12 million acre solar panel array

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 12 million acre solar panel array

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:07 am

On Jun 16, 7:39 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:49 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA
A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.
Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.
And where is all this hydrogen stored and then used for energy purposes?

Hydrogen gas is stored in geological formations - old gas wells
suitable for retrieval. Ammonia also provides a means to store it.
But lets get to the real nonsense first.

What are you going to do with all that chlorine gas that is generated
when electrolying that sea water?

I take the seawater and desalinate it before attempting to electrolyze
it. It takes between 17 kWh and 22 kWh to remove the 35 kg of salt
from a ton of water. The chlorine stays nicely bound to the sodium
and is either discharged back into the ocean, or dried and sold to
defray costs.

Alternatively, a portion of the brine solution can be electrolyzed as
you suggest. But brine electrolysis turns it into bleach (sodium
hydroxied and hydrochloric acid solution). The salt itself can also
be reduced into chlorine gas (which has a value to a variety of
industrial processes) and sodium metal (which is used in Sodium sulfur
batteries)

I know we use it to kill all those
latinos trying to slip into the USA over the border.
FK

That's a nasty and racist thing to say and wholly untrue.

Getting control of our border is not equivalent to an attack on Mexico
or Mexicans in the USy. Trans border commerce will continue long
after we get control of our mutual border and that commerce will
benefit both countries. Trans border crime on the other hand costs
lives and money to both countries..

The real solution is improving the economies of both nations and
increasing incomes for everyone - low cost pollution free energy
achieve this.

OK, so you didn't like my attempt at humor. But the facts of your
purported scientific system make me wonder if you have ever even taken
an introductory high school chemistry course. The fundamentals of
physics and chemistry seem to escape you totally.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't find the idea of gasing civilians with chlorine gas amusing.
Interesting that you do.

Otherwise your comment is noted. Also noted is that you provide no
pecific shortcomings. So apparently you say this, for the same reason
you make your jokes, just to relish in the false feeling of
superiority your words give you, You must a very sad and desperate
life. I feel sorry for you.

However, since I have working systems I obviously got the chemistry,
and everything else, right.

Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:14 am

On Jun 16, 7:44 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:

Williamknowsbest wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:07 am, Damon Hill <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4670A7F2.D6F8173F@hotmail.com:

Williamknowsbest wrote:
Underground formations are not like big open tanks. They're more like
sponges.
So you'll never get as much hydrogen out as you put in will you ?
He intends to make up for his losses in sheer volume, I suppose.

Thinkabout it Damon, only a fixed amount of hydrogen will be lost this
way. Once the well has been seasoned with hydrogen - it becomes an
efficient hydrogen storage and retrieval system allowing the injection
and retrieval of mobile hydrogen.

No worries about the hydrogen loss though, because in capturing the
hydrogen additional natural gas and oil are mobilized and available
for production which more than offsets my costs at $170 per metric
ton.

What I'm wondering is how William manages to do all the things he
claims to do, and still has time to write numerous and lengthy
Usenet postings on a daily basis.

Spoken as a true fool who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Is he a bright but delusional

And you are saying this because? lol.

kook, or a contemporary Renaissance Man? Time will tell.

haha.. sheer jealousy Damon, is that it? How about neither? But
one thing is certain, you won't tell, you haven't the capacity.

--Damon

shrug

nonsense! Once the "seasoning" has occured the adsorbtive properties of
the geological formation's have been totally use up. Now the rest of the
hydrogen you put in has no rock surfaces to adsorb on and so is similar
to any bulk container of hydrogen and any small crevices leading to the
surface will easily allow all of your precious hydrogen to leak away.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fred, you're a trip.

So, you agree that mobile gas is easily remove from the site without
loss after adsorption is complete.

Now as to your concerns about inadvertent loss, that concern is
misplaced.

Have you ever worked in the field exploring for oil and natural gas?
Obviously not.

Many newbies believe you can analyze the surface for telltale signs of
slight leaks of hydrocarbons to discover reserves beneath. Such is
not the case. Because any small crevice even the tiniest, leading to
the surface would also have released any oil and natural gas over
millions of years.

