity. Even if the dumb lie Don keeps repeating is true and every
single penny spent on these panels went to pay to burn coal at the
lowest possible price (no provision even for the match to set it
afire) then no more than 2.8 tons could possible be put into the air.
Even this wild over-estimate gets balanced out in 10 years. Of course
this estimate here is 180x too high and actual carbon footprint gets
balanced out in a week |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam West... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don,
Why in heaven's name would anyone hire you or Synergetics since you
and your buddies have admitted you don't even have knowledge high-
school chemistry let alone any deeper knowledge that would keep from
being anything other than a load on anyone's backside that was foolish
enough to ever hire you for any damned thing? Your Guru's Lair is a
load of shit - its got to hurt you more than help if anyone who knows
anything actually took the trouble to read it. You freaking moron. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sam West wrote:
[quote:5029e8c753]The carbon footprint comes from the mass of silicon used. A ton of
silicon consumes a ton of carbon. Reduce the area and the mass of
silicon is reduced. Reduce the mass of silicon and carbon mass is
reduced.
[/quote:5029e8c753]
The silicon carbon is utterly negligible compared to the amortization
carbon. It is noise on the graph.
--
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 |
|
|
|
| PV... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote:58a79e3e81]Why in heaven's name would anyone hire you or Synergetics since you
and your buddies have admitted you don't even have knowledge high-
school chemistry let alone any deeper knowledge that would keep from
[/quote:58a79e3e81]
I'm not Don, shithead. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tj Frazir... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
40 billion tons coČ
On a 2 trillion tree planet that eats 2 trillion tons year. With a
sea that eats 8 tillion tons a year.
In a 5.7 quadrillion ton sky.
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
