It will never happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

On Feb 2, 5:11*am, harry wrote:
It will never happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Ah ha, but it may be legislated. Ethanol, too, is a fiasco that was
legislated. Even Gore said it was a mistake and gov'ts response is to
increase it ;(

Helps to put a space in there.
DEAD LINK:
It will never
happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

ACTIVE LINK:
It will never happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Carriage return helps, too.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Frank" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 5:11 am, harry wrote:
It will never
happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Ah ha, but it may be legislated. Ethanol, too, is a fiasco
that was
legislated. Even Gore said it was a mistake and gov'ts
response is to
increase it ;(

On Feb 2, 4:11*am, harry wrote:
It will never happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Don't bet against it.
The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can
be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in
production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the
future.
IIRC, there were also some interesting tech articles some years ago
about the ability of the Wankel rotary to run on H2 with little
modification. Ongoing progress in H2 storage has also been reported,
solving that problem.
Seems to me that H2 development has more potential than the costly
struggles now in the labs with battery and fuel cell technology.
I anticipate seeing a rotary powered racer blow the competition into
the tules at Le Mans one of these years.

Joe

On Feb 2, 7:21*pm, Joe wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:11*am, harry wrote:

It will never happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Don't bet against it.
The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can
be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in
production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the
future.
IIRC, there were also some interesting tech articles some years ago
about the ability of the Wankel rotary to run on H2 with little
modification. Ongoing progress in H2 storage has also been reported,
solving that problem.
Seems to me that H2 development has more potential than the costly
struggles now in the labs with battery and fuel cell technology.
I anticipate seeing a rotary powered racer blow the competition into
the tules at Le Mans one of these years.

Joe

All completely irrelevant. Hydrogen is inefficient, costly to make and
dangerous to handle and store.

Joe wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:11 am, harry wrote:
It will never
happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Don't bet against it.
The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can
be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in
production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the
future.

I'll bet against it. You're suggesting solar power to create electricity
then use that electricity to hydrolyze H20 into H2. Then you have to use
some of the electricity to compress the H2 so it's usable.

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You can't
run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

Let's check:
A 2 x 4 foot solar panel makes 80 watts under ideal conditions and cost
$400. 80 Watts would be reduced to 40W equivalent H2 power at 50%
electrolysis efficiency.

40 watts is the equivalant of .05 Horsepower. A car needs about 30 HP to
cruise. .05 HP out of 30HP saves about .16% of fuel.

An average car uses 461 gallons per year. The solar panel would save .77 gal
per year (if driven only at noon on sunny summer days).

At $3.00 per gallon, it would pay for itself in 125 years. But solar panels
wear out after 20 years or so.

IIRC, there were also some interesting tech articles some years ago
about the ability of the Wankel rotary to run on H2 with little
modification. Ongoing progress in H2 storage has also been reported,
solving that problem.

As you said, that was years ago. Evidently the experimenters gave up.

Seems to me that H2 development has more potential than the costly
struggles now in the labs with battery and fuel cell technology.
I anticipate seeing a rotary powered racer blow the competition into
the tules at Le Mans one of these years.


The reasons for batteries is simple: Electricity is everywhere for
recharging. There are NO hydrogen refueling stations.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You can't
run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.


solar is always going to be inefficient;
it doesn't have the energy density to be practical.
Nor the 24/7 availability (reliability?)of petroleum.
"the sun doesn't always shine."

Same goes for wind power.

both solar and wind are only useful for unusual applications where other
energy sources are not practical.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

HeyBub wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:11 am, harry wrote:
It will never
happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Don't bet against it.
The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can
be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in
production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the
future.

I'll bet against it. You're suggesting solar power to create
electricity then use that electricity to hydrolyze H20 into H2. Then
you have to use some of the electricity to compress the H2 so it's
usable.
There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

Running off at the "mouth" again. There is no such law, as you well know.

You can easily grow plants or algea using sunlight, ferment it and run cars off
the resulting alcohol, for instance. In fact, using gasoline is just using
sunlight from the distant past to run them.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:18:33 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You can't
run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Well, it's not a "physics" problem. It's an engineering problem. Not having
a law degree, rather an engineering degree, I will say that Bub is right on
the money.

