quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Yes, we do have the capability to produce unlimited energy. We have had the technology for over half a century. It is called nuclear.

Uhhh, it's not unlimited. Nuclear plants DO require fuel, and the fuel is not unlimited. Uranium-235 is NOT in infinite supply. The current sources we have for U-235 that are recoverable at a practical financial cost will be GONE in 50-70 years.

quote If we used that technology then the price of electricity would be so cheap that it would become irrelevant just like when gasoline was $1 a gallon. How many hybrid cars do you think people would buy if gas was $1 a gallon? We have a supply problem, not a efficency problem. As long as the regressive environmentalists stand in the way of all progress then we will continue on the road we are on.

What's the weather like on your planet? The U-235 isn't really expensive as a fuel, but the cost to build the power plants themselves is staggeringly huge. That drives the cost of power up. Right now, coal is significantly cheaper than nuclear when it comes to electricity.....and we have a 300+ year supply of coal HERE in the United States.

There is no free lunch.

Thought it was a great documentary, of course all such programs are giving you mostly one side of the issue.

If I remember, basically what I got out of it was that the "Big Oil" lobby was a major factor in killing the electric car by helping to stall legislation. Real shocker there.

quote Originally posted by SGS: What's the weather like on your planet? The U-235 isn't really expensive as a fuel, but the cost to build the power plants themselves is staggeringly huge. That drives the cost of power up. Right now, coal is significantly cheaper than nuclear when it comes to electricity.....and we have a 300+ year supply of coal HERE in the United States. There is no free lunch.

Ever hear of a breeder reactor? We can make as much U-235 as we could ever need.

The reason why nuclear plants are so expensive to build is because of the endless law suits filed by the regressive environmentalists.

The planet that I live on is earth. Maybe you should visit some time?

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Ever hear of a breeder reactor? We can make as much U-235 as we could ever need.

Yep, I have, and you know just enough to be dangerous. A breeder reactor doesn't mean that it generates an infinite amount of power because it generates more furl than it consumes. A breeder reactor will STILL have to be refueled, if even at a slower rate. The dead giveaway that the power capacity of a breeder reactor isn't infinite is that it would literally rewrite all of science as we know it. To put it mildly, that's an understatement.

quote The reason why nuclear plants are so expensive to build is because of the endless law suits filed by the regressive environmentalists.

They're expensive everywhere because nuclear materials are sensitive and difficult to handle. Russia made some pretty cheap ones though. Chernobyl is an example of one of them.

quote The planet that I live on is earth. Maybe you should visit some time?

You should look around while you're here.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: That is not what he said. He said 2/3 of a gallon of liquid hydrogen has a lot of energy in it meaning that the envergy is compact. You somehow read that to mean you can get that out of 1 gallon of water which is false. How much water it would take is another irrelavant point. 2/3 of the earth is covered in water.

yes, but - that was what I meant. I was thinking 1 gallon water - 2/3rds are hydrogen - 1/3 is oxygen - when compressed back to liquid state

but - that mystical magical hydrogen oxygen bond - which makes ICE the only thing to expand when cold - and also makes water the greatest solvent on earth - that bond pushes the water molecules apart, making 1 gallon of water take up much more space that its individual components, when seperated.

but - yes - 2/3 gal of liqud hydrogen is a mighty bucket of power - but - its gonna take more tha a few gallons of water to make it


one of the things I have been trying to find out is how much power that radio frequency method of water seperation needs. you know, that "burning water" video all over YouTube. hitting salt water with a certain radio frequency also causes the Hydrogen Oxygen bond to fail, and breaks the water into its gasses. supposedly. from what I've seen sofar - it takes around 400watts to get a Zippo sized flame - which doesn't seem to bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 01-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Ever hear of a breeder reactor? We can make as much U-235 as we could ever need.

Yes I have ... and they aren't used to produce U-235. Most breeder reactor designs (there are several) use the fast neutrons released by the fission of U-235 or other fissionable feedstocks to transmute readily available and relatively stable U-238 (a much more common Uranium isotope) into Pu-239 (Plutonium), or Th-232 (Thorium) into U-233 (another fissile isotope of Uranium). The Pu-239 or U-233 can then be extracted and refined for use as feedstock for a different reactor. One big problem, though, is that Pu-239 is a lot more dangerous to handle and process than Uranium.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-11-2010).]

