What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:18:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:









On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
Ohhh sorrrrry chops..   here pull my finger!

Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.

What claim? exactly.

Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 9, 11:35 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh it's steady $4K a week last few months.

I've bought a house with only a few thousand in cash.  If you really
had that income, you could have bought a house long ago, got a 10 year
mortgage on it, and be well on your way to financial independence.
Instead, you live in a shed, crap in one corner of it, shower with a
hose a few feet away, and dream of the day you move into a cheap
trailer.  That's both very sad and a bit hilarious.

It's not that bad, just setting up a weekender.

Next week I pick up my 10 Amorphous Solar Panels and 1500W inverter
and can pressure clean the gutters, then connect the tank to roof and
then go anywhere!

I stay at the coast in $200/nite penthouses half the time. Had a King
Sized Spa this week!

but I prefer having 5 miles to the nearest neighbour so I can work on
my perpetual motion and

AA Battery Powered Fridge!

http://camaffiliate.com/DRY-AIR-INTAKE.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/INTERNAL-EVAPORATION-UNIT.jpg



Just using a Shielded USB Cable and stuck the modem on the window!

http://camaffiliate.com/SHED-CORNER.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/Gray-July2012.jpg

The OBESE GUY!

Herc.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 12, 6:57 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 7/11/2012 7:40 PM, Clocky wrote:


Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the
next ten years, domestic solar power will have an
unsubsidised cost that is below the daytime domestic grid
tarrif. I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised".. I
mean
that the equipment can be bought and installed without a
contribution from either the government or the suppliers(s)
of electricity. I'm also assuming that customers will be
able to net off their daytime electricity consumption by
selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the same
price as they'd buy it at that time of day. There are
arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to let
the consumer have electricity for less than the grid price
while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would
anticipate a move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the less
capital intensive, and less energy efficient, generation
plant. That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh
than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have
to wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved by
having the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of the
less efficient generators? The cost of this less efficiently
generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power during
the day will go up, thus further pushing the installation of
solar panels. Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar
panels with a simple net-off of consumption. For some
bizarre reason, governments still want to help create the
problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by subsidising
installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer. I'm left
wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it
providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and
utter waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
are a problem? Sylvia.

**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver,
your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests you
will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2
emissions. If several million car owners did the same thing,
the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than driving
a $500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the life of the
Volt and the solar array.

**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than
the life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously
reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I
get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep on the road.

**Prove it.

Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's
language. Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.

I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that
remains a fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which
is, in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.

, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where
maximum torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

**Bollocks. Electric motors are quite unlike IC motors, in that
maximum torque is generated at zero RPM and continues all the way to
maximum, with virtually no fall-off.

Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.

Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-un....

4,500Nm or torque seems like quite a bit to me. Not enough for you?

The figure seems over-stated to me. 450Nm sound closer to reality.
Still, that's plenty of torque for pulling the skin off a rice
pudding.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

  but you lap them up regardless.
Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my
breath.

**I note that Gordon has done just that.

The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything
like the range or performance out of the thing with a load like
that.

**I suggest you do some learning about electric motors. In any
case, I was simply addressing your claim:

I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?

"Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard."

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow
anything... I'm waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?

We were talking about cars, you know, vehicles designed to carry passengers.

**Like the Tesla Roadster? You have still not explained how a vehicle
with no torgue (like the Tesla) is able to accelerate a 1.2 Tonne car to
100kph in 3.7 seconds.



A couple of minutes towing a load on the back of an electric truck might
impress you, but unless it can do that at speed for a couple of hours it's
just propaganda.

**It shows that an electric automobile can possess excellent towing ability.

Why don't you run a cable to it like The Delorean?

Herc

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/07/2012 5:59 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.


What claim? exactly.

Exactly this one, made by you a few posts back.

"The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! It's clean!"

Sylvia

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 12, 11:44 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 12/07/2012 5:59 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.

What claim?  exactly.

Exactly this one, made by you a few posts back.

"The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"

Sylvia

True statement!

As I said.. even it was an issue, it just raises the question whether
it is necessary to supply O2 Tanks on top of H2.

Herc

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/07/2012 6:04 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

"The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! It's clean!"

True statement!

As I said.. even it was an issue, it just raises the question whether
it is necessary to supply O2 Tanks on top of H2.

Herc

I think Rotary Engines are more suitable for H2, I heard the fuel
intake is separate to the combustion section so it can handle higher
temperatures.

but H2 is the Hard Problem! It's not TOO HARD - 2H. It's H2! |

*****

The Easy Problem is 80% of car usage is <50km at 60km/hour with one
person load.

If people had short range city cars (ELECTRIC) and H2 for the highway
and towing, then Electric is ideal for a city environment!

The problem is "competition", the govt. has to level the field. When
Volvo brought out cars 30% heavier than the norm they fared better in
front on crashes! 10G impact if it slows you down, the smaller car
suffers 30G impact going from forward to backward in the same time
frame.

With specialised cars for short range in cities, and H2 for highways,
you could abandon the 1 tonne 4WD style for Electrics, go for a Dune
Buggy style with a compact perspex shell. Keeps pollution out of the
city too!

Yes, keeps it firmly where it belongs - either around the coal-fired
power stations used to generate the electricity for electrolysis, or
around the steam reformation plants.

Sylvia.

 

[Graham Cooper]

"The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"

True statement!

As I said.. even it was an issue, it just raises the question whether
it is necessary to supply O2 Tanks on top of H2.

Herc

I think Rotary Engines are more suitable for H2, I heard the fuel
intake is separate to the combustion section so it can handle higher
temperatures.

but H2 is the Hard Problem! It's not TOO HARD - 2H. It's H2! |

*****

The Easy Problem is 80% of car usage is <50km at 60km/hour with one
person load.

If people had short range city cars (ELECTRIC) and H2 for the highway
and towing, then Electric is ideal for a city environment!

The problem is "competition", the govt. has to level the field. When
Volvo brought out cars 30% heavier than the norm they fared better in
front on crashes! 10G impact if it slows you down, the smaller car
suffers 30G impact going from forward to backward in the same time
frame.

With specialised cars for short range in cities, and H2 for highways,
you could abandon the 1 tonne 4WD style for Electrics, go for a Dune
Buggy style with a compact perspex shell. Keeps pollution out of the
city too!

Herc

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-07-11, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

No reason (apart from cost) that cars of this class cannot be fitted
with a modern efficient auto gearbox. Modern engines warm up fast, the
ECU changes the mixture and timing to promote this, my Forrester (a not
particularly frugal car) is up to working temperature not much more than
500 metres after backing out of the drive.

**I don't know the Forrester, but I've never seen an engine reach
operating temperature that quickly (in cool weather). I feel compelled
to doubt your claim. I would expect several km would be about right. The
Blue Motion engine would likely warm up faste, due to it's small block
mass.

it's pretty amazing what can be done, an engine can be convinced to
produce significantly more heat (and less mechanical energy) merely by
delaying the spark by 15 degrees and opening the throttle a bit.

I discovered this by accident about 9 years ago.

I am not totally convinced by some of the technology used in this type
of vehicle. Stopping the engine when you come to a halt for instance is
fine when you stop at the traffic lights, but how does it hold up when
you are trying to turn right across heavy oncoming traffic?

**Good point. Perhaps the indicator cancels the engine management in
this area? Those whacky Germans are pretty good at ensuring stupid
mistakes are not made when releasing new techology. Mostly.


BTW: I do not hold the Volt up as the ultimate solution to an
alternative powered vehicle. It is simply ONE possible solution. As I
have stated before, a small Deisel/electric vehicle makes more sense
IMO. VW's experience in this area would suggest an impressive result.

Another cost consideration with electric or hybrid vehicles is the
lifetime of the Lion batteries, they are very expensive, and, as any
laptop owner knows, their capacity diminishes with use. This is
exacerbated by high ambient temperatures such as we experience in
Australia.

**Indeed. Nonetheless, given the rising cost of oil, research is likely
to continue. Hybrids, in their present form, may not represent the
answer to the problems. Standard IC engines are unlikely to represent
the future either.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 12, 6:50 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 12/07/2012 6:04 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

"The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"

True statement!

As I said.. even it was an issue, it just raises the question whether
it is necessary to supply O2 Tanks on top of H2.

Herc

I think Rotary Engines are more suitable for H2, I heard the fuel
intake is separate to the combustion section so it can handle higher
temperatures.

but H2 is the Hard Problem!  It's not TOO HARD - 2H.  It's H2!   |

  *****

The Easy Problem is 80% of car usage is <50km at 60km/hour with one
person load.

If people had short range city cars (ELECTRIC) and H2 for the highway
and towing, then Electric is ideal for a city environment!