As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

The existence theorem says otherwise.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:11 am, harry wrote:
It will never
happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Don't bet against it.
The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can
be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in
production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the
future.

I'll bet against it. You're suggesting solar power to create
electricity then use that electricity to hydrolyze H20 into H2. Then
you have to use some of the electricity to compress the H2 so it's
usable.
There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

Running off at the "mouth" again. There is no such law, as you well know.

You can easily grow plants or algea using sunlight, ferment it and run
cars off
the resulting alcohol, for instance. In fact, using gasoline is just using
sunlight from the distant past to run them.

Sunlight, millions of years and incredible geological pressure to "cook" and
compress it into something useful. Otherwise we would be driving around in
peat-powered automobiles. (-:

It would be interesting to know just how much energy it takes to create a
gallon of gas, starting from the Carboniferous era when the plants died off
to start the process (or whenever - I think the CE is when coal, not oil,
began to form) up to the gas tank. I'll bet it's enormous.

--
Bobby G.


--
Bobby G.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:11 am, harry wrote:
It will never
happen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Don't bet against it.
The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can
be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in
production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the
future.

I'll bet against it. You're suggesting solar power to create
electricity then use that electricity to hydrolyze H20 into H2. Then
you have to use some of the electricity to compress the H2 so it's
usable.
There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

Running off at the "mouth" again. There is no such law, as you well know.

You can easily grow plants or algea using sunlight, ferment it and run
cars off the resulting alcohol, for instance. In fact, using gasoline is
just using sunlight from the distant past to run them.


The use of electricity for making hydrogen or charging your government
supported electric car that will go only about 50 miles on a charge is
ridiculous. A few years ago, one of the worst things in our environment
was MERCURY. Now the government says it is okay to put it in light bulbs to
save electricity. (Read the 35 page EPA instructions on how to clean up if
a CFL is broken).

So we say Mercury is okay now to save electricity, but we need electric cars
that use electricity to run.
Not too many years ago, we would have been laughing at communist USSR for
their stupid regulations.

As Pogo says, 'We have found the enemy, and it Is us" (or something like
that).

Bob-tx

On Feb 5, 9:06*am, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:18:33 -0800, Smitty Two





wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You can't
run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

The issue with hydrogen still remains. It is virtually all bound with
oxygen (burned already) and "unburning" it uses a lot more energy than
you get when you burn it again.
It is really just a storage device and not particularly efficient at
doing it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And even after cost effective cryogenic production/storage is
accomplished you are still left with a problem of poor energy
density. Gallon of H2 won't contain as much energy as a gallon gas.
Energy density is what "News" ignores when hyping his "amazing air
car" every few yers.

Harry K

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah
professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are
any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for
saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."

As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a
simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole
in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a
different matter.

In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about
600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor
and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four
bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run
that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.

(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the
simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)

No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping
malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to
the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?

Staggering!


As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

That's no doubt true. It's often said that if someone invented aspirin
today, the FDA would ban it in a heart-beat (or lack of a heart-beat).

On Feb 6, 7:32*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah
professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are
any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for
saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."

As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a
simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole
in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a
different matter.

In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about
600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor
and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four
bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run
that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.

(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the
simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)

No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping
malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to
the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?

Staggering!



As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

That's no doubt true. It's often said that if someone invented aspirin
today, the FDA would ban it in a heart-beat (or lack of a heart-beat).

well we need to quit sucking on the mid east for energy, were sending
them 1 billion dollars a day 365 billion a year for oil.

while we have 500 years of coal reserves here in the US and coal to
gasoline technology.

we should of done this years ago so were not as dependent on others
for energy

On Feb 6, 6:26*am, " wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:32*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah
professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are
any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for
saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."

As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a
simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole
in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a
different matter.

In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about
600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor
and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four
bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run
that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.

(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the
simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)

No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping
malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to
the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?

Staggering!

