MrE wrote:
> One word.. "Halliburton" Must I say more?
Oh ya, that's the company President Clinton decided
to use to help rebuild Bosnia with a No-Bid contract.
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
As a comment on the previous post about the VP, I think
that C.A.F.E. is about conservation and should be part of
our national energy policy.
It is like saying that a personal virtue is no lead foot driving,
but the fact that the car gets 10 mpg is of no importance to a national
energy policy.
If you follow that logic, as a virtue one could chose not to lead foot
drive and that would be their choice, but the government has no business
setting fuel economy standards.
I disagree, if that was the VP's point. On this renewables group we are
discussing renewable energy presumably because we believe that is would
be a good idea. Hopefully we will develop more renewable energy before
we run out of non-renewable energy sources..
If we do not have CAFE standards and depend on personal virtue,
we may run out of oil sooner, it will be harder to find and cost more.
We may even start to run out before we have developed alternate sources
of energy. That does not seem like good policy to me.
> One word.. "Halliburton" Must I say more?
>
>>A rambling of some thoughts regarding renewable energy, conservation and
>>energy production.
>> It will be a long post, I just have that feeling.
>>
>> Now there is a few things that I may disagree with the vice president on,
>> but when he stated that "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue,
>> but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy"
>> I could not agree more. Some people will yell that conservation can reduce
>> energy consumption by x amount, but they are missing the entire point.
>> There is times when people are thinking on an entirely different level
>> when they make a comment, and the people that criticize the comment just
>> don't grasp what they are saying. If it's from an ingrained myopic view,
>> or just ignorance, is up for debate, but that is besides the point.
>>
>> The point of his statement was that conservation, as it is today, is not
>> a viable bases for any energy policy. Or basically, conservation, as it's
>> practiced today, doesn't really help, in regards to energy demand. There
>> is lots of people that will cuss me out, and say I'm full of bull.$**T,
>> but they do not grasp the full picture, and the comments are beyond their
>> comprehension. It is something I realized years ago, when I seen the
>> practices used to promote energy efficiency. The way conservation is
>> practiced in today's world, it often ends up wasting more energy than it
>> saves. When it finally hit me is when I seen a bunch of electricians
>> changing out florescent ballast in an office building. I said to them,
>> "Didn't you just change them out two years ago?" The electrician said,
>> "Yes, but we have to change them again, to meet current efficiency
>> requirements." Two years previous, they had changed them to Mark3 energy
>> saver magnetic ballast. But that year, they removed the almost new
>> ballast, and put in electronic ballast. I done some figuring and come to
>> the remarkable conclusion that the forced change out of the ballast two
>> years ago, wasted vast amounts of energy, and was a very waste full
>> practice. They would of conserved energy if they would of left the old
>> ballast in for two more years "wasting energy" until they put in the
>> electronic ballast that year. The energy that the ballast saved those two
>> years, is less than the energy that it took to produce that ballast. So
>> all you did was relocate the energy use, and added a lot of waste.
>> Conserving is the last thing you did.
>>
>> Relocating energy use, instead of true conservation is the majority of
>> stuff I see. It is like trying to grab an egg. If you try to hard, then
>> you will destroy what you are trying to get. If they try to hard to
>> achieve energy conservation, you will end up wasting more than you save.
>> The concept of forced change out, and replacing operational equipment
>> before it's useful life has come to an end, is fundamentally flawed.
>> Unless the savings in energy is phenomenal, then it is a total waste of
>> energy to change it out before it had finished it's service life. Once it
>> has finished it's service life, then you should upgrade to the newest,
>> most efficient system. The total environmental impact of replacing the
>> system will already be incurred, so that's the time to do it. If you
>> replace a $10,000 refrigeration system for a model that is 10% more
>> efficient, the monthly electrical cost is $500 a month, the service life
>> is 10 years, and the system is still within it's scheduled lifespan. then
>> you have just wasted energy. The accumulated energy impact for
>> replacement is $1000 a year. The energy saved is $600 a year. If you
>> change it with 5 years of life left, then you have thrown away $5000 worth
>> of energy, to save $3000, The replacement system will have to be replace 5
>> years earlier, so you won't make up that $2000 in wasted energy that was
>> wasted by changing it 5 years early.
