PRODUCING HYDROGEN FROM SEA WATER
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 368.8: South Korea Relates QCD to Quantum Gravity
Next: Quantum Gravity 368.9: U.K. Relates Repulsion, (y + sqrt(2)i)(y - sqrt(2)i), Diophantine Equations
From: Marvin the Martian on 10 May 2010 22:15 On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:13:41 -0700, Benj wrote: > On May 5, 9:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/5/10 8:28 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >> > First of all, solar cost about 30x more than current energy, and the >> > only reason why it is that cheap is because cheap energy makes 30x >> > solar affordable. >> >> ??? > > Wassamatta "Sam"? Actual scientific analysis more than your AI program > can handle? > > Tell us how you feel about truthful analysis of costs. Sam... is hopeless. He doesn't think for himself. I don't know or care if that is due to his choice or his lack of ability. Since he can't think for himself, and constantly cites those who tell him what to think; I simply killfiled him. I don't want to talk to him, he cannot explain why the people who tell him what to think, think the way they do. I want to talk to the people who tell Wormley what to think! I don't know why the high cost of solar is even an issue. The whole reason why it gets government subsidies is because it is more costly than the alternatives. If it cost LESS, then it wouldn't need subsidies. Even with subsidies, it is a negligible fraction, something like 0.03%, of our total energy output. Not many people choose solar. Much of solar equipment is produced by cheaper sources of energy; energy being a large part of the cost of the materials that make a solar system. If that material was priced by the cost of solar energy, it would be much more expensive. For example, the aluminum structure that supports a solar system is generally made with cheap hydro-electric power. The silicon itself is usually the waste product of the semiconductor industry. If they went large scale, solar would cost much more, and if they had to use their own energy to produce, the cost would skyrocket.
From: Marvin the Martian on 10 May 2010 22:18 On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:25:46 -0700, Benj wrote: > Hey NOTHING competes with wind! Huge Hi-tech turbines slowly and > dramatically turning in the wind while whacking environmentally > protected birds out of the sky! Who cares if it actually produces any > significant amounts of energy so long as you get a great shot on TV of a > field of propellers slowly turning at sunset! Wow! (I love the way the > greens always use shots of the Kalifornia wind field to make their > stupid points. Great pictures...but the damn thing isn't even turned on > yet! :-) It... isn't?! Can you point to a resource that says that? That would be useful information.
From: Marvin the Martian on 10 May 2010 22:28 On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:52:34 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Obviously the status-quoists will try their best to prevent the hydrogen > economy, but the world wants change. Oh, drop the ad hom. It looks bad on you. The reason why we're addicted to oil is because the Saudis paid our government to not consider any PRACTICAL solution that would work. Remember Abscam? It is not that our congressmen would betray the nation and sell us out that the FBI found remarkable; the FBI was surprised at how cheaply they would turn treason and sell us out to a foreign interest. There are many practical solutions that would work to solve our energy problems. Nuclear is one, and Methanol (not Ethanol) will also work. We can make methanol from our vast coal reserves, our vast natural gas reserves, and even our nation's biomass production. Any one of these sources we have in greater abundance than the Saudi's had oil. We could pay the automakers to make flex fuel methanol/gasoline cars with a fraction of the government's solar subsidy and in 10 years, the free market would provide more methanol gas stations than gas stations. > Too much pollution from the oil > economy has not just poisoned the world, but also human minds. Bullshit. We know now that the entire AGW scare was a big scam. Solar and wind are just distractions.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 11 May 2010 08:00 On May 11, 11:23 am, Mark Thorson <nos...(a)sonic.net> wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > Obviously the status-quoists will try their best to prevent the > > hydrogen economy, but the world wants change. Too much pollution from > > Ah, that's right! Your lack of success is due to this > evil conspiracy of status-quoists, not any fundamental > defect in the economics of your business model. I am the best there is, in mathematical modelling and computer simulation of complex situations involving nonlinearities. Did that all my professional working life, from radars to call centres, and crypto and common channel signalling in between. Apart from actually making radar antennas, developing web portals, making protocols for fast communcations between robots, etc. I have been hugely successful for my employers. It takes time for new ideas to sink in, the deeper the idea the more the time. So, when I talked about IFEs in early 2000, I knew that it would take at least 10-15 years for the ideas to solidify in the scientific and technical mind. HTN is not that radical, so it should take 5-10 years. It's > a conspiracy of the oil companies and the Freemasons! > > Darn those Freemasons! Who are Freemasons? Are they the sort who won't come anywhere near me, for fear that I may get publicity from the standard Western media? oops, any save innocuous media. Why don't I ever get a chance to squeeze into one of the Oprah-type freak shows? Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 11 May 2010 08:05
On May 11, 12:28 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:52:34 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Obviously the status-quoists will try their best to prevent the hydrogen > > economy, but the world wants change. > > Oh, drop the ad hom. It looks bad on you. > > The reason why we're addicted to oil is because the Saudis paid our > government to not consider any PRACTICAL solution that would work. > Remember Abscam? It is not that our congressmen would betray the nation > and sell us out that the FBI found remarkable; the FBI was surprised at > how cheaply they would turn treason and sell us out to a foreign > interest. > > There are many practical solutions that would work to solve our energy > problems. Nuclear is one, and Methanol (not Ethanol) will also work. We > can make methanol from our vast coal reserves, our vast natural gas > reserves, and even our nation's biomass production. Any one of these > sources we have in greater abundance than the Saudi's had oil. > > We could pay the automakers to make flex fuel methanol/gasoline cars with > a fraction of the government's solar subsidy and in 10 years, the free > market would provide more methanol gas stations than gas stations. > > > Too much pollution from the oil > > economy has not just poisoned the world, but also human minds. > > Bullshit. We know now that the entire AGW scare was a big scam. Solar and > wind are just distractions. I think there are certain theological factors, apart from of course the standard racism-bigotry-snobbery issues, in the way the developed world is trying to stop the hydrogen economy from taking off. The developing countries stand to gain a lot, and the nastier sort in the Western world don't like that. After all, they are Einsteinians who worship black holes, and are thus far from the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians who worshipped the sun. Hmm, this clears things a lot! Oi all all-polluting all-gobbling blackholewallahs, there is really no debate with your sort. Que sera sera, whatever will be will be so far as I am concerned. Just that, indications are that Indians will go in for solar power as it will become a paying cottage industry. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. |