Connect with us

clueless politicians

Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by Steve Spence, Jul 15, 2003.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    "The supply of hydrogen is inexhaustible," Senator Byron Dorgan, North
    Dakota Democrat, told his colleagues. "Hydrogen is in water. You can take
    the energy from the wind and use the electricity in the process of
    electrolysis, separate the hydrogen from the oxygen and store the hydrogen
    and use it in vehicles. The fact is, hydrogen is ubiquitous. It is
    everywhere."

    sure, at $5 - $10 / gallon gas equivalent ....
     
  2. A few tens of gigawatts of fossil fuel steam reformation-derived
    hydrogen
    are already produced, and mostly travels along fairly short pipes
    to an ammonia maker or hydrocarbon upgrader.
    Going to hundreds of gigawatts of nuclear-generated hydrogen
    would no doubt cheapen the production,
    but cheap fuel-hydrogen *distribution*
    is not part of the foreseeable future.

    Compare zinc. If volume were the key,
    a retailed kWh(Zn) ought to cost more than a retailed kWh(H2),
    for consumption of metallic zinc in the US
    works out to only 0.19 GW(Zn).
    But the London Metals Exchange price for zinc, US$0.36/lb,
    works out to US$0.58 per chemical kWh*,
    cheapness undreamt-of by hydrogen fans.


    --- Graham Cowan
    http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
    how cars gain nuclear cachet



    * http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zinc/ ,
    http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zinc/720303.pdf
     
  3. Fine.

    Shall he use (A) the CALIFORNIA model in which nearly all of the pv
    funds went into boiler shop scams, the (B) ARIZONA model in which you
    were given a Ford Expedition if you agreed to put an unconnected one
    gallon container in back, (C) the MIDWEST model 12 billion dollar vote
    buying scam was blown on a net energy sink, or (D) the BRAZIL model
    which nearly bankrupted the entire country?

    A federal dollar spent is at least one tax dollar blown, often many
    more.
    His proposal would have the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intended effect.

    The ONLY way ANY alternate energy scheme would have any measure of
    success is if the feds get and stay out of the way.

    --
    Many thanks,

    Don Lancaster
    Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
    voice: (928)428-4073 email: fax 847-574-1462

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

    Gogarty Guest

    NO form of alternative energy has a chance so long as the actual COST to
    produce a barrel of oil is $5 or less. That COST will remain for a very long
    time, especially now that Iran has brought in a huge field and Iraq's
    production ramps up. Alternative energy, now and into the foreseeable future,
    will always be relegated to specialized applications where cost is secondary.
    As cost comes down, more specialized applications will use it but widespread
    use is far in the future.

    You can't carry a can of sunlight down the road to your stalled car.
     
  5. Guest

    Dang. And here I've been doing it myself. Where do I send for my check?

    (alt.politics removed from reply and followups headers)

    Dave Hinz
     
  6. And so far, not one of them has ever generated one net watthour of
    energy.
    A total engineering rathole to date.

    See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

    --
    Many thanks,

    Don Lancaster
    Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
    voice: (928)428-4073 email: fax 847-574-1462

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

    Hugh Piggott will be surprised to hear that his design has US funding.
    Remember: all absolute statements are false.
     
  8. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    Hugh Piggott will be surprised to hear that his design has US funding.
    He doesn't get funding directly, but most of the base designs
    that everything has originated off of (even piggott's) is a result, or has
    been
    helped by government funding.
    You better believe that he keeps track of all the design
    and test data he can get his hands on
    Even the wind tunnel test data he gets from nasa
    at no charge, the same data I or you can get if we ask for it.
    Same as the test data that is provided on sandia's web site
    for free, that cost millions of tax payer dollars to get.

    Wind generators have been tested in nasa and JPL wind tunnels,
    at highly subsidized prices, or even for free, since the first
    large scale wind programs have been in effect.
    and most likely a long time before that.

    All the wind generators that have come since has been
    based off of the lessons learned from that testing.
    Even piggott's.
    The lessons learned is common knowledge today, but
    they were learned with tax payer dollars.