>>
>> You may ask, why am I measuring energy in dollars? Well.. Because that is
>> the most accurate way I can discern energy used to produce a product, and
>> keep it running. You may say, "Well not all of that money goes to buying
>> energy to make the product!" but that concept is slightly flawed. Yes,
>> there is a lot of profit. But profit will be spend on other stuff that
>> requires energy to make, so it all energy spent to get the product made,
>> and delivered to you. The delivery man gets a pay check from it, but that
>> pay check buys electricity for his house, fuel for his car, and gas to
>> keep his house warm in the winter. If a person makes more profit on an
>> item, then that means that he don't have to sell as many to stay in
>> business, which means that every item that he sells has a higher energy
>> tag to it, because the energy to keep the business running will remain
>> constant. The lights are still on, the trucks still make their routs, but
>> they just don't haul as many units. So the per unit energy tag is higher.
>>
>> All in all, if you spend $100 on a product that will save $10 in energy
>> over it's life, compared to a $20 unit, then you have just wasted energy.
>> Because the $100 product has five times as mush energy overhead than the
>> $20 product. You have, in essence, wasted $70 dollars in energy. Yes, the
>> $20 product has 2 people producing it, and the $100 product still only has
>> two people producing it, and the actually energy used in making the
>> product, is the same, and they are producing the same number of unit's a
>> year, but the two people producing the $100 unit is using the extra
>> profits to pay 8 other people to take care of their privet yachts, so you
>> actually you have 5 times as much energy being used to support the
>> production of the $100 unit. If you take use that frame of mind to look at
>> the modern conservation concepts, then you realize how much of a fallacy
>> modern conservation is.
>>
>> It makes the idea of forcing companies to spend large sums of money to
>> save a handful of power, look almost insane. You have all these big
>> companies pop up, to provide products to save energy, that the government
>> forces people to use, but the infrastructure that supports the companies
>> providing energy efficient products is consuming more energy than the
>> products are saving.
>>
>> Maybe the reason why we are having these energy shortages is because of
>> everyone building all this stuff to save energy.
>>
>> Like governments, and people changing out mercury vapor lights for metal
>> halide in an application where they don't really need true white light.
>> They say, "It may cost more over the long run with the more frequent bulb
>> changes, but the metal halide will only use half the power, so it will be
>> helping the environment." I say to myself, "you freaking ignorant piece of
>> #^*W$!!!!!!!!! The extra infrastructure required to change out the metal
>> halide bulbs more often, consumes more energy than the metal halide bulbs
>> save over mercury vapor." And thin they come out with a real wacko comment
>> along the lines of..."And the metal halide bulbs will be more friendly to
>> the environment, because they don't contain mercury, like the mercury
>> vapor bulbs do." Just because Metal halide bulbs don't have "mercury" in
>> their name, doesn't mean that they don't contain mercury, you freaking
>> imbecile!
>>
>> All in all, government forced conservation, doesn't rank very highly on my
>> list. I think we have to much of it as is.
>>
>> Energy conservation has it's place, but right now, most people don't seem
>> to realize where that place is.
>>
>> The only real option we have, is to find ways to produce more energy. Be
>> it via nuclear fission/fusion, solar, geo, wind, hydro, bio, or fossil.
>> And with all ways of procuring energy, it takes energy to get energy. It
>> takes energy to build ships, drilling rigs, and equipment to hunt for oil.
>> It takes equipment to build a reactor. It takes energy to build a solar
>> panel. Like people saying, we shouldn't worry about the energy shortages,
>> we should just build PV panels. May I ask them this question.. Where do we
>> get the energy to build the solar panels. If a drilling rig has no gas to
>> run it's engine, then it can't drill to get the oil. The easiest way is to
>> use the fossil fuel, and nuclear industries to produce the power now. The
>> are already established, and the energy load that will be endured by using
>> them to meet the demand, will be minimal, compared to the alternatives.