Pyrthian, no matter what method you use, it will STILL take 11,000 BTU of energy to release the bonds. That's the amount of energy holding the atoms together. So even with some magical 100% efficient method, your end result of energy out of the fuel cell when you're all said and done is 2 kwh out for over 25 kwh in. Not efficient by any means.

Like I said, hydrogen is JUST a battery.....and all of those energy conversions take their toll on the operation as a whole.

quote Originally posted by SGS: Yes, and there is nothing about that process that is limitless.

Acutally, for our purposes, it is limitless. Just because you say there is a limit does not make it so.

If you want to be really nit picky then solar energy is limited too. The sun will burn out some day a few billion years from now.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Acutally, for our purposes, it is limitless.

No, it's not. Especially for someone who says that it doesn't matter how efficiently it's used.

quote Just because you say there is a limit does not make it so.

I'm not saying there is a limit, I'm just repeating what the laws of science that govern the entire universe have shown. Did you take physics and chemistry in high school? Because that's where all of this stuff was discussed. Science and the fundamental laws of nature say there's a limit. If you say there isn't, then you need to show your evidence for this because it would literally be the most shocking and important discovery of mankind.

quote If you want to be really nit picky then solar energy is limited too. The sun will burn out some day a few billion years from now.

Actually, when the sun gets to the point of being a red giant, it will have vaporized earth and will still be putting out solar energy. So, for the purposes of life on this planet, solar energy is limitless...because our entire planet WILL be gone long before the sun turns into a big ball of iron.

Look, your ignorance is REALLY showing here. Between you not understanding basic concepts in science such as conservation of energy and the fact that you brought breeder reactors into the discussion, not even knowing enough technical details of the reactor to understand what it did, you're really overstepping your bounds in this discussion.

It's people like you that keep these "magic" energy devices alive in the media. I'm waiting for you to start talking about cold fusion next.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, but - that was what I meant. I was thinking 1 gallon water - 2/3rds are hydrogen - 1/3 is oxygen - when compressed back to liquid state but - that mystical magical hydrogen oxygen bond - which makes ICE the only thing to expand when cold - and also makes water the greatest solvent on earth - that bond pushes the water molecules apart, making 1 gallon of water take up much more space that its individual components, when seperated. but - yes - 2/3 gal of liqud hydrogen is a mighty bucket of power - but - its gonna take more tha a few gallons of water to make it

Ah. In that case you have to go by atomic weight.

Hyrdrogen = ~1
Oxygen = ~8

Total atomic weight of H2O = ~10

(I use the "~" because the atomic weights are not [i]exactly[i] those number but they are extremely close)

Since there is two hydrogen per oxygen by weight then you are looking at 2/10 or 20% of a gallon of water is hydrogen.

I don't know enough about chemistry to say how much of that would translate into liquid hydrogen. I know it requires extreme pressures and low temperature so I would assume that it takes quite a bit to make a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

It's not a personal attack, it's the truth. You are ignorant of the topic being discussed here.

I'm not criticizing YOU, I'm criticizing your COMMENTS.

If I said you were a complete dipshit who was talking out of his ass, THAT would be a personal attack.

Splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is easy and can be done with a 9 volt batttery.
http://www.reachoutmichigan...nergy/split_h2o.html
The example above was done using table salt. In High School we used Sulphuric acid to get better results. You can read about this process (hydrolysis) in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is easy and can be done with a 9 volt batttery. http://www.reachoutmichigan...nergy/split_h2o.html The example above was done using table salt. In High School we used Sulphuric acid to get better results. You can read about this process (hydrolysis) in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis

Yeah, it's easy, it's just ridiculously energy intensive and inefficient.

Kinda like saying that I can saw down a tree with a hack saw.....

quote Originally posted by SGS: It's not a personal attack, it's the truth. You are ignorant of the topic being discussed here. I'm not criticizing YOU, I'm criticizing your COMMENTS. If I said you were a complete dipshit who was talking out of his ass, THAT would be a personal attack.

Nice weasly explaination. Your comments are the kind I would expect from an adolescent. Even your oh so cute attack at the end betrays you.

Apparently I got under your skin since I pointed out time and again how your arguments are irrelevant.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Nice weasly explaination. Your comments are the kind I would expect from an adolescent. Even your oh so cute attack at the end betrays you. Apparently I got under your skin since I pointed out time and again how your arguments are irrelevant.

You're saying my arguments are irrelevant because you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about. You could spend 5 minutes on google and be much more prepared with factual information. But all you're spewing is opinion and unsubstantiated misinformation. Your thoughts on the breeder reactor are a perfect example.

I'm done arguing with you. The stuff you think is "irrelevant" was taught in high school science classes, and if you didn't learn it then, I'm certainly not going to be able to change your mind. You're welcome to believe whatever pie in the sky ideas you want, but everything I have said in this thread is FACT, and is easy to find with a little searching on the web.

quote Originally posted by SGS: You're saying my arguments are irrelevant because you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about. You could spend 5 minutes on google and be much more prepared with factual information. But all you're spewing is opinion and unsubstantiated misinformation. Your thoughts on the breeder reactor are a perfect example. I'm done arguing with you. The stuff you think is "irrelevant" was taught in high school science classes, and if you didn't learn it then, I'm certainly not going to be able to change your mind. You're welcome to believe whatever pie in the sky ideas you want, but everything I have said in this thread is FACT, and is easy to find with a little searching on the web.

It wan't much of an argument to begin with. You sidestepped the FACT that fuel cell vehicles have a longer range, more passenger area and better performance. You sidestepped the FACT that breeder reactors create more fissionable material which can be used in more reactors.

Speaking of FACTS:

quote Right now, coal is significantly cheaper than nuclear when it comes to electricity.....and we have a 300+ year supply of coal HERE in the United States.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: It wan't much of an argument to begin with. You sidestepped the FACT that fuel cell vehicles have a longer range, more passenger area and better performance.

I haven't sidestepped that. Fuel cells are proven technology...we have been using them for over 50 years. We landed men on the moon using fuel cells. I don't have an issue with the fuel cell....I have an issue with where to get the hydrogen. THAT is the issue, and that's the only part I have been arguing.

quote You sidestepped the FACT that breeder reactors create more fissionable material which can be used in more reactors.

That's not what you said. What you said was basically that breeders generated their own, practically infinite supply of U-235.....which is NOT true by any stretch of the imagination. Not only do they NOT create an infinite supply of fuel (that's the part that violates science as we know it), the don't even generate U-235. And YOU didn't mention any of that.

quote

And see, this is where you show that you're truly uninformed. THAT graph only shows the cost of the fuel that runs the plant; the production cost, just as the title of the graph states...not ALL of the costs involved and what electricity costs to the consumer. The fuel is only a component. Note the absence of hydro, for which the fuel cost is zero. People in Washington, where 3/4 of the power is generated by hydro will attest to the fact that they don't get electricity for free. The other costs are there to offset the cost of the infrastructure that brings the electricity to you....the transmission and distribution lines, and the power plants. With nuclear, the biggest portion of the cost of power is the cost of the plant, which has to be amortized on a per kwh basis over the life of the plant. Think about it: do you know anyone paying 3 cents per kwh? Do YOU even know what you pay per kwh? My power is 90% generated by coal, 8% hydro, and 2% gas....which according to the chart, should make my power about 4 cents/kwh. But it's actually just under 10 cents. The difference is infrastructure.

It's kinda like saying that your cost of transportation is only X dollars per mile since gasoline is only $2.00 a gallon....while negating the cost of the car itself, as if that payment didn't have to be made every month. The fuel is a portion of your costs, and the car payment (the infrastructure) is a portion of your costs.

But at least you tried to find some facts to back up your claims.

[This message has been edited by SGS (edited 01-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by SGS: And see, this is where you show that you're truly uninformed. THAT graph only shows the cost of the fuel that runs the plant; the production cost, just as the title of the graph states...not ALL of the costs involved and what electricity costs to the consumer. The fuel is only a component. Note the absence of hydro, for which the fuel cost is zero. People in Washington, where 3/4 of the power is generated by hydro will attest to the fact that they don't get electricity for free. The other costs are there to offset the cost of the infrastructure that brings the electricity to you....the transmission and distribution lines, and the power plants. With nuclear, the biggest portion of the cost of power is the cost of the plant, which has to be amortized on a per kwh basis over the life of the plant. Think about it: do you know anyone paying 3 cents per kwh? Do YOU even know what you pay per kwh? My power is 90% generated by coal, 8% hydro, and 2% gas....which according to the chart, should make my power about 4 cents/kwh. But it's actually just under 10 cents. The difference is infrastructure. It's kinda like saying that your cost of transportation is only X dollars per mile since gasoline is only $2.00 a gallon....while negating the cost of the car itself, as if that payment didn't have to be made every month. The fuel is a portion of your costs, and the car payment (the infrastructure) is a portion of your costs. But at least you tried to find some facts to back up your claims.

Yea, you didn't mention anything about breeder reactor output until AFTER Marvin did. I'm so sure you knew it. How does it feel to ride on someone else's coat tails?

I like how you spent a whole paragraph to weasle out of the cost of coal vs nuclear. When proven wrong, change the criteria. I can play that game too. How many tons of polution go up into the air from a coal plant compared to nuclear since you are factoring in ALL costs. How much would it cost to make a coal plant's emissions equal those of a nuclear plant?

Just admit it, you are wrong. You are grasping at technicalities just like a weasle would.

Not only that but you are supporting coal plants to power electric vehicles. That is just silly. The whole concept of using an electric vehicle is to reduce air polution, not support it. I don't think you even know what you are for or against.

I just finished watching the entire documentary. I believe most of it. I am skeptical about some parts but overall I can accept that most of it was true.

First, that was only one side of the story. We don't have anything from the automakers. If what the junkyard owner said was true, then those cars would have to be taken off the road since they were test vehicles and insurers would no longer ensure them.

Even if everything was true in the movie, then that is fine. The free market worked. Some entrepenuers started up an electric car company called Tesla that is building and electric car that is better than the EV-1. Tesla even has plans for a cheaper consumer market electric vehicle. There are even more electric vehicles planned by other independant manufacturers.

The electric car is not dead. Just the EV-1. Long live Tesla.

A hydrogen car price tag is still a million dollars so you whole argument is over something that we will never be able to afford.

quote Originally posted by SGS: Pyrthian, no matter what method you use, it will STILL take 11,000 BTU of energy to release the bonds. That's the amount of energy holding the atoms together. So even with some magical 100% efficient method, your end result of energy out of the fuel cell when you're all said and done is 2 kwh out for over 25 kwh in. Not efficient by any means. Like I said, hydrogen is JUST a battery.....and all of those energy conversions take their toll on the operation as a whole.

I agree the water splitting is sloppy.
but - I also think that as you say - Hydrogen makes a GREAT battery.
it is a great way to store energy. and when that energy - evn tho it was made sloppily - it was still made from a free resource - Solar.
one of the sucky parts of solar - is it takes up so much space - so its tough to apply directly.
same with geothermal being location specific
and Tidal power & wind power

while coal is great - it is not a great auto fuel - tho - that is changing to

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Yea, you didn't mention anything about breeder reactor output until AFTER Marvin did. I'm so sure you knew it. How does it feel to ride on someone else's coat tails?

Wow, you're great at the strawman tactic. I refuted your exact point about the breeder: you implied that the breeder was an infinite or practically limitless source of energy, and it is NOT. You were WRONG. I didn't feel it necessary to spend the 3 seconds to copy and paste from wikipedia about the technical operation of a breeder since you didn't even bother to look it up in the first place.

quote I like how you spent a whole paragraph to weasle out of the cost of coal vs nuclear. When proven wrong, change the criteria.

No, I'm pretty sure were we talking about the cost of the power. You're an IDIOT if you think the cost of the power doesn't include the cost of the plant. You can look on your own electric bill and see that. And the chart clearly states that. It says so in a footnote at the bottom: Production costs do not include indirect costs or capital. Capital would be what it costs to build the plant and the infrastructure. I made you a nice little analogy using a car that even someone as dimwitted as you would be able to understand, and YOU sidestepped that. I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler. How about this. You want to buy a new car, and you want to save as much money as possible.

Car A gets 60 mpg.
Car B gets 25 mpg.

Car A costs $100,000.
Car B costs $25,000.

Which one do you buy, and which one costs you less money?

Does that make any sense to you? Or are you in 4th grade and I'm just totally wasting my time?

quote I can play that game too. How many tons of polution go up into the air from a coal plant compared to nuclear since you are factoring in ALL costs. How much would it cost to make a coal plant's emissions equal those of a nuclear plant?

Why don't you start a new thread, and we can discuss that.

quote Just admit it, you are wrong. You are grasping at technicalities just like a weasle would.

No, the technicalities are important, because that's what makes the system work. I'm an engineer who works in the energy industry, and you can't spell "pollution" or "weasel" correctly. I think we can see why you're not buying the technical explanation.

So, I said I wouldn't do it, but I got suckered into arguing with a complete moron. No more. No reason to address any of your posts anymore because you're so far behind you think you're in first place.

quote Originally posted by SGS: No, I said that hydrogen is a TERRIBLE battery. Solar may be free, but it's just not smart to waste it because it is. And you know what? No one does. I know a guy who builds solar houses and runs them with the electric utility in a net metering arrangement. So even as sharp as he is, he still has to use the grid as a crutch. In any case, he'll build a 3500 square foot home that can run from a 3kw PV array. 3kw!!!! Air conditioning and all! The houses are ridiculously expensive because of how they're constructed (basically to be as efficient as possible), because doing it that way is cheaper than building a "conventional" home and just putting enough PV on the roof to make it work. Using hydrogen would be like trying to make your conventional house run on solar power. MAJOR capital investment, only to waste most of the energy your solar generates. Not smart.

really? zero loss is terrible battery? what battery stores energy any better?
I agree the systems creating the hydrogen are sloppy. but - the storage of energy itself - is excellent.
and - yes - traditional photovoltiac solar panels are costly. but - that not the only way to go. and - up here in Michigan - forget about it.
which is a peice of the puzzle. location.
anyways - I find the loss worth not paying Arabs. I do not find the World Trade Center an acceptable cost for Gasoline.
and, I would expect that early Gasoline refinement was not exactly "efficient" either. always need to remember we are comparing a highly tuned installed infrastructure vs prototypes & experiments. maybe we should approach this in a different way: how much would it cost you to personally to make 1 gallon of gasoline? not buying it - making it yourself, in your basement. already been shown it would be under $10 - but alot of time to make hydrogen. Gasoline has many costs besides the $$$. Angry Arabs being a big one. but - the environmental cost of refining aint pretty either. ever get a whiff of a refinery? stinks for miles.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: [quote]really? zero loss is terrible battery? what battery stores energy any better?

It's not that the STORAGE of hydrogen has any loss. You are correct there. Well, actually you're not...there are losses in order to compress it, and again when you expand it.

The losses occur because I have to change it from one form of energy to another. It's like saying that gasoline is a storage battery...it's storing chemical energy. The big loss is when I burn it in an engine.

quote I agree the systems creating the hydrogen are sloppy. but - the storage of energy itself - is excellent. and - yes - traditional photovoltiac solar panels are costly. but - that not the only way to go. and - up here in Michigan - forget about it. which is a peice of the puzzle. location. anyways - I find the loss worth not paying Arabs. I do not find the World Trade Center an acceptable cost for Gasoline. and, I would expect that early Gasoline refinement was not exactly "efficient" either. always need to remember we are comparing a highly tuned installed infrastructure vs prototypes & experiments. maybe we should approach this in a different way: how much would it cost you to personally to make 1 gallon of gasoline? not buying it - making it yourself, in your basement. already been shown it would be under $10 - but alot of time to make hydrogen. Gasoline has many costs besides the $$$. Angry Arabs being a big one. but - the environmental cost of refining aint pretty either. ever get a whiff of a refinery? stinks for miles.

Even an efficient electrolysis plant on a large scale cannot overcome the laws of physics, and that's the point. Yes, it's less efficient to make in my garage, but even large scale production won't stop that. Do you know that at a power plant, 2/3 of the energy in coal is wasted? Even a GOOD natural gas fired power plant, about HALF on the energy in the gas is wasted? Converting energy from one form or another is ALWAYS wasteful.

That's why I'm saying that it's foolish to make electricity with solar, then use that electricity to make hydrogen, then use that hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity. I'm much better off to store the electricity from my solar setup in a battery, and use the battery to drive an electric car. Yeah, the battery has some losses, but not nearly what all of those energy conversions have.

quote Originally posted by SGS: Wow, you're great at the strawman tactic. I refuted your exact point about the breeder: you implied that the breeder was an infinite or practically limitless source of energy, and it is NOT. You were WRONG. I didn't feel it necessary to spend the 3 seconds to copy and paste from wikipedia about the technical operation of a breeder since you didn't even bother to look it up in the first place. .