    Even today, NASA and it's contractors is highly
    active in the wind power testing and design.
    They are currently working on new blade designs and live
    operating testing of windflow across the wings of
    a generator in operation to find out what can be improved
    or what needs to be changed.

    Sandia labs is working on new cell designs to allow
    for easier automated production, with will allow
    rapid a rapid drop in production cost.
    They have already helped develop a
    continuous process sheet crystal pulling system.
    And what sandia(and NASA) has learned through testing is used
    in the design of every solar cell in production today.

    Even thin film panels have major government funding in their design.

    Concentrated light/ high pressure steam power generation is also
    very heavily funded.

    I can't honestly think of one RE product that has gained nothing from
    government research.
    The stuff they may set out to do may fail, but what is learned from that
    is used in the design for everything else to come.
    The product may only be a basic design,
    but the government research is what helped defined what the basic design is.

    That is all I can say, you may think that some things have
    nothing to do with the government, but I just don't see it that way.
     
  9. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    When did Hugh put his design through a US wind tunnel? He's in Scotland,
    remember .....

    My veggie oil cogen unit never got funding from anyone but me. Neither did
    my rainwater catchment system.

    The Babington vegetable oil water / space heater we work on over at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wastewatts/ is completely government funds
    free.
     
  10. Hmmm.
    The supply of politicians is inexhaustible...[/QUOTE]


    The following posting contains humour of a dark or vile nature.
    Humour should not be taken literally. Do not taunt the
    happy-fun-ball.

    Makes you think about the acid-base 2 step process to make biodiesel
    out of animal fat, doesn't it. And, statistically speaking,
    politicions are good sources of fat.


    --L
     
  11. And for those who oppose government support of energy programs, let's
    remember that good old fossil fuel gets a staggering sum of government
    aid. This should be added to the "$5 per barrel of oil" figure.
    Eric Swanson summed it up very well a few weeks back:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g...ie=UTF-8&selm=bckul5$4uqm$


    Mike Ackerman
     
  12. A very interesting suggestion, though not very obviously related to my comment
    or to the one I cited.
    Another interesting comment, but I thought that the dispute was whether
    government should stay out of energy projects completely, not whether
    it showed a net profit on its "investment". If I was wrong, please correct me.

    Mike Ackerman
     
  13. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    If we were independent of middle east oil, the violence would not stop, just
    our involvement in it.
     
  14. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    I was talking about large production items.
    Will people quit trying to take things out of context?

    When I say helped by government funding, I don't mean that they are
    actually paid by the government, but the results of the government research
    project is useful to them, or helps them decide on a path of action.
    (ie) the spending had a positive effect on the industry as a whole.

    When I say that research by uncle Sam has helped the wind industry, I don't
    mean everything and everyone that works in the wind industry owes uncle Sam
    everything.

    I am just saying that uncle Sam has helped (in a positive way) the wind
    industry as a whole.

    This is a global economy, if the USA comes up with a new idea,
    you bet other people in the world will try it.
    And if someone else comes up with a new idea, you bet we will try it.

    I am not saying that everything is owed to government funding,
    I am saying that RE as a whole, would be in a lot worse condition without
    it.
    And a lot less further along to boot.

    Germany doesn't owe it all to uncle Sam.
    But they have gained a lot of useful knowledge from what we do.
    And we as a whole, have learned a lot off of what they do.
     
  15. Don W.

    Don W. Guest

    The Eric Swanson post you cited begins with "Lets begin by killing all those
    subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Then, lets cut the military spending
    to support all those governments we import oil from. And pull back the
    troops from the Middle East and the South Pacific."

    You see, some people would like to consider the cost of Mideast policy to be
    an oil subsidy. My point is that this is preposterous because with or
    without oil we will still have a Mideast policy and the violence and killing
    is more likely to increase than decrease when the people of the Middle East
    no longer have income from the sale of oil.
    Maybe you're right. I agree that government should stay out of energy
    projects completely. If there is a net profit to be made on the investment,
    then private enterprise will not hesitate to make the investment. Most of
    the money flowing into alternative energy projects will never show a profit
    and most are horrendous investments. To justify the investments by implying
    the projects will break even as soon as we pull all our troops out of the
    Middle East is silly.