So, what you find is oil and natural gas bound tightly in formations
beneath the surface. No tiny crevices leading to the surface.

So, even small crevices do not exist. The only crevice is the rather
large one leading to the surface at the well head.

Even so, gas volumes are being monitored in the 10 test wells we have
to look for this possibility. Like I said, even a 1% or 2% loss per
millenium, would be acceptable, but that's on the high end, supposing
that well heads themselves lead to leaking around the points where
they penetrate the salt domes or clay overburden.

BradGuth

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:43 am

Guest

Willie Moo's "12 million acre solar panel array" should more than do
the trick of creating 19 TW worth of clean energy (more than 100% of
what we'll actually need in addition to what we already have going for
us). At such low energy density/m2 is in fact doable, and it's sort
of speak off-the-shelf, even if it's not worth 1% of the 40 kw/m2
footprint of energy density that's otherwise doable as also 100% clean
and renewable, especially if we're planning upon replacing coal, oil
and natural gas with his H2 and unavoidable NOx, without our having to
utilize all 12 million spendy acres.

It's not that mother Earth is in any shortage of solar energy. In
fact, it seems we've got a bit more than our fair share to deal with
that could be diverted into creating the extremely low density worth
of hydrogen.

Quote:

Well, he's right about the low density of hydrogen. A cubic meter of
oil masses between 862 kg and 788 kg depending on 'weight' - A barrel
is 0.15899 cubic meters. So a ton is between 7.30 and 7.98 barrels
of crude oil - depending on weight of oil.

A cubic meter of liquid hydrogen is 70 kg. - less than 1/10th the
density of oil. Hydrogen has a lot more energy per unit weight about
3.2x as much energy per unit weight - but on a volume basis it
contains only 26% of the energy of oil per cubic meter. That is it
takes 3.85 cubic meters of liquid hydrogen to carry the same energy as
a cubic meter of crude oil.

Coal weighs between 1,350 kg/m3 and 1,500 kg/m3 and has up to 23.5 GJ/
tonne.

Liquified Natural Gas masses 410 kg/m3 and 500 kg/m3 so it can have 21
GJ/tonne

Natural Gas at 1 bar 0.035 GJ/m3
Hydrogen Gas at 6 bar 0.038 GJ/m3

Hydrogen at 340 bar has 15 kg of gas per cubic meter - 2.17 GJ/m3
Hydrogen at 680 bar has 30 kg of gas per cubic meter - 4.34 GJ/m3
Liquid hydrogen as 70 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter - 9.93 GJ/m3

Ammonia masses 681.9 kg per cubic meter - 15.34 GJ/m3
LNG masses 410 kg/m3 to 500 kg/m3 21.00 GJ/m3
Borazane 156 kg per m3 hydrogen 22.12 GJ/m3

Coal contains 1,350 to 1,500 kg per cubic meter 35.25 GJ/m3
Oil contans on average 6.29 bbls per cubic meter 38.37 GJ/m3

Low density of natural gas doesn't seem to bet a killer for statioanry
applications. After all 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas - a volume of
178 barrels - contains only 1/6th the energy of a single barrel of
oil.

So, while much is made of the volumetric energy density of hydrogen as
a practical matter it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. And
there are hydrogen carriers like ammonia and borazane that are as easy
to handle as LNG in one case, and coal in the other - and have
reasonable volumetric energy densities.
-

Your Zion like naysayism pertaining to the excluding and/or banishing
of hydrogen peroxide is noted. Unfortunately, without my 40 kw/m2
footprint of 100% renewable energy to burn off as clean electrons
(sort of speak), there's simply not enough spare/surplus energy on
Earth in order to generate sufficient volumes and/or mass of H2
without taking energy away form other needs that are critical to
sustaining life as we know it.

However, the necessary storage and distribution of LH2, of which
obviously has to at some point become H2, is in fact a very big and
spendy problem that yourself and most others haven't resolved, not
that such couldn't be affordably managed if our collective minds and
best of intentions were honestly put to the task.

