What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-07-16, keithr <user@domain.invalid> wrote:

On 16/07/2012 6:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/15/2012 5:25 PM, keithr wrote:
On 14/07/2012 5:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

The Subaru having a flat 4 motor has 2 small aluminium blocks to heat.


**Indeed. Which, when you think on it, should take a little longer than
a single block.

Having thought about it, no it shouldn't.

yeah it should, the pair has two more bolts, and two more ends than a single
four-pot block would...

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

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

 

[Clocky]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 14/07/2012 7:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:41 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

It's got 4 wheel disc brakes... but you need 4 hands to use all 4
at once!

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Herc

No structural integrity and the weight of the battery, motor and
dri... errr rider should make for an amusing contraption to watch
come to pieces at 100km/h.




Doesn't matter. Greenies don't include the CO2 released by rotting
human corpses when calculating greenhouse impacts.

Sylvia.

Doesn't matter, the impact of rotting humans is the same regardless of what
time in life death occurs but the environmental impact as far as resource
use and emissions goes is greatly reduced if a human is killed prematurely
in Herc's contraption compared to having lived their full lifespan.

So yes, Herc's contraption reduces CO2 emissions but not neccessarily for
the reasons he thinks it might.

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:02 pm, keithr <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
On 9/07/2012 11:43 PM, terryc wrote:

On 09/07/12 19:49, keithr wrote:

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

Yep, these cars are sold at status symbols.

Every time I see a Prius, it is being driven like fury obviously not
being driven in a green manner. If you really want to save fuel and
cut emissions, buy a VW "Blue Motion" diesel Golf

Put 98 Octane Unleaded in small cars and they are twice as quick! U
turn in the middle of the road, park at high speeds! Great cars if
only for 1.

Nothing like twice as quick.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 16/07/2012 7:37 PM, Clocky wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/07/2012 7:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:41 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

It's got 4 wheel disc brakes... but you need 4 hands to use all 4
at once!

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Herc

No structural integrity and the weight of the battery, motor and
dri... errr rider should make for an amusing contraption to watch
come to pieces at 100km/h.




Doesn't matter. Greenies don't include the CO2 released by rotting
human corpses when calculating greenhouse impacts.

Sylvia.

Doesn't matter, the impact of rotting humans is the same regardless of what
time in life death occurs but the environmental impact as far as resource
use and emissions goes is greatly reduced if a human is killed prematurely
in Herc's contraption compared to having lived their full lifespan.

So yes, Herc's contraption reduces CO2 emissions but not neccessarily for
the reasons he thinks it might.

Well spotted. Now, the premature death doesn't have to be caused by
Herc's machine. Any cause will do. Including self-infliction. This
allows us to test the resolve of Greenies. If they really believe
there's an issue, they have a course of action available to them to
mitigate it.

Sylvia.

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:38:32 +0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com>:

Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:02 pm, keithr <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
On 9/07/2012 11:43 PM, terryc wrote:

On 09/07/12 19:49, keithr wrote:

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

Yep, these cars are sold at status symbols.

Every time I see a Prius, it is being driven like fury obviously not
being driven in a green manner. If you really want to save fuel and
cut emissions, buy a VW "Blue Motion" diesel Golf

Put 98 Octane Unleaded in small cars and they are twice as quick! U
turn in the middle of the road, park at high speeds! Great cars if
only for 1.


Nothing like twice as quick.

Apparently Graham thinks(?) that there's more energy in 98
octane fuel. Graham thinks(?) a lot of things that conflict
with reality.
--

Bob C.

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

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

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

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

LOOK ABOVE!

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
below:

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

Sylvia.

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
source...

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?

Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
top of this post:

"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)

Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
form.

Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
engines are *not* clean?

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!

you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
combustion takes place in pure O2.

H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP! It's FREE!

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
with the storage of hydrogen?

Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
in perspex)

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
photovoltaic panels.

was $5/square meter?

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
when he jumps.

The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
fuel.

The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!

You don't need H2 production at night! That's the point! It's stored
SOLAR ENERGY.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
They're not.

O2 (if it's even needed)

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
"FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".
--

Bob C.

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

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 16, 4:10 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

You can collect heat from the sun very cheaply, but the peltier
devices
to get electricity from hot water would cost more than solar panels.

Or a transparent plastic cover over a shallow Lake would heat up in
only
a couple days.  Those bubble wrap pool covers are like steam baths in
summer!

Stirling Engines would only be say DELTA 30 DEGREES / 270 efficient.

My Evap Cooler Droplet Catching design was meant to get the COLD
Terminal
down an extra 10-20 degrees to double the efficiency of Solar Sterling
Stations.

Bit of a nightmare generator to build though.

http://camaffiliate.com/DRY-AIR-INTAKE.jpg

http://camaffiliate.com/INTERNAL-EVAPORATION-UNIT.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Thermal-Blankets-52-10xPack/dp/B000FETSDQ


Put a Mylar blanket on the bottom of a 2m deep lake
and clear Mylar on the top to stop evaporation.

Like parking a black car in the sun all day, the entire lake will
reach 60 degrees in 2 days sun.

It's Easy to tap Unlimited Energy when it's shining in your face all
the time.

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 17, 4:04 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

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

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

LOOK ABOVE!

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
below:

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

Sylvia.

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
source...









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?

Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
top of this post:

"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)

Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
form.

Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
engines are *not* clean?

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!
you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
combustion takes place in pure O2.

H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!  It's FREE!

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
with the storage of hydrogen?

Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
in perspex)

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
photovoltaic panels.

was $5/square meter?

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
when he jumps.

The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
fuel.

The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!

You don't need H2 production at night!  That's the point!  It's stored
SOLAR ENERGY.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
They're not.

O2 (if it's even needed)

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
"FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".
--

Bob C.

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

OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.

Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!


*****

All energy comes from the mass of the Universe
collapsing in on itself


gravity -> suns -> H->He -> light

light -> planets -> solar panel / plant leaves

solar panel + water -> H2 + O2 -> vroom!

plant leaves + water + CO2 -> C6 H12 O6 glucose -> yumm!

million year old plant leaves -> petrol -> old smokers #$#$@%


*****

Herc

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 17, 4:04 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

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

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

LOOK ABOVE!

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
below:

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

Sylvia.

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
source...









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?

Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
top of this post:

"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)

Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
form.

Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
engines are *not* clean?

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!
you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
combustion takes place in pure O2.

H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!  It's FREE!

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
with the storage of hydrogen?

Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
in perspex)

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
photovoltaic panels.

was $5/square meter?

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
when he jumps.

The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
fuel.

The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!

You don't need H2 production at night!  That's the point!  It's stored
SOLAR ENERGY.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
They're not.

O2 (if it's even needed)

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
"FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".

OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.

Take your meds, and stop trying to do whatever it is that
you call "thinking"; the results are unfortunate.

Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!

Everything I posted contradicts what you wrote, and anyone
can read the above exchange to see that it does. Apparently
comprehension isn't your strong suit.
--

Bob C.

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

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 18, 3:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:


On Jul 17, 4:04 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

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

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

LOOK ABOVE!

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
below:

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

Sylvia.

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
source...

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?

Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
top of this post:

"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)

Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
form.

Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
engines are *not* clean?

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!
you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
combustion takes place in pure O2.

H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!  It's FREE!

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
with the storage of hydrogen?

Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
in perspex)

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
photovoltaic panels.

was $5/square meter?

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
when he jumps.

The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
fuel.

The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!

You don't need H2 production at night!  That's the point!  It's stored
SOLAR ENERGY.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
They're not.

O2 (if it's even needed)

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
"FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".
OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.

Take your meds, and stop trying to do whatever it is that
you call "thinking"; the results are unfortunate.

Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!

Everything I posted contradicts what you wrote, and anyone
can read the above exchange to see that it does. Apparently
comprehension isn't your strong suit.
--

Bob C.

BOBC - "Dirty H2 engines are dirty!"


Thanks for the tip bro!