>> And once you get enough excess energy into the system provided by those
>> methods, then you can use that extra energy to support the expansion of
>> the alternative energy sources.
>>
>> A crystal growing plant, can't produce silicon crystal for PV panels, if
>> the coal fired power plant that powers it can't get enough coal to keep
>> the power on.
>>
>> On that note, the ideas for a "solar breeder" is borderline stupid.
>> Oh.Look... The crystal growing plant is using power to run some crystal
>> growing furnaces. Whoopty do.. It's like using a solar panel to power an
>> exhaust fan on a factory, and calling it a solar powered factory. To have
>> a true "solar breeder" you would require all of the energy used in
>> producing the panels, to be provide by panels you produce. The crystal
>> growing operation needs to be powered by PV. All the energy for the homes
>> of the crystal growing factory workers needs to be powered by PV. The
>> vehicles that transport the workers to the factory needs to be powered by
>> PV. All the industries that support the workers (hospital, food,
>> consumables ..on and on) needs to be supported by PV. The infrastructure
>> for mining and purification of all the elements to supply the crystal
>> growing factory, their workers and related infrastructures, need to be
>> powered by PV. The factory that puts the cells into the panels, and it's
>> related infrastructures (metal foundries workers.. ec. ) need to be
>> powered by PV. The people, and companies that distribute, and install the
>> modules, need to be powered by PV. All the companies that build the
>> inverters, batteries, and equipment to use the panels, and their related
>> infrastructures, need to be powered by PV. And all the PV panels that
>> power all of the above, needs to be replicated by the entire system,
>> within the lifespan of the panels. That is why it is just easier to figure
>> that when the panel has paid for it's self in dollar terms, (in reference
>> to energy cost, at the date of it's production), then it is safe to say
>> that it has yielded a positive energy payback, and that it's production
>> has made a positive impact on the environment.
>>
>> And, all that PV breeder stuff is missing the entire point that, it
>> doesn't mater if the energy is used to power the production process, or
>> not. As long as the panels are in use, then that is more conventional
>> energy that is free to go other places, or to be saved for a later date.
>> If the PV production plant has 100KW of PV to run it, but the homes around
>> it have to run off of a local power plant, or the homes have a distributed
>> 100KW of PV, and the PV production plant runs off of the local power
>> station. What's the difference? It will still take 10 or more years to pay
>> back the energy it took the produce the panels. And for that 10 or so
>> years, producing PV will actually cause a net burden on the energy supply.
>> So, if we go crazy with production right now, we will need extra power
>> from other sources to hold us over for the 10 or so years until we finally
>> break even on production related energy burden, compared to the energy the
>> panels are producing in the field.
>>
>> Take this formula based on an imaginary panel and community.
>> Existing community takes X watts per year.
>> Total cumulative energy usage producing a panel, will consume 1MW.
>> The panel will produce 100KW per year.
>> Total energy payback time is 10 years.
>>
>> You start panel production in the community.
>> Panel production is 1000 unit's a year.
>> That will increase energy consumption of the community by 1GW per year for
>> the first year.
>> Second year, with one year's worth of units in operation, you will have a
>> net positive load of 900MW from the production.
>> Third year, 800MW.
>> Forth year, 700MW.
>> .......
>> ........
>> Eleventh year, with ten years worth of units in the fields.
>> Or ten times the yearly production, then the units in the field will be
>> producing the same amount of energy as the PV production infrastructure is
>> consuming. From that point on, you have a positive energy benefit to the
>> community.
>>
>> In 20 years, you will have a net zero energy budget, from the time the
>> factory started production. If the panel life is twice the energy payback
>> time, then the total community energy payback of the factory will be 2X
>> the payback of the panel, or the lifetime of the panel.
>>
>> If the total life expectancy of the PV panels is 20 years, then you will
>> have to have a PV production industry with a power consumption that is
>> equal to the energy usage of the community that is being powered by Pv
>> production industry. Ten years worth of panels will be powering the PV
>> production system, while the other 10 years of panels will be powering the
>> community that is not related to the PV production system.
