Connect with us

Tax Shine and Sunshine

Discussion in 'Photovoltaics' started by [email protected], Jun 15, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Guest

    Tax shine has caused acres of roof, even flat roofs not pointing at the sun,
    to be covered with photovoltaic panels with no space for skylights. Tax
    shine has led fields across Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio to be planted to corn
    destined for ethanol production, even though we read the farmer uses more
    than one gallon of oil for each gallon of ethanol. Though tax shine's
    purpose was to aid sunshine as in the examples above, it only perverts our
    use of the sun.

    Unlike sunshine, you can't see tax shine nor can the PV panels or corn
    plants that collect it even sense it.

    When children go out to play together some may be playing in tax shine,
    some not. You can't tell by looking you would have to know their parents
    business. Tax shine doesn't work with light, growth or warmth. It works
    strictly with money. It supplies money to owners of PV panels and corn
    plants. Tax shine does not pass through windows or skylights nor does it
    reach any plants but corn, and it fails to reach solar water heaters.

    Tax shine was created by government to accompany sunshine where sunshine
    was supposedly having difficulty creating benefit for society.

    Sunshine is a fact of nature that none can influence. Tax shine is an
    idea, a bad idea become a law. It is not of nature.

    Sunshine is free, there for the using. No one gets a bill from the sun.

    Some would have us think that tax shine is also like this but tax shine
    is very different.

    When the sun shines bright in one place it isn't necessarily darker in
    other places, but tax shine only gets bright for some by making things dark
    for others. There is no tax star radiating tax shine, only tax collectors
    taking it from all of us to radiate on the few. Sunshine is good, but
    unfortunately tax shine has become evil.

    Extra effort and investment is the only way we improve our use of the sun.
    Everyone agrees on this and many of us in the solar business know that this
    effort and investment has to be arranged by free individuals working
    case-by-case, product-by-product. Tax shine, as it advocates say does bring
    certain benefits to some but tax shine is more appropriate to fascism and
    communism, it isn't the way for free people. All in all it is a terrible

    Bright tax shine, though it brings more widespread shade than shine,
    distracts the public from taking care of itself. Public relations paid for
    by tax shine has brought us under a spell. We have forgotten the benefits of
    simple windows and skylights.

    Steve Baer
  2. John W. Hall

    John W. Hall Guest

    Not yet! Water is now metered, free air is not good quality in some
    areas, so Japanese buy oxygen & masks. Someone somewhere is working on
    billing for sunshine (there used to be a window tax in Britain,
    resulting in some being bricked up).
  3. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

  4. Glenn Martin

    Glenn Martin Guest

    You mean like the armed forces and law enforcement?

    Glenn Martin RMT
  5. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

  6. News

    News Guest

    Do you mean like all this research into fuel cells and the likes? I was
    speaking to a research scientist last week. He says the IC engine has no
    future. Not worth improving as it is beyond improving to any meaningful
    extent, and that fuel cells will be a reality in vehicles and cogen. If
    left to the private sector many common technologies would not be here:
    radar, jet engine, penicillin, etc. Just look at what NASA has given
    industry, and all public money. Private industry is still with the polluting
    IC engine and has no plans to scrap it.

    I await the fuel cell with eager anticipation.
  7. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    What will you power the fuel cell with?

    There is a lot of life left in the diesel, especially powered with cleaner
    burning biofuels. I expect your "research scientist" judgment has been
    clouded by his own biases.

    Steve Spence
    Renewable energy and sustainable living
    Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel
    powered diesels at
  8. News

    News Guest

    Remains to be seen.
    He is quite open minded. The diesel has scope to clean it up using biofuels
    that is about all. In terms of efficiency it is still a pig and always will
    be because of the basic design of the engine.
  9. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    But less of a pig than electrolysis to hydrogen to fuel cell to electric
    motor, so the diesel still wins.