As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

That's no doubt true. It's often said that if someone invented aspirin
today, the FDA would ban it in a heart-beat (or lack of a heart-beat).

well we need to quit sucking on the mid east for energy, were sending
them 1 billion dollars a day 365 billion a year for oil.

while we have 500 years of coal reserves here in the US and coal to
gasoline technology.

we should of done this years ago so were not as dependent on others
for energy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the bottom line to allof this is that:

We will have alternate energy of some type.
There will never be an energy source for vehicles as cheap and
convenient as gas/diesel/natural gas.
We will never eliminate crude oil use until it runs out.
Energy cost is going to keep increasing.

Harry K

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 06:26:12 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:32*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah
professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are
any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for
saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."

As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a
simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole
in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a
different matter.

In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about
600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor
and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four
bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run
that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.

(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the
simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)

No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping
malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to
the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?

Staggering!



As far as cars, it's been opined that if we'd started with something
other than gasoline and someone was just now advocating gasoline, it
would be declared insane.

That's no doubt true. It's often said that if someone invented aspirin
today, the FDA would ban it in a heart-beat (or lack of a heart-beat).

well we need to quit sucking on the mid east for energy, were sending
them 1 billion dollars a day 365 billion a year for oil.

Great idea! Start drilling, 25/8, in Alaska, the Gulf, and Santa Barbara,
today. Make it a national priority!

while we have 500 years of coal reserves here in the US and coal to
gasoline technology.

We have a thousand years, or more, or Pt and Th, not that they'll help
transportation much.

we should of done this years ago so were not as dependent on others
for energy

Yep. Kill the greenies!

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Yep. Kill the greenies!

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the endangered
species list.

On 2/6/2011 7:32 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In articlef8udnTlLoNw4btbQnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah
professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are
any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for
saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."

As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a
simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole
in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a
different matter.

In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about
600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor
and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four
bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run
that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.

(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the
simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)

No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping
malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to
the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?


How many times have we had this discussion? Solar /= electric.
Electricity is just a very convenient way to move power around, but
there are plenty of other ways to take advantage of free sunshine. We
shoulda started building houses with sunrooms and heat masses and
superinsulation 40 years ago, when we saw all this coming. No, solar is
not the magic bullet, especially if you can only conceive of solar in
term of photovoltaics, or steam plants run by acres of mirrors. But it
is one of many different technologies that can answer part of the
problem. The high-tech answers will take some R&D, and I agree that the
gummint should not pound money down a rathole for expensive buildouts,
but some R&D seed money is probably justifiable. But until the high-tech
solutions become viable (if they ever do), we are fools for not taking
advantage of the low-tech solutions as well, especially the ones with
easily calculable cost-benefits numbers.

And, of course, reduce demand. Not to the point of living in a mud hut,
but there is no useful purpose served by a lot of the electricity we
use. There are mostly painless cuts almost everyone can make. To expand
on your mall music example- why are their parking lots fully lit all
night, in most cases that I have seen? If they turned off all but a few
an hour after closing (so the rent-a-cops can still see), that alone
would save a pile of electricity and money. And on a residential level-
all these people with pole lights on their pole barns, that burn all
night- how much does a timer or motion sensor cost? (a personal peeve of
mine, since the only time I can see stars in this semi-rural subdivision
is during a power failure. )

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:04:16 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Yep. Kill the greenies!

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the endangered
species list.


Problem is, when you save them they grow in numbers. Like alligators.
Stop killing and soon they live in your swimming pool. Hip deep.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:38:22 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:04:16 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Yep. Kill the greenies!

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the endangered
species list.


Problem is, when you save them they grow in numbers. Like alligators.
Stop killing and soon they live in your swimming pool. Hip deep.

Like alligators, you need to save a few of them for zoos, so we can all
remember what they're like.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour

Interesting arithmetic. Is that the "new math" they teach these days? Or
maybe the standard light bulbs in Texas are bigger than elsewhere.

I'll grant you a typo, but sorry, the technology *is* in its infancy.
The photovoltaic collectors of today are about like the abacus compared
to your PC. When a square meter of collector costs $10, you may be
obligated to redefine "efficiency."

In parallel development are heat engines. Something like 100 times more
heat than light rains down.