Herc
--
BIG BANG
...\
.....\
... .. \
... .. ..\ Expansion
.. . . . . \
.. . . . . . \
HYDROGEN. . / Billion Years Old
.. . . . . /
... .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
... .. /
...../
1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!"
|-|
|-|
|-|
... \\\\\\
..........\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
.. . . . . /
... .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
... .. /
...../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
|-| o o O -O- o Planets Cool
|-| o Baywatch!
|-| YOU ARE HERE! 13,700,000,000 Years

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 18, 3:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:


On Jul 17, 4:04 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

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

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

LOOK ABOVE!

Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
below:

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

Sylvia.

So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
source...

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?

Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
top of this post:

"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)

Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
form.

Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
engines are *not* clean?

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!
you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.

What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
combustion takes place in pure O2.

H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!  It's FREE!

Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
with the storage of hydrogen?

Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
in perspex)

There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
photovoltaic panels.

was $5/square meter?

Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
when he jumps.

The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
fuel.

The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!

You don't need H2 production at night!  That's the point!  It's stored
SOLAR ENERGY.

Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
They're not.

O2 (if it's even needed)

It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.

comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.

That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
"FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...

In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".
OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.

Take your meds, and stop trying to do whatever it is that
you call "thinking"; the results are unfortunate.

Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!

Everything I posted contradicts what you wrote, and anyone
can read the above exchange to see that it does. Apparently
comprehension isn't your strong suit.

BOBC - "Dirty H2 engines are dirty!"

As I said, the results are unfortunate, and comprehension
isn't your strong suit.

Thanks for the tip bro!

Don't bother; you'll just forget it by tomorrow and come up
with some equally inane claim.
--

Bob C.

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

 

[BruceS]

On Jul 16, 7:11 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 16/07/2012 7:37 PM, Clocky wrote:









Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/07/2012 7:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:41 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

It's got 4 wheel disc brakes...  but you need 4 hands to use all 4
at once!

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Herc

No structural integrity and the weight of the battery, motor and
dri... errr rider should make for an amusing contraption to watch
come to pieces at 100km/h.

Doesn't matter. Greenies don't include the CO2 released by rotting
human corpses when calculating greenhouse impacts.

Sylvia.

Doesn't matter, the impact of rotting humans is the same regardless of what
time in life death occurs but the environmental impact as far as resource
use and emissions goes is greatly reduced if a human is killed prematurely
in Herc's contraption compared to having lived their full lifespan.

So yes, Herc's contraption reduces CO2 emissions but not neccessarily for
the reasons he thinks it might.

Well spotted. Now, the premature death doesn't have to be caused by
Herc's machine. Any cause will do. Including self-infliction. This
allows us to test the resolve of Greenies. If they really believe
there's an issue, they have a course of action available to them to
mitigate it.

An easier test of their resolve is to get them to all be sterilized.
That's been suggested enough times, but the overwhelming majority of
them refuse. Easier than that, suggest that they lead the way by
strictly following all their own rules (that they want to force on us
nonbelievers), and logically extend those rules to drastically reduce
their environmental impact. Nope, they won't do that either. I have
a greenie (CAGW) friend who goes on and on about what we should all
do, and be forced to do, to save the planet. He and his wife live in
a house of about 2400 square feet, leave lights on all the time "for
the cats", own three vehicles, drive to jobs that are within easy
bicycling distance, frequently fly to distant (>1000 miles) cities for
recreational purposes, frequently drive for recreational purposes, and
otherwise live like the typical modern people that they blame for the
imminent destruction of the planet.

Extremists are generally hypocrites. Good luck getting them to do
anything towards their own claimed goals that involves even a minor
sacrifice on their own part. They'd rather try to force everyone else
to "behave". When I approach Al Gore's lifetime "carbon footprint",
I'll start to consider whether I should cut back.
</rant>

 

[Clocky]

Brad Guth wrote:

On Jul 12, 3:45 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
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

William Mook had that one nicely covered as of a decade ago, and not
hardly a soul in Usenet/newsgroups ever cared, other than to topic/
author stalk and bash his ideas into the ground. Perhaps it was the
all-knowing mindset of Mook that made his proposed use of his solar
derived hydrogen sound a bit too good to be true, although his
creating of relatively cheap hydrogen and oxygen from water and solar
energy (even at twice his proposed cost) wasn't any ruse or spoof, and
that hydrogen as used in a fuel-cell can produce 60% efficiency with
as near to zero environmental impact as energy gets.