But on the other hand, the liquid of H2O2 offers almost none of the
compromises of dealing with pure hydrogen, much less of LH2, as well
as damn little if any chance of h2o2 introducing NOx or even any CO2
when burned entirely by itself because, there's simply no carbon to
behold within the formula of h2o2, that is unless added by the likes
of including c12h26(diesel/kerosene/JP4) in the combustion process,
which still isn't introducing any NOx, and otherwise contributing only
the least amount of relatively clean CO2 per given unit of work.

Not that this energy traumatised world that's going GW postal and
otherwise NOx toxic couldn't otherwise properly utilize a few mega
ship loads of LH2 from China, and otherwise consumed by the tonne(s)
per second, but as for us end-users that are insisting upon being on
the go in our Hummers (even if for no apparent good reason), is why we
need to apply the much better energy density and storage and multi-use
capability of h2o2. The h2o2 yaysay issues far outweighs the naysay,
especially when commercially utilized along with the likes of nasty
coal, as well as most any other carbon based fuel or bio-fuel
alternative, if not best utilized as within the rather impressive
energy density of the h2o2/aluminum battery.

Unlike your narrow minded self that's all H2 or nothing, I'm not the
least bit opposed to creating and properly utilizing H2, although much
like nuclear energy at potentially supplying 10% of our global demands
is perhaps twice the amount we can afford to have as via H2. 5% of
130 TeraWatts = 6.5 TeraWatts, whereas at the all inclusive birth to
grave process of having to create, storing, distributing and the more
complex process of consuming H2 should only represent 12 TeraWatts.
Silly me, I guess that I simply didn't know that we had those 5.5
TeraWatts to spare without incorporating my 40 kw/m2 footprint of 100%
renewable energy that either goes directly onto the grid or is
supplying local needs of electrical energy without any further
conversion losses.

Besides your continual creation of various NOx via the H2+atmosphere
combustion process, by any chance are you and others of your kind
trying to control the past?

Why not a viable compromise; instead of H2+atmosphere we otherwise
burn modified water, as having zero NOx and zero CO2 unless adding
some kind of fluid carbon energy boost?

BTW You supposedly green energy folks that are out to save mother
Earth from the like of humanity simply can not replace one or another
given resource of energy (such as coal, oil, NG or even nuclear) with
yet another form that essentially takes nearly twice the raw energy as
mostly derived from coal, oil and NG in order to create such a
replacement fuel in the first place. However, you can safely divert
the new and improved worth of whatever's renewable and otherwise of
whatever's truly of spare/surplus energy into creating the likes of
LH2 and H2O2.

The last time I'd checked, at least on behalf of us village idiots
within America and of most other nations have no such spare/surplus
energy to beg or otherwise borrow from. As it stands, every KWhr
we've got is insufficient, and only getting worse off. In other
words; taking from Peter to pay Paul isn't exactly a good plan of
action unless Warren Buffet and myself provide the vast bulk of the
100% renewable energy at sufficient levels above the basic needs of
whatever's otherwise consumed by us end-users, that pretty much like
to waste nearly 90% of most everything because we obviously can not
make due.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 12, 7:24 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA

A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.

Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.

Atmospheric nitrogen is used along with the solar hydrogen to create
5.7 million tons of ammonia and encapsulated hydrazine mix each day.
That ammonia goes to all of America's stationary power plants by
pipeline.

There a portion of the ammonia is decomposed into nitrogen and
hydrogen again, through an autocatalytic reaction sustained by the
decomposition of hydrazine in the line using a special mechanism that
ruptures the encapsulant with standing sound waves..

PORTABLE AND MOBILE POWER FROM THE SUN

A portion of the liquid ammonia and encapsulated hydrazine mix is used
to charge a patented polymeric boron film forming a polymeric borazane
film after reacting with the hydrogen. The hydrazine encapsulated in
the film is imbeded in the porous matrix. This film is rolled into
cannisters and used to power electric vehicles and in other portable
electric applications throughout America.

The film is unrolled through pinch rollers requiring little power,
release the hydrazine which heats the film to 170C. Hydrogen is
released from the film at that temperature as it passes between
electrodes that capture an electric current and form water from
hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen before the film is rolled to a takeup
reel. Water vapor is emitted from the electrodes which operate at
170C.