Buzzzzzt. Wrong.

You claimed that we have less than a 50 year supply. I posted a reason we have much more. Marvin, not you, posted the technicalities which I acknowledged. That does not change the fact that you are STILL wrong in the first instance.

quote Originally posted by SGS: Even an efficient electrolysis plant on a large scale cannot overcome the laws of physics, and that's the point. Yes, it's less efficient to make in my garage, but even large scale production won't stop that. Do you know that at a power plant, 2/3 of the energy in coal is wasted? Even a GOOD natural gas fired power plant, about HALF on the energy in the gas is wasted? Converting energy from one form or another is ALWAYS wasteful. That's why I'm saying that it's foolish to make electricity with solar, then use that electricity to make hydrogen, then use that hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity. I'm much better off to store the electricity from my solar setup in a battery, and use the battery to drive an electric car. Yeah, the battery has some losses, but not nearly what all of those energy conversions have.

yup. I am just under the assumption that better ways will evovle to get Hydrogen. I agree going straight to battery is a doable way to go with current tech.

one of the the things I'm really looking at is the stirling engines, which run on temprature difference - a easy addition to existing systems, which have much loss due to heat.

quote Originally posted by SGS: No, I'm pretty sure were we talking about the cost of the power. You're an IDIOT if you think the cost of the power doesn't include the cost of the plant. You can look on your own electric bill and see that. And the chart clearly states that. It says so in a footnote at the bottom: Production costs do not include indirect costs or capital. Capital would be what it costs to build the plant and the infrastructure. I made you a nice little analogy using a car that even someone as dimwitted as you would be able to understand, and YOU sidestepped that. I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler. How about this. You want to buy a new car, and you want to save as much money as possible.

You strain so hard. This is indeed comical. Here is a refresher:

quote Right now, coal is significantly cheaper than nuclear when it comes to electricity.....and we have a 300+ year supply of coal HERE in the United States.

Like a weasle, you changed your own criteria to still be able to claim coal as cheaper. Even when factoring in your own criteria you are STILL wrong.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

Item Cost Element Nuclear Coal
$/Mw-hr
$/Mw-hr

1 Fuel 5.0 11.0
2 Operating & Maintenance - Labor & Materials 6.0 5.0
3 Pensions, Insurance, Taxes 1.0 1.0
4 Regulatory Fees 1.0 0.1
5 Property Taxes 2.0 2.0
6 Capital 9.0 9.0
7 Decommissioning & DOE waste costs 5.0 0.0
8 Administrative / overheads 1.0 1.0
Total 30.0 29.1

3% difference is "significantly cheaper" in your world.

But remember kids, and say this with me....
It doesn't matter what works well or not, it matters what the government can make money with.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-12-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: - traditional photovoltiac solar panels are costly.

...not only costly, but not very efficient. It was only recently that they are able to create a solar cell that is 18% efficient. 18% is far from being efficient...

edit >> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100107PR204.html

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-12-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...not only costly, but not very efficient. It was only recently that they are able to create a solar cell that is 18% efficient. 18% is far from being efficient... edit >> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100107PR204.html

yup - which is why I mentioned Stirling Engines so many times - 70% efficiency - and run on nothing but temprature difference.
you can add them to existing combustion based systems to not only run off the cooling system - but the exhaust system as well.
and, of course - concentrated solar & geothermal
simple quite clean machines

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yup - which is why I mentioned Stirling Engines so many times - 70% efficiency - and run on nothing but temprature difference. you can add them to existing combustion based systems to not only run off the cooling system - but the exhaust system as well. and, of course - concentrated solar & geothermal simple quite clean machines

CSP is going to be the way to go for most large scale solar power plants. Roughly twice as efficient as PV.

The stirling has potential, but you also have to realize that the stirling engine has been around for a LONG time...and I honestly think that if we could be using them for power generation, someone would have done it by now.

quote Originally posted by SGS: CSP is going to be the way to go for most large scale solar power plants. Roughly twice as efficient as PV. The stirling has potential, but you also have to realize that the stirling engine has been around for a LONG time...and I honestly think that if we could be using them for power generation, someone would have done it by now.

NASA uses them.

what is CSP?

edit - nm - just did a quick search: Concentrated Solar Power - and - it turns out - the Stirling Engine is in fact the most common choice with this setup.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 01-12-2010).]