Relatively low cost hydrogen is certainly not a problem.

The problem is with the closed mindset of most individuals and that of
government and Big Energy that wants absolutely nothing to do with any
of it unless it's only provided by their Oligarch Rothschild cartel.
Steven Chu wasn't of any help either.

I happen to prefer the mobile use or application of HTP along with the
high quality of liquid synfuel hydrocarbons derived from Mokenergy
coal, as a dual-fuel method of providing terrific energy density from
a very small internal combustion engine that could power any full
sized hybrid car, truck or bus of any size without those energy or
operational range limitations of conventional hybrids. A hydrogen
peroxide battery is also a terrific application of solar energy
derived HP, and Mook's clean synfuel from coal via his hydrogen from
solar energy, was yet another terrific win-win for all of us.

Uhuh...

 

[Clocky]

Brad Guth wrote:

On Jul 14, 7:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:04 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:









On Jul 14, 12:50 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 15, 4:47 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

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

Tow with a H2 Car.

Zip around in Dune Buggy size electrics to do the shopping!

Win Win!

Herc

Unless you're run off the road or hit by an 8000 lb SUV or truck.

If all city streets were policed to have nothing exceeding 2000 lb
verticals, then the golf-carts or that of your " Dune Buggy size
electrics" should be perfectly fine and dandy. Otherwise being
energy efficient and dead at the same time seems a little counter
productive.

Bingo! I've stated this 4 times in the thread already.

The Govt. has to level the field, you can't have a Volvo head on
with the Lean Machine!

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_6404-GM-Lean-Machine.html

80% of car usage is <50KM a day at 50km/hour.

You're designing 2 different applications for 1 car families.

You have to section off Central Metropolis for Electric Only.

The computer drivers won't crash by then, they'll all be bumper car
safe anyway.

All the roads are too narrow in cities anyway, these problems have
to be addressed!

Herc

A proper hybrid fuel-cell w/lithium or HP battery, and offering the
HTP +hydrocarbon direct combustion turbine for the full-sized car,
SUV or maximum 4WD truck shouldn't be a problem at packing a tonne
of payload plus delivering loads of energy on demand, and otherwise
capable of giving us 100+ mpg out of that spendy hydrocarbon fuel.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

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

Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)
Main articles: Fuel cell vehicle, Hydrogen vehicle

Automobiles
Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for
commercial sale, over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have
been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX
Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[61] As of June
2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000
mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings.[62] Demonstration fuel cell
vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km
(250 mi) between refueling".[63] They can be refueled in less than 5
minutes.[64] The U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell Technology
Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 53–59%
efficiency at ź power and 42–53% vehicle efficiency at full
power,[65] and a durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less
than 10% degradation

Sounds better than a battery!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Fuelcell.jpg...

Herc

Actually a battery that's using 50% hydrogen peroxide is simply
another terrific notion to go along with Mokenergy

I've got this bridge you might be interested in buying...

 

[Clocky]

BruceS wrote:

On Jul 16, 7:11 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 16/07/2012 7:37 PM, Clocky wrote:









Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/07/2012 7:08 PM, Clocky wrote:
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:41 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2012 8:40 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Here's my Electric Car design..

It has
virtual pivot independent real wheel suspension
shock absorber front wheel suspension
dual 1000W Electric Motors with 100km range
dual 30AMP-HOUR Lithium Batteries
rack and pinion steering
rear vehicle passenger access
CREE LED headlamps

Total cost $3000 + CONSTRUCTION

Herc

Hmmm...

No air conditioning.

No weather protection.

No air bags.

Zero crash-worthiness.

High drag coeffecient.

No bluetooth.

Sylvia.

It's got 4 wheel disc brakes... but you need 4 hands to use all 4
at once!

http://CAMAFFILIATE.COM/ELECTRIC-CAR-PROTOTYPE.png

Herc

No structural integrity and the weight of the battery, motor and
dri... errr rider should make for an amusing contraption to watch
come to pieces at 100km/h.

Doesn't matter. Greenies don't include the CO2 released by rotting
human corpses when calculating greenhouse impacts.

