Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
I've put peripheral input into environmental assessments in the past. For something like the South Western deserts of the U.S., I'd say, as a rule of thumb, that if a maximum of no more than 20% of the area was given over to solar plant that that would be acceptable. 80% would be left semi pristine. Nature would be fine. Of the 20% used, I don't mean every square yard dragooned into production but, of that area given over to generation, there would be wildlife corridors between the units. The shading effect beneath the panels or reflectors might actually give the desert dwelling species an easier niche to live in without it being so comfortable that temperate species would usurp them. I think up to 20 % would be a huge energy resource that may even be beneficial to the local environment if planned wisely... Nick
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] I think the idea of using Hydrogen is as a transport fuel. My question is why not use their solid fuel reactor in a vehicle powered by a steam turbine? MC: Such is certainly a possibility, but would require a total redesign of automobiles, back to the Stanley Steamer, whilch in its day wasn't too bad. This time, perhaps Sirling engines would be used. Conceivably, by then the hydrino hyper battery will be on the horizon, which will lead to real cool cars. Already the idea of a power slab with wheels has surfaced, using fuel cells. Bodies and trim are just bolt-ons to the power slab. Lots of RD and entrepreneural tinkering will be done. Jed has long championed the entrepreneurs as a enormous resorce, and he is right. One BLP becomes real the parade will begin. BLP will not oppose it, all they want is for the investors to get paid royalties for use of patents. There are parallels in the develoment of the automobile and radio and in software. Mike Carrell Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Considering _just_ their reflectivity, would big farms of solar panels contribute to global warming or reduce it? Harry
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects Considering _just_ their reflectivity, would big farms of solar panels contribute to global warming or reduce it? MC: If you are talking about solar-thermal, the mirrors concentrate sunlight on absorbing tubes, so if you are the sun, you see a huge dark patch which blots up your radiance -- the net energy absorbed gets eventually converted to heat, so the effect on global warming is neutral. Global warming is not due to man's use of energy [which eventually reduces to heat] but to the greenhouse effect of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane which block the radiation of earth's heat into space, so the sun's heat accumulates as in a greenhouse. Solar PV panels appear dark blue or black because they also absorb sunlight but do not release greenhouse gases. Mike Carrell Harry This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
On Jun 28, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Considering _just_ their reflectivity, would big farms of solar panels contribute to global warming or reduce it? Solar panels increase direct solar heating or the earth by the combination of conversion of sunlight to energy which ultimately ends up some where as heat, and by decreasing the earth's albedo, the proportion of sunlight reflected from the earth. However, the large numbers of square miles of existing cities and asphalt roads have already had a much greater effect on albedo. The net effect on the earth's albedo can be partially compensated for by painting lots of rooftops white, which is a good idea anyway, but this is not necessary because the overall effect of solar panels is so small. The albedo loss from solar panels is nothing at all compared to the albedo loss due to the loss of the polar ice caps and mountain snow and ice cover. Black solar panels with efficiencies well below 50% can have an immediate heating effect on their localities which could have local environmental consequences, especially in the desert. However, all that said, the bottom line answer to your question is that solar panels can replace all non-renewable carbon fuel burning, and thus eliminate the majority of the human contribution to global warming. They reduce it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Not to worry Horace, Todays national news reports that 16 Ethanol plants filed for bankruptcy and another 15 are likely to close in the USA alone this year Richard, - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:59 PM Subject: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects I'm hopefully not given to apoplexy, but this just about did it for me: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html? _r=2oref=sloginoref=slogin http://tinyurl.com/4bo5b5 Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. How asinine can government be. Let's see, on one hand we have a few hundred square miles of desert, on the other we have survival ... hm ... yep, we need a two year study to weigh that one. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1522 - Release Date: 6/27/2008 8:27 AM
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
We have seen this approach many times in the past. When this government is given two choices, it will always pick the least intelligent one. Hopefully, the next administration will reverse these decisions. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: I'm hopefully not given to apoplexy, but this just about did it for me: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html? _r=2oref=sloginoref=slogin http://tinyurl.com/4bo5b5 Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. How asinine can government be. Let's see, on one hand we have a few hundred square miles of desert, on the other we have survival ... hm ... yep, we need a two year study to weigh that one. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Mike Carrell wrote: When your are promoting a technology that may lead to covering square miles of land in our thirst for energy, it is well take a look at the environmental consequences of doing so. *Not* doing so got us where we are. Plus, I believe there is plenty of private and state land where these projects can be built in the meanwhile. The technology will not be held back because Federal land cannot be used for a few years. Note that most federal land (especially parkland) is closed to wind turbines. This has not held back the rapid deployment of wind turbine energy, which is now increasing at a rate approximately equal to one US nuclear fission reactor per year (~3,000 MW nameplate; 1,400 MW nameplate first quarter 2008). Meanwhile watch Blacklight Power over the next few years. Utility-scale reactors are on their ajenda. Hydrogen from water. If that happens, all bets are off, including cold fusion. Why they plan to make hydrogen I do not know. Why not just react the stuff in a fuel cell and make electricity. There is no form of energy more flexible useful than electricity. It is the highest of high grade energy. That