A 15 kg cannister 20 cm in diameter and 100 cm long produces 102 kWh
of electrical energy on demand in amounts ranging from 100 W to
100,000 W depending on roller speed and have an unlimited shelf life
after the date of manufacture. .

When the film is processed for its hydrogen the spent film is then
rewound into the cannister and then replaced with fresh film. The
spent film is sent to a processing center near the ammonia burning
power plant and it is unwound and cleaned. The spent film is then
heated to over 320C - where the nitrogen is evolved from boron laden
film. The spent film is then cooled and run thorugh a bath of ammonia
and hydrazine where it is chemically recharged for reuse. The
recharged film is then rolled again into a cannister and resold. The
process may be repeated over 10,000 times before the film is no longer
active.

Films range in size from 100 kW down to milliwatts - miniature film
transports that provide power to cell phones, and other portable
electronics reliably for years, and then are cheaply replaced. Smaller
devices may have disposable films which waste boron, but are still
less expensive than any existing form of battery, and have greater
power density and shelf life than any battery.

PERSONAL ENERGY FREEDOM

Eventually MEMs based microchannel chemical technology permits the
development of dispersed solar power systems based on the present
technology just described allowing it to be safely dispersed in a home
energy appliance.

Solar panels in individual homes operate small furnace sized chemical
plants that produce ammonia and hydrazine compounds from air and water
using sunlight. Operating in sealed containers for safety and
reliability.

The ammonia and hydrazine made here are used to recharge borazane
films using the technology just desribed. The furnace sized devices
house six cylinders and can recharge one every other day. 12
additional cylinders may be stored nearby, a total of 18 cylinders
provide a month's supply of energy for an independent home.

The cylinders power homes and vehicles, appliances and equipment.

A typical home would have 24 panels each 8' x 4' covering an area of
768 square feet of ground area - an area 32 feet by 24 feet.

Depending on location up to 81 kWh are produced each day from this
array in North America. This is enough to recharge a cannister just
described, every 2 days.

A single cannister drives an EV over 480 km, and powers a typical home
for more than 4 days.

The average American household in 2000AD drove 26,300 miles. That's
one cannister every 4 days as well - so a cannister produced every 2
days provides sufficient capacity to provide for all energy needs of a
typical American household with 2 automobiles.

jerome balti

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:55 pm

Guest

Quote:

This means it can get closer to sand particles even through a layer of
oily gunk - and attach with greater adhesion than anything else

yes , and maybe ,a bit difficult to get it back

Quote:

through common steel too

Yes do you know why? First is that hydrogen is very penetrating like

i have some idea, though no one exactly figures out precisely what
happens when H2 molecules split and then protons move around in many
metals

Quote:

Jerome, your analysis is facile and flawed because your knowledge is
juvenile..

well, just worked on hydrogen absorption/adsorption, in metal alloys
for some years and ended it with a PhD , though I know I still have not
gone around all of it ...

so, yes , embritllement, leaks, can be avoided , plane fly safely and
methane tankers no longer mysteriously snap in the middle of the ocean,
but , yes , you need always be careful

Quote:

commercial use. Those issues have largely been resolved.over the past
15 years.

(dangerous) town gas was H2+CO and il much older than that, so yes
practical problems for pipes etc are solved ;-)

Quote:

That's because hydrogen is a molecule like any other

yes ans no, it can react , and when splitted , you have single protons
that can go anywhere . Nirogen (example) can be absorbed too , but it's
not so easy

--
Vacances à Oléron !
http://www.26266.ikoula.org/oleron/

Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:43 pm

On Jun 17, 7:55 pm, jerome balti <baltibl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

This means it can get closer to sand particles even through a layer of
oily gunk - and attach with greater adhesion than anything else

yes , and maybe ,a bit difficult to get it back

No, the oily gunk becomes mobilzed and is then produced, increasing
the production of tired old wells. The hydrogen remains immobile, and
is never returrned. No matter at $170 per ton, the value of the oil
and NG produced more than pays for it. The real benefit comes when
MORE hydrogen gas is pumped in. THAT hydrogen gas is now mobile and
can EASILY be withdrawn with very little trouble.

So, this is a process whereby money can be made by creating undergound
hydrogen storage sites. And in this way a 100 day supply of hydrogen
gas will be created for the US when it relies 100% on hydrogen.