The problem is "competition", the govt. has to level the field.  When
Volvo brought out cars 30% heavier than the norm they fared better in
front on crashes!  10G impact if it slows you down, the smaller car
suffers 30G impact going from forward to backward in the same time
frame.

With specialised cars for short range in cities, and H2 for highways,
you could abandon the 1 tonne 4WD style for Electrics, go for a Dune
Buggy style with a compact perspex shell.   Keeps pollution out of the
city too!

Yes, keeps it firmly where it belongs - either around the coal-fired
power stations used to generate the electricity for electrolysis, or
around the steam reformation plants.

Sylvia.

electricity for electrolysis is not a 24 hour application.

You need to get some sun.

Herc

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 9, 11:35 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh it's steady $4K a week last few months.

I've bought a house with only a few thousand in cash. If you really
had that income, you could have bought a house long ago, got a 10
year mortgage on it, and be well on your way to financial
independence. Instead, you live in a shed, crap in one corner of it,
shower with a hose a few feet away, and dream of the day you move
into a cheap trailer. That's both very sad and a bit hilarious.


It's not that bad, just setting up a weekender.

Next week I pick up my 10 Amorphous Solar Panels and 1500W inverter
and can pressure clean the gutters, then connect the tank to roof and
then go anywhere!

I stay at the coast in $200/nite penthouses half the time. Had a King
Sized Spa this week!

but I prefer having 5 miles to the nearest neighbour so I can work on
my perpetual motion and

AA Battery Powered Fridge!

http://camaffiliate.com/DRY-AIR-INTAKE.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/INTERNAL-EVAPORATION-UNIT.jpg

What is it keeping cold exactly? Is it even cold? Hard to tell anything from
those pics.

Just using a Shielded USB Cable and stuck the modem on the window!

http://camaffiliate.com/SHED-CORNER.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/Gray-July2012.jpg

The OBESE GUY!

Are you using an eeePC?

 

[Gordon Levi]

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

Until you can get a battery supply that can be "refilled" as fast as current fuel, (including at the roadside, if the battery runs out),

"Better Place" has solved the former
<http://www.betterplace.com/the-solution-switch-stations> and, once
battery swap stations are as common as petrol stations, there is no
reason why roadside assist vans cannot carry a battery, or charge
yours, so that you could get to the nearest one.

can go a similar distance with a similar vehicle weight and carrying capacity as current fuels,

That is not a universal requirement. The "Better Place" target market
is the urban dweller that needs a car to get to work but the electric
car could equally well appeal to those that use a second car for local
transport.

last as long as current engine technologies before needing battery replacements,

We are there. How about 200,000 miles
<http://www.betterplace.com/the-solution-batteries>?

and cost similar amount,

Electric cars are simpler than carbon fueled cars and there is every
reason to suppose they will cost less once there is a mass market.

as well as lower or similar running costs,

The cost of electricity to power an engine is much cheaper than the
cost of petrol although that is partly because of fuel taxes. Have you
wondered why you can't plug a hybrid car into the mains without
voiding your warrantee?

you are well and truly in dream world.

That's a nice place to be!

 

[Gordon Levi]

keithr <user@domain.invalid> wrote:

I am not totally convinced by some of the technology used in this type
of vehicle. Stopping the engine when you come to a halt for instance is
fine when you stop at the traffic lights, but how does it hold up when
you are trying to turn right across heavy oncoming traffic?

It's fine. I drove a BMW 1 Series recently and it restarts with no
noticeable delay. It was very disconcerting at first because, in
addition to the worry about restarting it, when the engine stops you
think you have stalled it.

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:18:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:









On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
Ohhh sorrrrry chops..   here pull my finger!

Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.

What claim? exactly.

ADD getting you down? It's right there at the top: "The H2
engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"
Although the first sentence is correct (but would also be
correct for any existing IC engine, since one of the exhaust
components resulting from burning hydrocarbons is water,
making it irrelevant), the second is not, since NOx isn't
"clean" by anyone's definition.

Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.

Missed that part about Wiki not being a comprehensive
source, did you? ADD again? Or did you actually mean
"relatively clean" and just got carried away by the wonder
of it all?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/12/2012 9:19 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2012-07-11, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

No reason (apart from cost) that cars of this class cannot be fitted
with a modern efficient auto gearbox. Modern engines warm up fast, the
ECU changes the mixture and timing to promote this, my Forrester (a not
particularly frugal car) is up to working temperature not much more than
500 metres after backing out of the drive.