Sylvia.

Doesn't matter, the impact of rotting humans is the same regardless
of what time in life death occurs but the environmental impact as
far as resource use and emissions goes is greatly reduced if a
human is killed prematurely in Herc's contraption compared to
having lived their full lifespan.

So yes, Herc's contraption reduces CO2 emissions but not
neccessarily for the reasons he thinks it might.

Well spotted. Now, the premature death doesn't have to be caused by
Herc's machine. Any cause will do. Including self-infliction. This
allows us to test the resolve of Greenies. If they really believe
there's an issue, they have a course of action available to them to
mitigate it.

An easier test of their resolve is to get them to all be sterilized.
That's been suggested enough times, but the overwhelming majority of
them refuse. Easier than that, suggest that they lead the way by
strictly following all their own rules (that they want to force on us
nonbelievers), and logically extend those rules to drastically reduce
their environmental impact. Nope, they won't do that either. I have
a greenie (CAGW) friend who goes on and on about what we should all
do, and be forced to do, to save the planet. He and his wife live in
a house of about 2400 square feet, leave lights on all the time "for
the cats", own three vehicles, drive to jobs that are within easy
bicycling distance, frequently fly to distant (>1000 miles) cities for
recreational purposes, frequently drive for recreational purposes, and
otherwise live like the typical modern people that they blame for the
imminent destruction of the planet.

Extremists are generally hypocrites. Good luck getting them to do
anything towards their own claimed goals that involves even a minor
sacrifice on their own part. They'd rather try to force everyone else
to "behave". When I approach Al Gore's lifetime "carbon footprint",
I'll start to consider whether I should cut back.
/rant

I think we should do what we can individually to reduce our impact (and set
an example form others to follow, not preach and do nothing) and remove the
(typically) right wing intentionally destructive fuckwits from the gene
pool.

There is no question that our actions is damaging our environment (the
evidence is overwhelming) and change starts at home. Why put it off?

 

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 24, 5:13 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:
On Jul 14, 7:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:04 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 14, 12:50 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 15, 4:47 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

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

Tow with a H2 Car.

Zip around in Dune Buggy size electrics to do the shopping!

Win Win!

Herc

Unless you're run off the road or hit by an 8000 lb SUV or truck.

If all city streets were policed to have nothing exceeding 2000 lb
verticals, then the golf-carts or that of your " Dune Buggy size
electrics" should be perfectly fine and dandy. Otherwise being
energy efficient and dead at the same time seems a little counter
productive.

Bingo! I've stated this 4 times in the thread already.

The Govt. has to level the field, you can't have a Volvo head on
with the Lean Machine!

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_6404-GM-Lean-Machine.html

80% of car usage is <50KM a day at 50km/hour.

You're designing 2 different applications for 1 car families.

You have to section off Central Metropolis for Electric Only.

The computer drivers won't crash by then, they'll all be bumper car
safe anyway.

All the roads are too narrow in cities anyway, these problems have
to be addressed!

Herc

A proper hybrid fuel-cell w/lithium or HP battery, and offering the
HTP +hydrocarbon direct combustion turbine for the full-sized car,
SUV or maximum 4WD truck shouldn't be a problem at packing a tonne
of payload plus delivering loads of energy on demand, and otherwise
capable of giving us 100+ mpg out of that spendy hydrocarbon fuel.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

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

Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)
Main articles: Fuel cell vehicle, Hydrogen vehicle

Automobiles
Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for
commercial sale, over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have
been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX
Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[61] As of June
2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000
mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings.[62] Demonstration fuel cell
vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km
(250 mi) between refueling".[63] They can be refueled in less than 5
minutes.[64] The U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell Technology
Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 53–59%
efficiency at ź power and 42–53% vehicle efficiency at full
power,[65] and a durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less
than 10% degradation

Sounds better than a battery!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Fuelcell.jpg....

Herc

Actually a battery that's using 50% hydrogen peroxide is simply
another terrific notion to go along with Mokenergy

I've got this bridge you might be interested in buying...

Just because you don't know how to create an unlimited supply of H2,
O2 and HTP from sunlight is not my problem.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”