Quote:

through common steel too

Yes do you know why? First is that hydrogen is very penetrating like

i have some idea, though no one exactly figures out precisely what
happens

Yes they have. Precisely.

Quote:

when H2 molecules split and then protons move around in many
metals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Here read something before you post.

Quote:

Jerome, your analysis is facile and flawed because your knowledge is
juvenile..

well, just worked on hydrogen absorption/adsorption, in metal alloys
for some years and ended it with a PhD , though I know I still have not
gone around all of it ...

hmm.. You don't sound like you're knowledgeable about how
embrittlement is addressed in the hydrogen gas industry. Why are you
being so obtuse? Implying things that are manifestly false? Just to
argue pointlessly?

Hydrogen embrittlement is not an issue in handling large quantities
of hydrogen gas these days if the right precautions are taken when
building the equipment. As a PhD who specializes in this field,
according to what you said, you don't need me to tell you that.

Quote:

so, yes , embritllement, leaks, can be avoided , plane fly safely and
methane tankers no longer mysteriously snap in the middle of the ocean,
but , yes , you need always be careful

Thank you.

Quote:

commercial use. Those issues have largely been resolved.over the past
15 years.

(dangerous) town gas was H2+CO and il much older than that, so yes
practical problems for pipes etc are solved Wink

That's right.

Quote:

That's because hydrogen is a molecule like any other

yes ans no, it can react , and when splitted , you have single protons
that can go anywhere . Nirogen (example) can be absorbed too , but it's
not so easy

Yes.

Quote:

--
Vacances à Oléron !http://www.26266.ikoula.org/oleron/

RadicalModerate

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:02 pm

Guest

In article <1181778228.742705.92630@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com> you wrote:

Quote:

Getting control of our border is not equivalent to an attack on Mexico
or Mexicans in the USy. Trans border commerce will continue long
after we get control of our mutual border and that commerce will
benefit both countries. Trans border crime on the other hand costs
lives and money to both countries..

Do bear in mind many Mexicans have been taught the United States "stole"
half of Mexico from them via the Mexican American War; can you say
"Aztlan"?
A project the size you describe will require the USA to get a grip on the
Southern Border to prevent sabotage.

Quote:

The real solution is improving the economies of both nations and
increasing incomes for everyone - low cost pollution free energy
achieve this.

The "narco-terrorists" will have to be decisively dealt with;
frankly I don't think the Mexican governement is up to the job.

--
The published From: address is a trap.

RadicalModerate

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:07 pm

Guest

To Wm Mook:
IS this your (family) company?

Mook Industries
4449-T Easton Way
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: 614-934-xxxx
Fax: 614-934-xxxx

Source: Thomas Register

--
The published From: address is a trap.

Don Lancaster

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:21 am

Guest

RadicalModerate wrote:

Quote:

Trans border crime on the other hand costs
lives and money to both countries..

The word "crime" should be replaced by "finding a need and filling it".

No "need", no "crime.

Entruprenuership at its very best.

--
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@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

BradGuth

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:54 pm

Guest

I've got multiple unpopulated and otherwise tax free tracks of 12
million acres each.

What's the all-inclusive (meaning birth to grave) investment and
annual sustaining effort of pulling all available solar energy into
making H2/LH2?

Are we talking less than 6 figures per acre, or is it 7 figures?

The do-everything cost per acre = $???,???.00
-
Brad Guth

Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:50 pm

On Jun 12, 10:24 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Good Lord, what a terrible enviormental disaster a project like this
could create!

The public is already protesting the creation of hydro-electric dams.
Can you even imagine the protests that a project of this scale would
generate!

How about trying a pilot program, say 500 acres in the middle of
California?
See what the public reaction is.

Harry C.

Don Lancaster

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:41 am

Guest

hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 12, 10:24 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA

A twelve million acre solar panel array is proposed stretching 1,951
miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. It is some of the
sunniest lands in the US. It consists of a 10 mile wide swath. Using
16.4 billion panels and generating 8.8 trillion watts when the sun
shines, the system produces 1,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per day
with a heat value equivalent to 23.2 million barrels of oil.

Hydrogen is generated from water drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the
RioGrande River, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean, along
with numerous rivers and streams, and water wells drilled in the
region.

Atmospheric nitrogen is used along with the solar hydrogen to create
5.7 million tons of ammonia and encapsulated hydrazine mix each day.
That ammonia goes to all of America's stationary power plants by
pipeline.

There a portion of the ammonia is decomposed into nitrogen and
hydrogen again, through an autocatalytic reaction sustained by the
decomposition of hydrazine in the line using a special mechanism that
ruptures the encapsulant with standing sound waves..

PORTABLE AND MOBILE POWER FROM THE SUN

A portion of the liquid ammonia and encapsulated hydrazine mix is used
to charge a patented polymeric boron film forming a polymeric borazane
film after reacting with the hydrogen. The hydrazine encapsulated in
the film is imbeded in the porous matrix. This film is rolled into
cannisters and used to power electric vehicles and in other portable
electric applications throughout America.

The film is unrolled through pinch rollers requiring little power,
release the hydrazine which heats the film to 170C. Hydrogen is
released from the film at that temperature as it passes between
electrodes that capture an electric current and form water from
hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen before the film is rolled to a takeup
reel. Water vapor is emitted from the electrodes which operate at
170C.

A 15 kg cannister 20 cm in diameter and 100 cm long produces 102 kWh
of electrical energy on demand in amounts ranging from 100 W to
100,000 W depending on roller speed and have an unlimited shelf life
after the date of manufacture. .

When the film is processed for its hydrogen the spent film is then
rewound into the cannister and then replaced with fresh film. The
spent film is sent to a processing center near the ammonia burning
power plant and it is unwound and cleaned. The spent film is then
heated to over 320C - where the nitrogen is evolved from boron laden
film. The spent film is then cooled and run thorugh a bath of ammonia
and hydrazine where it is chemically recharged for reuse. The
recharged film is then rolled again into a cannister and resold. The
process may be repeated over 10,000 times before the film is no longer
active.

Films range in size from 100 kW down to milliwatts - miniature film
transports that provide power to cell phones, and other portable
electronics reliably for years, and then are cheaply replaced. Smaller
devices may have disposable films which waste boron, but are still
less expensive than any existing form of battery, and have greater
power density and shelf life than any battery.

PERSONAL ENERGY FREEDOM

Eventually MEMs based microchannel chemical technology permits the
development of dispersed solar power systems based on the present
technology just described allowing it to be safely dispersed in a home
energy appliance.

Solar panels in individual homes operate small furnace sized chemical
plants that produce ammonia and hydrazine compounds from air and water
using sunlight. Operating in sealed containers for safety and
reliability.

The ammonia and hydrazine made here are used to recharge borazane
films using the technology just desribed. The furnace sized devices
house six cylinders and can recharge one every other day. 12
additional cylinders may be stored nearby, a total of 18 cylinders
provide a month's supply of energy for an independent home.

The cylinders power homes and vehicles, appliances and equipment.

A typical home would have 24 panels each 8' x 4' covering an area of
768 square feet of ground area - an area 32 feet by 24 feet.

Depending on location up to 81 kWh are produced each day from this
array in North America. This is enough to recharge a cannister just
described, every 2 days.

A single cannister drives an EV over 480 km, and powers a typical home
for more than 4 days.

The average American household in 2000AD drove 26,300 miles. That's
one cannister every 4 days as well - so a cannister produced every 2
days provides sufficient capacity to provide for all energy needs of a
typical American household with 2 automobiles.

Good Lord, what a terrible enviormental disaster a project like this
could create!

The public is already protesting the creation of hydro-electric dams.
Can you even imagine the protests that a project of this scale would
generate!

How about trying a pilot program, say 500 acres in the middle of
California?
See what the public reaction is.

Harry C.

No means is known to produce net energy pv.

When properly full burden accounted.

It flat out has NEVER happened with conventional silicon pv and is
highly unlikely ever to.

The system as described above is a humongous gasoline destoying net
energy sink. Building it would constitute a criminal act.

http://www.tinja.com/glib/energyfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

--
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@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:27 pm Science Forum Index