**I don't know the Forrester, but I've never seen an engine reach
operating temperature that quickly (in cool weather). I feel compelled
to doubt your claim. I would expect several km would be about right. The
Blue Motion engine would likely warm up faste, due to it's small block
mass.

it's pretty amazing what can be done, an engine can be convinced to
produce significantly more heat (and less mechanical energy) merely by
delaying the spark by 15 degrees and opening the throttle a bit.

I discovered this by accident about 9 years ago.

**No doubt. I doubt that the many kg of block mass (and coolant) can be
heated up so rapidly though.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 13, 2:58 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:



On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:18:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
Ohhh sorrrrry chops..   here pull my finger!

Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.
What claim?  exactly.

ADD getting you down? It's right there at the top: "The H2
engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!"
Although the first sentence is correct (but would also be
correct for any existing IC engine, since one of the exhaust
components resulting from burning hydrocarbons is water,
making it irrelevant), the second is not, since NOx isn't
"clean" by anyone's definition.

Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.

Missed that part about Wiki not being a comprehensive
source, did you? ADD again? Or did you actually mean
"relatively clean" and just got carried away by the wonder
of it all?

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 12, 11:29 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

Graham Cooper wrote:

AA Battery Powered Fridge!

http://camaffiliate.com/DRY-AIR-INTAKE.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/INTERNAL-EVAPORATION-UNIT.jpg

What is it keeping cold exactly? Is it even cold? Hard to tell anything from
those pics.

Can of coke in the bottom sitting in 3 inches of water.

The temp drops instantly.

The 1st experiment I just recycled 25 degree water into a 12 shower,
through 1 foot of air pointing back down into the basin.

Dropped 5 degrees in 10 minutes.

EVAP Coolers cool the air. I'm catching the cold water droplets and
separating that from the humid air bi-product.

Just using a Shielded USB Cable and stuck the modem on the window!

http://camaffiliate.com/SHED-CORNER.jpg
http://camaffiliate.com/Gray-July2012.jpg

The OBESE GUY!

Are you using an eeePC?

Standard 10inch notebook.

WOW has an 18inch laptop, clearing stock was $2000>>$1300
but setting up shop is costing all my pays so far.

Should have a Microwave running next week!

Herc

 

[terryc]

On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 13, 10:30 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.

So your guys' argument is

STICK WITH COAL
because HYDROGEN IS JUST AS POLLUTING AS PETROL
because the engines are not clean
unless you have O2 tanks
and the Electrolysis to turn 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
would need even more Coal to run at night
to employ fuel tank fillers night shift
and Solar will increase pollution anyway because of night time varying
load inefficiencies.

RIIIIIGHT!

*slowly steps backwards - don't make eye contact*

Herc

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/07/2012 11:16 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 13, 10:30 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On 13/07/12 07:16, Graham Cooper wrote:

How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?

You don't, unless you are pumping in air to supply the Oxygen, in which
case ~80% of the air is Nitrogen and there is a very good chance that
some highly excited Hyrogen will be so desperately horny that it will
get it off with the Nitrogen instead of the Oxygen.

If you don't want this to happen, you need to supply Oxygen in the
correct or slightly higher proportion, this makes it cost more and is
less Nett Energy efficent.


So your guys' argument is

STICK WITH COAL
because HYDROGEN IS JUST AS POLLUTING AS PETROL
because the engines are not clean
unless you have O2 tanks
and the Electrolysis to turn 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
would need even more Coal to run at night
to employ fuel tank fillers night shift
and Solar will increase pollution anyway because of night time varying
load inefficiencies.

RIIIIIGHT!

*slowly steps backwards - don't make eye contact*

Herc

The argument is that we need solutions that actually work, rather than
just making greenie users feel good.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On 13/07/12 13:22, Graham Cooper wrote:

You make as-close-to-obviously-false-as-possible, ludicrous-as-
possible statements every post to stir a reaction.

Yes, that is what we think you do.

You get 100W per square meter from sunlight, 5hrs a day.
You get compact chemical storage from rainwater + sunlight -> H2+O2

The problem here is you also need to compress/liquify the H2 and O2 into
tanks.

Can you come up with a figure of how much energy that takes?


Personally, I'm not interested in just swapping one model of big
business fuel supply for another.

I need to be able to compress te H2 & the O2 at home, otherwise I might
as well jst go for the battery pallet and make an electric vehicle.