Skip to comments.
Here is what the acolytes of solar power don't want you to know...
self
| July 15, 2003
| Boot Hill
Posted on 07/15/2003 3:16:56 AM PDT by Boot Hill
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-287 next last
To: wita
wita quips: "...
all at the whim of folks who think science is making stink bombs in high school."
LOL, well said.
--Boot Hill
To: The Red Zone
Interesting thing about bacteria. During their life cycle, and when they die and decompose, they give off methane. Bacteria living in the sediments on the ocean floor do it, but because of the cool temperatures and pressure, it binds with water and forms a crystalline compound called methyl hydrate. Looks like ice crystals. Bring it up to STP and it turns to methane.
Estimates are there is over a thousand times more energy in methyl hydrate on the ocean floor than all the oil ever discovered, or ever will be discovered.
22
posted on
07/15/2003 4:13:29 AM PDT
by
djf
To: Rodney King
Thanks, RK.
--Boot Hill
To: djf
Just where did you say this stuff existed? Buried deep below the ocean? Where are you finding natural temperatures on earth cold enough to crystallize methane? (Germ farts LOL)
To: marktwain
marktwain says: "
Solar power has dropped from several hundred dollars an installed peak watt to just a few dollars an installed peak watt today."
Not so, it only appears that way because of very heavy tax subsidies. Please review "Here is an example:" from the article, then click on the last link near the end of the article.
--Boot Hill
To: djf
Uhhh....Clive Cussler's book Fire Ice was fiction.
26
posted on
07/15/2003 4:20:33 AM PDT
by
raybbr
To: marktwain
Is photovoltaic even the best way to do air conditioning from solar? Why not thermal driven refrigeration cycles?
To: djf
This happens to tie into a theory on disappearing ships/airplanes.
As the theory goes, a large quantity of gas rises from the sea floor, reducing the density of the air/water, causing the vehicle in question to visit Davey Jones' locker.
Not as cool as Atlantis/mermen/aliens/rabid pineapples but slightly more plausible.
28
posted on
07/15/2003 4:21:18 AM PDT
by
Saturnalia
(My name is Matt Foley and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.)
To: Boot Hill
Good work, you bring the facts to light.
29
posted on
07/15/2003 4:21:33 AM PDT
by
bmwcyle
(Here's to Hillary's book sinking like the Clinton 2000 economy)
To: Saturnalia
Check it out on Google. I saw it on Discovery channel, they brought up a bucket full of sediments from somewhere in the Caribbean, there were all these crystals in it, they put it into a flask with a glass tube, and as it heated up, they lit the flame. Pure methane. Something like two billion years worth.
30
posted on
07/15/2003 4:26:50 AM PDT
by
djf
To: The Red Zone
31
posted on
07/15/2003 4:27:46 AM PDT
by
Saturnalia
(My name is Matt Foley and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.)
To: bmwcyle
Thanks, and it looks like just in time!
--Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill
Yes, solar power makes sense in those limited applications where the customer does not have convenient or economic access to the power grid, such as with remote country or mountain top homes. It is also useful for powering mobile or portable equipment such as utility, emergency, scientific devices, etc., where it is not otherwise feasible to hook to the power grid.
There's one other place: space.
A belief in Earth-based solar power as an effective alternative for high density power generation is one of those things that distinguishes liberals from lefties.
"Liberals" only disbelieve in the laws of economics. "Lefties" disbelieve in in the laws of physics.
-Eric
33
posted on
07/15/2003 4:30:22 AM PDT
by
E Rocc
To: djf
Solar power is feasible when its sunny practically all year around. But if its cloudy most of the time, its viability is extremely limited. Solar power is never going to replace conventional sources of power but it could offer clean energy supplies in certain areas where the benefits outweigh the costs.
34
posted on
07/15/2003 4:31:04 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: E Rocc
E Rocc says: "
There's one other place [where solar make sense]: space."
As long as you're in a "local" orbit, I agree. No atmosphere, no clouds, no night time, and most especially no locally available power grid!
--Boot Hill
To: goldstategop
goldstategop says: "
Solar power is feasible when its sunny practically all year around."
Nope, losses due to cloud cover are only a minor part of the total losses that make solar uneconomic. Please review the table in the article one more time.
--Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill
Well...
Youre assuming no change in technology. You also show the plants capital expenses to build the plant but not the actual fuel costs over the life of the plant. I have to believe those cost FAR exceed the initial cost.
All of Californias current electricity generating online capacity (52,600 MW as of 2001) could be achieved in a 10 x 10 mile area with the available sun in your tables (201 W/m^2) with 100% energy conversion efficiency. Fifty percent efficiency would increase that to a 14 x 14 mile area. Mind you that the current 52,600 MW is peak capacity not average.
Yes, even 50% is pie in the sky for efficiency. But maybe not 10 years from now, who knows
I wonder how much commercial building roof area there is in the state of California? A distributed generation system would be far more reliable and more tolerant of clouds etc.
Solar power isn't currently cost effective I would agree. But as traditional energy generating sources become more expensive and with solar energy technology becoming less expensive that difference is slowly converging. If that $700 solar panel at its stated efficiency could be massed produced for $50 it would be a good deal (Id do it for my own home as it would pay for itself in 10 years).
37
posted on
07/15/2003 4:52:15 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: The Red Zone
I've also seen articles on this. The methane combines with other elements to form crystals (as a remember it anyway...).
38
posted on
07/15/2003 4:56:59 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: Boot Hill
Okay ...mass produced...
39
posted on
07/15/2003 4:59:12 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: DB
I agree. The technology's bound to improve and the costs will go down. Granted it will never replace conventional energy sources but it has a role to play in providing additional energy needs. However the enviro wackos are wrong in asserting "alternative energy" sources will eliminate our dependence on oil, coal, and nuclear. That's like saying we should stop driving cars and get back on the bicycle for transportation.
40
posted on
07/15/2003 5:00:40 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-287 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson