Re: [Vo]:News from Japan
Jones Beene wrote: This blogster apparently is taking a comical view of it: http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html However, other sources say the output is only 300 watts, and that the power unit was shown openly at a trade show recently. A reactive metal is used to split the water - but is consumed very slowly. Very confusing... and they do NOT claim overunity, so do not get too excited. Consumable metals will not be a viable way to get hydrogen, if that is what it is. Not quite Aluminium has almost as much potential as petrol or ethanol so if they are oxidising the metal and then can swap the cell out daily with a new one regenerating the cell with a renewable energy it could in theory work. But these guys from japan aren't close if 300 wats is all they have. I can do better with store bought al foil and sodium hydroxide. Youtube has a half dozen demos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FmrOatEEAfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FmrOatEEAfeature=related Is this the only guy on youtube that thinks to ware gloves?!? A safe design under the hood and solar powered aluminum reduction would be interesting. Aluminium air batteries are on the cards and zinc air and nickel zinc are here today. http://www.evionyx.com/ That would mean that even if your let it charge for 23 hours plus out of every day, that the ~7 kW is not much to use - and you could barely get to the corner grocery store and back before draining a battery. --- Jones Beene wrote: Not to be outdone by the GMs Volt Could be a major breakthrough ...or not http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/
[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
- Original Message - From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Note also its not just the cells their selling but their selling the machine that makes the cells. Are you sure? Where do they say so? Its not the only machine they have running and there's one in germany. Their plant in Germany only assembles panels from cells made in their US plant AFAIK. The US plant also produces some panels. Did you see how much empty space the factory has? They could build a few more yet in just that factory alone. Awesome! Indeed! Michel
[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? As for transmission, what's wrong with current electric power transmission lines? Michel
Re: [Vo]:News from Japan
Before you get excited about aluminum batteries, do a *life cycle check*. Aluminum is plentiful as its oxide. Purifying it is done by electrolysis, using *lots* of electrical energy for refineries next to hydroelectric plants. Mike Carrell === - Original Message - From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:News from Japan Jones Beene wrote: This blogster apparently is taking a comical view of it: http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html However, other sources say the output is only 300 watts, and that the power unit was shown openly at a trade show recently. A reactive metal is used to split the water - but is consumed very slowly. Very confusing... and they do NOT claim overunity, so do not get too excited. Consumable metals will not be a viable way to get hydrogen, if that is what it is. Not quite Aluminium has almost as much potential as petrol or ethanol so if they are oxidising the metal and then can swap the cell out daily with a new one regenerating the cell with a renewable energy it could in theory work. But these guys from japan aren't close if 300 wats is all they have. I can do better with store bought al foil and sodium hydroxide. Youtube has a half dozen demos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FmrOatEEAfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FmrOatEEAfeature=related Is this the only guy on youtube that thinks to ware gloves?!? A safe design under the hood and solar powered aluminum reduction would be interesting. Aluminium air batteries are on the cards and zinc air and nickel zinc are here today. http://www.evionyx.com/ That would mean that even if your let it charge for 23 hours plus out of every day, that the ~7 kW is not much to use - and you could barely get to the corner grocery store and back before draining a battery. --- Jones Beene wrote: Not to be outdone by the GMs Volt Could be a major breakthrough ...or not http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
[Vo]:irrational thinking
Hi All, Now Mohamed ElBaradei follows in the footsteps of Admiral Fallon. Jack Smith Ed Storms wrote on 6-20-08: ``If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html ``NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-19-08, IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security ...'' -- http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nuclear-chief-warns-against-strike-on-iran/2008/06/22/1214073053820.html NEWS ARTICLE from The Sydney Morning Herald, 6-23-08, by Agence France Presse, Reuters ``Nuclear chief warns against strike on Iran DUBAI: The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog has warned that an attack on Iran over its nuclear program would turn the region into a fireball.. Mohamed ElBaradei also warned he would not be able to continue in his role as director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency if the Islamic republic were attacked. A military strike [against Iran] would in my opinion be worse than anything else. It would transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire, he said in an interview with Al-Arabiya television. The New York Times on Friday quoted US officials as saying a big Israeli military exercise this month, involving more than 100 fighter jets in the Mediterranean, seemed to be a preparation for a potential strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In Athens, an official with the Greek Air Force's central command confirmed the substance of the report, stating that Greek units had taken part in joint training exercises with Israel off the Mediterranean island of Crete ... Dr. ElBaradei said any attack would simply harden Iran's position in its row with the West over its nuclear program. A military strike would spark the launch of an emergency program to make atomic weapons, with the support of all Iranians, including those living abroad, he said ...'' --- http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-saudi23-2008jun23,0,4540236.story NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-23-08, By Sebastian Abbot, The Associated Press ``Saudi Arabia makes vague pledge to boost oil output JIDDA, SAUDI ARABIA -- Facing strong U.S. pressure and global dismay over oil prices, Saudi Arabia said Sunday that it would produce more crude this year if the market needed it. The vague pledge fell far short of U.S. hopes for a specific increase and may do little to lower prices immediately. For now, the current oil shock leaves Western countries with little choice but to move toward nuclear power and change their energy-consumption habits, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned at a rare meeting of oil-producing and consuming nations. Saudi Arabia -- the world's top crude exporter -- called the gathering Sunday to send a message that it too is concerned by high oil prices inflicting economic pain worldwide. Instead, the meeting highlighted the sharp disagreement between producers such as Saudi Arabia and consuming countries such as Britain and the United States over the core factors driving steep price hikes. Oil closed near $135 a barrel Friday -- almost double the price a year ago. The cost of gasoline also has become a sore point in the U.S. presidential race, with President Bush and presumed Republican nominee John McCain calling on Congress to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said such moves will do nothing to ease American consumers' pain short-term. The U.S. and other nations argue that oil production has not kept up with increasing demand, especially from China, India and the Middle East. But Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries say there is no shortage of oil and instead blame financial speculation and the falling U.S. dollar ...''
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:31 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, Actually, A123 has them already beat to market it appears, and Toshiba has some interfering patents. Altair stock (ALTI) is in the dumps now, under $2/shr. couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? Many existing utilities will be slow to adapt smart meters, and many already resist having to manage power coming from residences. Major solar power generation utilities, however, if not hindered by regulation, are highly motivated for fast growth and innovation. As for transmission, what's wrong with current electric power transmission lines? Michel They don't ship power well across oceans, and don't ship energy in stored form, i.e. as hydrogen, nitrogen, or silicon compounds. The biggest cost item may soon be land itself, and 3rd world desert will be ideal for power generation. The major problems for global renewable energy production are energy storage and shipping, but these problems may be solved now the economics are right. The content of some of my old posts on the subject are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Similar problems will exist specifically for the USA - because land and sun are best in the southern desert areas, but adequate long distance transmission facilities, in terms of either price or capacity, are not available. High voltage DC systems may provide an answer for that, but not overnight. Room temperature superconducting transmission at a low capital cost would be good, but that is not in sight yet. Hydrogen transmission systems would work well, but are probably decades off. Electrolysis itself needs a lot of improvement, though it is a viable technology now, depending on the competing cost of energy. I expect the biggest problems and roadblocks to renewable energy development will continue to come from governments. Money for energy research and development has been allocated in mere token amounts, enough to give politicians talking points, but at less than one percent of what is needed. LENR or ZPE or other solutions might even be at hand now if enough money were spent on research, solutions which bypass the storage and shipping problems altogether. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
On 23/6/2008 4:31 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? don't forget ultra-capacitors. harry
Re: [Vo]:irrational thinking
On 23/6/2008 8:14 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, Now Mohamed ElBaradei follows in the footsteps of Admiral Fallon. Jack Smith Ed Storms wrote on 6-20-08: ``If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html ``NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-19-08, IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security ...'' which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power, which leads to more Israeli paranoia...which leads to more war talk, which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power... Harry
Re: [Vo]:irrational thinking
Harry Veeder wrote: On 23/6/2008 8:14 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, Now Mohamed ElBaradei follows in the footsteps of Admiral Fallon. Jack Smith Ed Storms wrote on 6-20-08: ``If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html ``NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-19-08, IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security ...'' which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power, which leads to more Israeli paranoia...which leads to more war talk, which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power... Thus we see the wisdom of the Christian advice to turn the other cheek in contrast to the Jewish approach of taking an eye for an eye. Ed Harry