    In the memorable words of Emily Litella, "NEVER MIND."

    Don W.
     
  16. Don W.

    Don W. Guest

    On this point we disagree, Steve. There is a powerful Jewish lobby in this
    country and Judahism is an integral part of our culture. In my opinion, our
    involvement in the violence of the Middle East has more to do with ideology
    than with oil. We pay money for the oil which the people of the Middle East
    are happy to sell to us. If we stop buying, the resentment of the U.S. is
    more likely to grow than to end. That doesn't mean I don't want to stop
    buying. Only that if and when we stop buying, we will reluctantly still be
    on the same planet with people who want to kill each other and some of those
    people want to kill us. That will not change for the better only because we
    stop buying Arab oil.

    Don W.
     
  17. Guest

    Have you seen his design? It's basic electric generator theory stuff,
    nothing exotic at all. The blade design tables have been around for
    almost a century. I believe that sliprings could fall into "common
    techniques", as can the use of a tower. It's a generator, turned
    by blades, with a spring-loaded tail, on top of a tower. What specific
    aspects of his design are you suggesting are derived from anything
    specific to alternate energy funding by the US governement?
    Actually, if you were familiar with his work, you'd see that he's
    done quite a bit of the trial-and-error method. Worked for Edison...
    and a DC permanent magnet generator is hardly something exotic.
    Yes, that may be true. But you are making a basic logical flaw; just
    because some of (A) are (B), does not mean that all of (A) are (B).
    Cite, please?
    Is everything done by the US government? I'm not sure if that's an
    ignorant statement, or an arrogant one. You seem to be ignoring and/or
    dismissing any research which didn't get paid for by Uncle Sam. Don't
    get me wrong - one of the biggest benefits of NASA and other US government
    programs is the information they share with the rest of us, from what
    they have learned. But, not all research in the world comes from them.
    Yes, that's very nice, but again it's a subset of all wind turbines that
    are using this technology and testing, not all of them.
    I don't do PV, so I can't address your statement with any direct
    knowledge.
    Which government? Your statement seems to be moderating itself as
    it goes on; good step.

    There's a guy a few miles from me, building windmills. He's using
    a blade that his dad designed decades ago. It's a bad blade design;
    runs on drag and the twist is the wrong way for the taper. But, it
    turns in the wind, and he gets some power from it. It's obvious
    from even a cursory look that he has not used any kind of research
    done by the US Government in his design, and yet he gets power from
    wind, and is satisfied with the output (about 1/3 of what it should
    be, but it's output).
    The basic design predates government involvement. Wind power has been
    around for longer than the US Government has - yes?
    And, do you see this as a good thing, or a bad thing? Your basic premise
    is flawed, but I will agree that they are currently involved and that
    the information is being made available freely. I see this as a good
    thing, do you? However, to say that all alternative energy solutions
    are using government funding, as you originally did, is a massive
    oversimplification of the realities.

    Dave Hinz
     
  18. Guest

    Hell, from the looks of it, he *lives* in a wind-tunnel.
    I think his point is that at some time you may have consulted research
    material which was produced by, or derived from, government research.
    I'm not sure if he considers that to be a good thing, or a bad thing, so
    I asked.
    Ah, but y'see, it's a discussion group on the internet. Which evolved
    from DARPAnet. Which was government funded. So there. Further, it was
    built with parts which travelled over the interstate highway system,
    which was built by, wait for it, the US Government. Aha, gotcha
    again. And so on, and so on.

    I don't consider such uses of government spending to be "subsidies" of
    a technology, and even if they were, well, it's a better use of my money
    than some of the other things they're using it for (note, neutral,
    non-partison statement).

    Dave Hinz
     
  19. Guest

    Rarely have I seen a situation so accurately summarized in so few words.

    Dave Hinz
     
  20. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    I will no longer bother with this subject.
    No one seems to be getting what I'm saying.
    And at best every post is drawing things out of context.
    And I am not a masochist, so talk to ya later.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-