    Hydrogen is a red herring by the oil industry.
    Steve Spence
    Renewable energy and sustainable living
    Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel
    powered diesels at
  10. atec

    atec Guest

    Here in AU the govt. has just made biodiesel effectively illegal unless
    you pay a tax on making your own , damn stupid civil servants ... like
    Im going to stop ..
  11. atec

    atec Guest

    Obviously you have no clue , we pay massive insurance , high
    registration and many other costs , we also have GST ( vat) Im fine
    with paying gst by the way ) but we then pay gst on the added tax, seems
    wrong don't you agree ?.
    so we get used chip oil home processed for almost nothing then added
    37% tax PLUS 10- % GST . its wrong .( tax on tax)
  12. :) Petrol probably if the car and fuel companies get their way !

    Failing that, hydrogen from oil ?

    Up to a point, but using biofuels is hardly a radical change to the
    engine even if you can find the land to grow the fuel.

    Everybodies judgement is clouded by their own biases. One of my biases
    stems from the inability of the oil lobby to tell me where they hope to
    be getting their oil from in 25 years time, or how much it will cost.

    Cheers, J/.
  13. Would be interested you know how you plan to 'clean it up'.

    While it's true that the profile of emissions from biofuels will be
    different to mineral fuels, will it actually be better ?

    The biofuel powered cars I've stood behind have been pretty smelly in a
    'fire in a chip shop' kind of way.

    Cheers, J/.
  14. As I understand it, electrolysis can be better than 90% efficient.

    Explain please ?

    Cheers, J/.
  15. You need to add up the inefficiencies. Let's say electrolysis is 90%
    efficient, storage 90%, the fuel cell itself is perhaps 70%, electric
    motor is 90%. 100% x .9 x .9 x .7 x.9 = 51% (or perhaps less).

    You might think this is more efficient than gasoline engines which
    are typically 12 to 15% fuel to wheels. That would be true except
    that the electricity has to come from somewhere. Right now, that
    would be mostly coal. Converting coal to electricity is only around
    33%. This drops your overall efficiency to around 17% and that is
    very close to a typical car. Add in electric grid transmission
    losses (anywhere from 5% to 50%) and compare to hybrid cars which
    get higher mileage and hydrogen doesn't compare favorably.
    While you can produce hydrogen from electricity, this is not the
    cheapest method. Right now, it's cheaper to convert fossil fuels.
    The first and largest effect of moving to hydrogen vehicles would
    be the increase in use of fossil fuels.

  16. It can be much better. The particulate emissions can be removed with
    a simple filter and a better tuned engine so there wouldn't be huge
    clouds of black soot. The rest can be cleaned up using a catalytic
    converter. Current diesels can't use catalytic converters because of
    the high sulfur content of the fuel. Biodiesel has no sulfur.

  17. ....
    And current bulk H2 production is doing well to make 50-60% efficiency,
    storage under the pressure of synthesization. The fuel cells should run at
    storage pressure, but most run near atmospheric. This produces some
    inescapable thermodynamic losses, but nothing compared to the losses
    typically due to other losses in the cells. A fuel cell at 70% may be
    possible, but not practical. The motor and control system should be able to
    make 90% and perhaps as high as 95%. Electronics can truly do miracles.

    The problem today (and we mean right this minute, not 10 years down the
    road) is that most of our power comes from the dirty coal. If we were
    France, most of our power would come from the much cleaner uranium. Turning
    coal into fuel for a car is pretty easy. Turning uranium into fuel for a car
    is a lot harder, even if the car runs on electric rails. I would suggest a
    cost comparison of coal or uranium to fuel as interesting in the short term.
    If the Chinese boom continues, we will need that coal/uranium to oil process
    pretty soon.
  18. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    One of my biases is that I won't care what the oil companies will be doing
    in 25 years time, as I doubt they will still be "oil" companies, but will
    have morphed into "energy" companies. See BP.

    Steve Spence
    Renewable energy and sustainable living
    Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel
    powered diesels at
  19. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

    Take a look at the emissions analysis of that "smelly chip shop" exhaust.
    80-90% drop in emissions across the board.

    newer diesel tech uses the fuel more efficiently, producing less emissions
    even with fossil diesel. biodiesel just cleans it up a few more magnitudes.

    Steve Spence
    Renewable energy and sustainable living
    Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel
    powered diesels at
  20. Steve Spence

    Steve Spence Guest

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