is why would love to see one of these magnetic motor/generator things work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Every normal person is in favor of protecting the environment, Mike. Its the way it is done or the hypocrisy shown by the administration that is so stupid. For example, drilling in the coastal waters or in Alaska is all right even though the harm to the environment is obvious. But, covering areas that are unused and out of sight by equipment that will eventually be removed has to be debated. Meanwhile, it is ok to rape the land in Canada for oil shale while we are encouraged to use more oil. Even the ethanol idea was a cruel hoax that is now too expensive to continue because energy is too expensive to be used to raise corn for that purpose. Given the basic approach this administration has shown, it is easy to think that protecting the environment is simply a fig leaf for killing the competition to oil. Ed Mike Carrell wrote: No need for apoplexy, don't blame the administrators, they did not make the rules and Congress and the greens had only the best of intentions when lobbying for the protection of the land and all the green and creepy things thereon. When your are promoting a technology that may lead to covering square miles of land in our thirst for energy, it is well take a look at the environmental consequences of doing so. *Not* doing so got us where we are. The informaltion about Nanosolar with printed PV with 14% efficiency looks most interesting, but you need to deploy a few square miles to find the 'gotchas' through wind, sand and rain. Meanwhile watch Blacklight Power over the next few years. Utility-scale reactors are on their ajenda. Hydrogen from water. Mike Carrell
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Years ago, the EPA was given the mandate to carry out environmental impact assessments on large federal projects. It would have been prudent and forward looking for EPA some years ago to have studied the impacts of large-scale solar paneling. There was nothing -- except a lack of responsibility and forethought -- to stop them doing so. These impact statements are fairly rigorous efforts, involving 1) a study of the technology, 2) a study of the environmental (defined broadly) secondary and tertiary impacts, and 3) extensive processes for public comment and influence. Thus the two-year estimate, and I have seen them drag on far longer if the public parties dispute the study findings. My guess is that there is plenty of room for constructing solar farms on a trial basis and using them to study the impacts, while at the same time beginning to generate appreciable amounts of electricity. But best of all, in my opinion, would have been an administration that was capable of thinking effectively about the future of energy in this country and of proactively launching superior solutions, accompanied by the necessary regulatory studies and procedures for using the requisite public lands. Lawrence -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects No need for apoplexy, don't blame the administrators, they did not make the rules and Congress and the greens had only the best of intentions when lobbying for the protection of the land and all the green and creepy things thereon. When your are promoting a technology that may lead to covering square miles of land in our thirst for energy, it is well take a look at the environmental consequences of doing so. *Not* doing so got us where we are. The informaltion about Nanosolar with printed PV with 14% efficiency looks most interesting, but you need to deploy a few square miles to find the 'gotchas' through wind, sand and rain. Meanwhile watch Blacklight Power over the next few years. Utility-scale reactors are on their ajenda. Hydrogen from water. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Meanwhile watch Blacklight Power over the next few years. Utility-scale reactors are on their ajenda. Hydrogen from water. If that happens, all bets are off, including cold fusion. Why they plan to make hydrogen I do not know. Why not just react the stuff in a fuel cell and make electricity. There is no form of energy more flexible useful than electricity. It is the highest of high grade energy. That is why would love to see one of these magnetic motor/generator things work. BLP would like nothing better than direct conversion to electricity, but one must follow Nature. The reactions which are the core of BLP technology primarily release energy as deep UV light, hence the company name. At the wavelenthgs involved most substances are opaque and the best one can do is let them absorb the energy and get hot. Hydrogen is the fuel. Chemical reactions are needed to produce NaOH, which converts to NaH, which is the reactive fuel. Everything but the H is recovered after the reaction and regenerated with new H for the next cycle. All this seems complex, but at the moment it works and that's what Nature allows. Other processes may be discovered. The immediate problem seems to be automating the process, which is bound to have surprises. The reaction is very energetic, enough to electrolyze water to get H, run the internal support system, and have external power left over. One application path is retrofitting utilitiy boilers worldwide. Transportation is a big user. IC engines can be adapted to run on hydrogen. The technology for high pressure storage tanks is ready, so existing fleets can be gradually retrofitted. Hydrogen distribution by exsiting pipelines doesn't work. A BLP application may be an on-demand hydrogen generator for service stations, using local water. It might supply surplus power to the grid. Hydrino hydrides may become a valuable chemical byproduct. Hydrogen-IC and hydrogen -fuel cell are mature technologies which can be deployed as hydrogen generators become available. Further in the future is a hyper-battery technology using hydrinos. BLP has done some exploratory work. The battery cell terminal voltage will be higher than anything now available and the energy density will be very high [don't short the terminals]. These will replace fuel cells and make the electric car practical with high performance and driving range. As existing cars age out, the new technology and infrastructure might be ready. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:39:09 -0400: Hi, [snip] The informaltion about Nanosolar with printed PV with 14% efficiency looks most interesting, but you need to deploy a few square miles to find the 'gotchas' through wind, sand and rain. [snip] Note that 14% is the *best* they have achieved. It would be interesting to know what the average is.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:59:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] Why they plan to make hydrogen I do not know. Why not just react the stuff in a fuel cell and make electricity. [snip] I think the idea of using Hydrogen is as a transport fuel. My question is why not use their solid fuel reactor in a vehicle powered by a steam turbine? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