Here's an interesting tidbit: Enough sunlight falls on the earth *every
minute* to power the entire planet for a *year.*

Now then, what's *your* plan for energy once the oil is gone? I don't
care if you think it's going to last 40 years or 400, what then? Or are
you just content to **** on other people's parties and die fat and happy?

In article ,
" wrote:

Start drilling in Santa Barbara


Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least a
dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in '76. The
NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies really only
want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to exercise a reasonable
measure of precaution. They proved again in the Gulf that they really do
not give one flying **** about safety.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:03:52 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Start drilling in Santa Barbara


Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least a
dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in '76. The
NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies really only
want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to exercise a reasonable
measure of precaution. They proved again in the Gulf that they really do
not give one flying **** about safety.

Hogwash. They, and you, want to shut down *all* industry.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:03:52 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Start drilling in Santa Barbara


Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least a
dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in '76. The
NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies really only
want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to exercise a reasonable
measure of precaution. They proved again in the Gulf that they really do
not give one flying **** about safety.

Hogwash. They, and you, want to shut down *all* industry.

I do not. I like industry. But I don't think it has to be practiced
irresponsibly, as it has been since the dawn of the industrial
revolution.

On 2/6/2011 1:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Yep. Kill the greenies!

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the endangered
species list.


If they become an endangered species, you won't even be able to yell
"Shut the hell up!" at them because it will disturb them in their
protected habitat. :-)

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 2/6/2011 1:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Yep. Kill the greenies!

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the
endangered species list.


If they become an endangered species, you won't even be able to yell
"Shut the hell up!" at them because it will disturb them in their
protected habitat. :-)


San Francisco is pretty easy to wall off. Further, most of the folks in SF
do not breed.

Smitty Two wrote:

Now then, what's *your* plan for energy once the oil is gone? I don't
care if you think it's going to last 40 years or 400, what then? Or
are you just content to **** on other people's parties and die fat
and happy?

I don't have a plan because one isn't currently needed.

The Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for charcoal. When
the trees were gone, the people of the region started mining coal (it was
coal that powered the industrial revolution). When the coal got too
expensive, the world turned to oil and natural gas.

We will never run out of oil, but it could become more expensive.
Ultimately, too expensive to provide all the uses of today.

When that comes, we'll move on to some other method of energy production, be
it nuclear power or millions of gerbils on little wheels.

I have, you see, unbridled confidence in human ingenuity while others are
infected with doom.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's
enough, in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour

Interesting arithmetic. Is that the "new math" they teach these days?
Or maybe the standard light bulbs in Texas are bigger than elsewhere.

I'll grant you a typo, but sorry, the technology *is* in its infancy.
The photovoltaic collectors of today are about like the abacus
compared to your PC. When a square meter of collector costs $10, you
may be obligated to redefine "efficiency."

solar still takes far too much real estate to have any decent power output.
It needs water to keep the panels or mirrors clean,and the places where
solar works best are short on water.
then there's the destruction of the environment in those areas.

In parallel development are heat engines. Something like 100 times
more heat than light rains down.

Here's an interesting tidbit: Enough sunlight falls on the earth
*every minute* to power the entire planet for a *year.*

yeah,mostly in places where it's not useable.
and it's "theoretically" power the planet for a year. Not in practice.

Now then, what's *your* plan for energy once the oil is gone? I don't
care if you think it's going to last 40 years or 400, what then? Or
are you just content to **** on other people's parties and die fat and
happy?

that efficiency is NOT here NOW. nor will putting taxes and impediments on
petro sources achieve that vaunted "efficiency" NOW or in the near future.
If you want cheap,clean,plentiful electricity,build NUCLEAR plants.

Besides,solar isn't going to run your car,or the trucks that deliver your
food,get the firemen to fires,accident victims to the hospitals,and so on.


right NOW and the near future,there's no practical substitute for oil.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 2/7/2011 5:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 2/6/2011 1:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Yep. Kill the greenies!

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the
endangered species list.


If they become an endangered species, you won't even be able to yell
"Shut the hell up!" at them because it will disturb them in their
protected habitat. :-)


San Francisco is pretty easy to wall off. Further, most of the folks in SF
do not breed.


Oh my God, do you realize what that means? QUEER CLONING! We're doomed!

TDD

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:


The photovoltaic collectors of today are about like the abacus compared
to your PC. When a square meter of collector costs $10, you may be
obligated to redefine "efficiency."
*IF* they reach that efficiency. The Pro camp tends to over promise new
technology to at least the same effect as the Con tends to under credit
what is there now.


Here's an interesting tidbit: Enough sunlight falls on the earth *every
minute* to power the entire planet for a *year.*
But that seems to assume 100% collection and 100% efficiency. Is
there any current technology that even remotely reaches either of those
milestones. See Pro camp notation above.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Feb 6, 8:03*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

" wrote:
Start drilling in Santa Barbara

Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least a
dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in '76. The
NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies really only
want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to exercise a reasonable
measure of precaution. They proved again in the Gulf that they really do
not give one flying **** about safety.

I've never seen a "greenie" yet who didn't want total shutdown of
everything. They do not understand the word "compromise".

Harry K

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



solar still takes far too much real estate to have any decent power output.
It needs water to keep the panels or mirrors clean,and the places where
solar works best are short on water.
then there's the destruction of the environment in those areas.

Like I keep saying, the "panels" of tomorrow will be unrecognizable
compared to those available now. They're working on incorporating
photovoltaics into paint, among other things. Paint your house, and
bingo, the entire surface generates power.



right NOW and the near future,there's no practical substitute for oil.

Agreed. That's why it's such a good idea to continue to research and
develop practical substitutes.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



solar still takes far too much real estate to have any decent power
output. It needs water to keep the panels or mirrors clean,and the
places where solar works best are short on water.
then there's the destruction of the environment in those areas.

Like I keep saying, the "panels" of tomorrow will be unrecognizable
compared to those available now. They're working on incorporating
photovoltaics into paint, among other things. Paint your house, and
bingo, the entire surface generates power.

Yeah,during the day,and the output varies drastically with the weather.
And it STILL has to be cleaned daily with scarce water,or it's output drops
drastically.People are not going to WANT to do that.
Tree sap is particularly hard to get off,especially after it gets baked on
by the sun.
There goes your efficiency gains. and it's not PRACTICAL.

It's great for "tomorrow",but does NOTHING for us NOW or in the near
future.

"Tomorrow,tomorrow, fa,la,lala....".


right NOW and the near future,there's no practical substitute for
oil.

Agreed. That's why it's such a good idea to continue to research and
develop practical substitutes.


Who said research should stop? AFAIK,it hasn't stopped.
It's just that government throwing money at it(while taxing or repressing
other energy sources) isn't going to speed things up.
Government is wasteful with money,for little gain.
NASA's example should have taught you that;a lot of people earning really
good salaries,and not advancing space launching much.
(and now they're into muslim outreach,thanks to Comrade Obama!)

solar is not and will not be "practical" for widespread usage.
just for special applications,as it is now.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Feb 7, 6:59*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
I have, you see, unbridled confidence in human ingenuity while others are
infected with doom.

Respectfully, no, you don't.

What are wind energy and solar power if not products of the very
"human ingenuity" that you supposedly have unbridled confidence in?

When the Romans ran out of trees, they didn't just instantly switch
over to cheap coal. Digging coal was expensive and inefficient in its
infancy, and the wisdom of "pouring money down that proverbial rat-
hole" was certainly called into question many times, Rome being the
political clusterf*ck that it was...

When the easy coal started to run out, humanity didn't instantly
switch over to cheap oil. Drilling oil was was expensive and
inefficient in its infancy. The questioning of the wisdom of "pouring
money down that proverbial rat-hole" is a matter of historical record.
Movies have been made on the subject.

Right now we're in a phase of "what's next?" Maybe the earth is filled
with oil, like a creamy nougat center, and this will all be for
naught. Maybe not.

wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:59 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
I have, you see, unbridled confidence in human ingenuity while
others are infected with doom.

Respectfully, no, you don't.

What are wind energy and solar power if not products of the very
"human ingenuity" that you supposedly have unbridled confidence in?

Because of science. I have little confidence in perpetual motion, cold
fusion, and the other cousins of solar power and wind energy. We've got
places in Texas where you have to get permits for windmills 'cause there
isn't enough wind for more than one windmill per acre.


When the Romans ran out of trees, they didn't just instantly switch
over to cheap coal. Digging coal was expensive and inefficient in its
infancy, and the wisdom of "pouring money down that proverbial rat-
hole" was certainly called into question many times, Rome being the
political clusterf*ck that it was...

No, of course not - it was a gradual process. Digging coal, in the early
years, was NOT expensive. You picked up lumps on the ground and chunked 'em
in the stove. When all the coal chunks were gone, you found a seam and began
pick-axing the stuff. Then you dug shafts into the cliff face. Mining
development, too, was a gradual process.


When the easy coal started to run out, humanity didn't instantly
switch over to cheap oil. Drilling oil was was expensive and
inefficient in its infancy. The questioning of the wisdom of "pouring
money down that proverbial rat-hole" is a matter of historical record.
Movies have been made on the subject.

You're right. There was a period of transition.

In the early days of oil exploration, drilling for oil was not expensive
either. You scooped it up out of pools in the ground (think La Brea Tar
Pits). Even Spindletop, in Texas, reached oil at a paltry 1,100 feet (and
when it came in, the well blew 1,100 feet of pipe out of the well, shot a
gusher 150' into the air, and took NINE DAYS to bring under control).


Right now we're in a phase of "what's next?" Maybe the earth is filled
with oil, like a creamy nougat center, and this will all be for
naught. Maybe not.

You think you jest, but there is a body of science that holds oil is being
continually produced and replenished.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



solar still takes far too much real estate to have any decent power
output. It needs water to keep the panels or mirrors clean,and the
places where solar works best are short on water.
then there's the destruction of the environment in those areas.

Like I keep saying, the "panels" of tomorrow will be unrecognizable
compared to those available now. They're working on incorporating
photovoltaics into paint, among other things. Paint your house, and
bingo, the entire surface generates power.

Excellent analogy. To carry the analogy in reverse, the environmentalists
insist that paint manufacturers be shut down right now so that someday we'll
all paint our houses with electric paint.




right NOW and the near future,there's no practical substitute for
oil.

Agreed. That's why it's such a good idea to continue to research and
develop practical substitutes.

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many is the
government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from the many to
impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't waste much money in
a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is a big deal.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:29:34 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Feb 6, 8:03*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

" wrote:
Start drilling in Santa Barbara

Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least a
dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in '76. The
NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies really only
want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to exercise a reasonable
measure of precaution. They proved again in the Gulf that they really do
not give one flying **** about safety.

I've never seen a "greenie" yet who didn't want total shutdown of
everything. They do not understand the word "compromise".

That's why the founder of Green Peace left Green Peace. It was co-opted by
watermelons.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:55:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 6:59*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
I have, you see, unbridled confidence in human ingenuity while others are
infected with doom.

Respectfully, no, you don't.

There's a line of bull****.

What are wind energy and solar power if not products of the very
"human ingenuity" that you supposedly have unbridled confidence in?

Logic certainly isn't your strong suit.

When the Romans ran out of trees, they didn't just instantly switch
over to cheap coal. Digging coal was expensive and inefficient in its
infancy, and the wisdom of "pouring money down that proverbial rat-
hole" was certainly called into question many times, Rome being the
political clusterf*ck that it was...

When the easy coal started to run out, humanity didn't instantly
switch over to cheap oil. Drilling oil was was expensive and
inefficient in its infancy. The questioning of the wisdom of "pouring
money down that proverbial rat-hole" is a matter of historical record.
Movies have been made on the subject.

So we should throw the economy away and switch away from cheap oil today?

Right now we're in a phase of "what's next?" Maybe the earth is filled
with oil, like a creamy nougat center, and this will all be for
naught. Maybe not.

Fine. We'll see what's next. Watermelons certainly don't have a clue about
"what's next". What's next will be here when it's needed.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many is the
government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from the many to
impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't waste much money in
a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al, than
throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the planet.