Re: [Vo]:irrational thinking
On 23/6/2008 12:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: On 23/6/2008 8:14 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, Now Mohamed ElBaradei follows in the footsteps of Admiral Fallon. Jack Smith Ed Storms wrote on 6-20-08: ``If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html ``NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-19-08, IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security ...'' which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power, which leads to more Israeli paranoia...which leads to more war talk, which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power... Thus we see the wisdom of the Christian advice to turn the other cheek in contrast to the Jewish approach of taking an eye for an eye. The problem is the Jewish norm is also a Muslim norm, so the worst thing the US could do is take sides by refusing to talk to the Iranians. Harry
[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:31 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, Actually, A123 has them already beat to market it appears, and Toshiba has some interfering patents. Altair stock (ALTI) is in the dumps now, under $2/shr. Indeed several working technologies are in competition, which is an excellent thing for the end user! couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? Many existing utilities will be slow to adapt smart meters, and many already resist having to manage power coming from residences. Major solar power generation utilities, however, if not hindered by regulation, are highly motivated for fast growth and innovation. As for transmission, what's wrong with current electric power transmission lines? Michel They don't ship power well across oceans, and don't ship energy in stored form, i.e. as hydrogen, nitrogen, or silicon compounds. The biggest cost item may soon be land itself, and 3rd world desert will be ideal for power generation. The major problems for global renewable energy production are energy storage and shipping, but these problems may be solved now the economics are right. The content of some of my old posts on the subject are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Doesn't seem to include solar PV (e.g. Nanosolar: $2/W installation cost, 25 yr lifetime, negligible running costs, right?) http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Similar problems will exist specifically for the USA - because land and sun are best in the southern desert areas, but adequate long distance transmission facilities, in terms of either price or capacity, are not available. Who needs deserts? Land _outside cities_ is cheap, and insolation acceptable, in most places, so in most cases it isn't necessary to carry the energy over long distances. So the existing power grid is already adequate for large scale deployment of municipal PV plants, which is indeed occurring as we speak, limited only by panel supply I guess. Michel High voltage DC systems may provide an answer for that, but not overnight. Room temperature superconducting transmission at a low capital cost would be good, but that is not in sight yet. Hydrogen transmission systems would work well, but are probably decades off. Electrolysis itself needs a lot of improvement, though it is a viable technology now, depending on the competing cost of energy. I expect the biggest problems and roadblocks to renewable energy development will continue to come from governments. Money for energy research and development has been allocated in mere token amounts, enough to give politicians talking points, but at less than one percent of what is needed. LENR or ZPE or other solutions might even be at hand now if enough money were spent on research, solutions which bypass the storage and shipping problems altogether. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer The content of some of my old posts on the subject are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Doesn't seem to include solar PV (e.g. Nanosolar: $2/W installation cost, 25 yr lifetime, negligible running costs, right?) It does on page 3. See Update Feb, 2007 for note on First Solar (FSLR). http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Similar problems will exist specifically for the USA - because land and sun are best in the southern desert areas, but adequate long distance transmission facilities, in terms of either price or capacity, are not available. Who needs deserts? Land _outside cities_ is cheap, and insolation acceptable, in most places, so in most cases it isn't necessary to carry the energy over long distances. So the existing power grid is already adequate for large scale deployment of municipal PV plants, which is indeed occurring as we speak, limited only by panel supply I guess. Michel This strategy applies only to small towns, and only to a partial energy supply. It doesn't work well for cities like New York, where typical commutes are over an hour and land prices even 50 miles out are incredible, and land use is highly regulated by many very small patchwork communities, often literally only a mile square. It also doesn't work well where there is a lot of snow or overcast conditions. It doesn't work well for high power demand manufacturing areas. Farm land near cities is being snapped up by funds and investors, so it may not be long before regulations are made to stop the practice, or at least regulate the conversion of farmland to other uses, possibly though tax regulations. There is also the matter of energy storage, which could amount to the equivalent of an industrial process, and thus involve other regulations and limitations. It is notable that there is already a rush for California desert land by solar power providers, despite all the regulatory risks present for even that land. I expect initially some of the big products for 3rd world manufacturing using solar energy will be fertilizer and water. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