>>
>> I guess it is a way to provide extra jobs. You will basically employ half
>> of the population in the PV industry to supply power to the other half of
>> the population.
>>
>> The panels better have a life expectancy three or more times their payback
>> period, or half the US population is going to be working for something
>> that relates to the PV industry. Or we better find other sources of
>> energy like fusion, or something else with a quicker payback period.
>> Otherwise, the majority of the energy produced by the panels will be used
>> in making more panels.
>>
>> Any way you go about it, if we want to get PV off the ground, we are going
>> to have to find an existing source of energy to get the PV production
>> system of the ground, and get it running. Otherwise, we will be the
>> operator setting at the controls of an oil drilling rig that has no gas to
>> run it's engine.
>>
>> My opinion is that solar thermal will be a better choice for large scale
>> solar energy production. Energy payback is a lot quicker.
>>
>> On hydrogen.
>> People say that it's not a useful energy source. I have to agree. No, it
>> is not a useful energy source, but it is critical as an energy transport
>> system. For years, the energy transport system, was the energy source it's
>> self. That being oil. But that will no longer apply. Just like electricity
>> is not a useful energy source. No, the world hasn't got one ounce of
>> useful energy from electricity. It is just a transport. It carries the
>> energy from a chemical reaction in a battery, to the circuitry in a radio.
>> It carries the energy from a steam turbine in the power plant to the
>> compressor shaft on your refrigerator. How would you like a drive shaft
>> running clear from the power plant to your fridge, to power the
>> compressor? Yes, hydrogen is not a very efficient transport system. The
>> same can be said for electricity, but it works.
>>
>> It is also critical as energy storage. With all these non-reliable energy
>> sources, then you need a storage system that can hold large quantities of
>> energy to run us for many weeks, if the sun don't shine. And it has to be
>> loss free storage. Not like batteries that run down over a few month. You
>> put energy in a storage unit, and it has to be there three years from now.
>> A 30 to 50 percent loss in conversion is acceptable, but once you convert
>> it, it needs to be in a stable form. The energy has to be movable across
>> long distances with little to no loss. And the transport system should
>> require very little energy to operate. The transportation and storage
>> infrastructure equipment should have an achievable lifespan of many
>> decades. Movement of the energy to a car or other vehicle should be quick
>> and simple. With compressed and metallic storage systems, and pipelines,
>> Hydrogen meets those requirements. Batteries do not.
>>
>> Without hydrogen, then nuclear power plants will be required indefinitely
>> as a power source during the nighttime, and any other time that the sun
>> doesn't shine. Without a system that we can stockpile massive quantities
>> of energy for a rainy day, month, year, then renewable energy will never
>> be able to exist as a stand alone power source. And it's most likely
>> partner will be nuclear power of some type.
>>
>> And as far as conservation, yes, it will probably have it's place in
>> there, someplace. But, hopefully, it won't be the same concept of
>> conservation that they are pushing now. Hopefully, by that time, energy
>> conservation will actually achieve real reduction in energy required by
>> the world to operate.
>>
>> N9WOS
>>
>>
>
XML site map
>
>>A rambling of some thoughts regarding renewable energy, conservation and
>>energy production.
>> It will be a long post, I just have that feeling.
>>
>> Now there is a few things that I may disagree with the vice president on,
>> but when he stated that "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue,
>> but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy"
>> I could not agree more. Some people will yell that conservation can reduce
>> energy consumption by x amount, but they are missing the entire point.
>> There is times when people are thinking on an entirely different level
>> when they make a comment, and the people that criticize the comment just
>> don't grasp what they are saying. If it's from an ingrained myopic view,
>> or just ignorance, is up for debate, but that is besides the point.
>>
>> The point of his statement was that conservation, as it is today, is not
>> a viable bases for any energy policy. Or basically, conservation, as it's
>> practiced today, doesn't really help, in regards to energy demand. There
>> is lots of people that will cuss me out, and say I'm full of bull.$**T,
>> but they do not grasp the full picture, and the comments are beyond their
>> comprehension. It is something I realized years ago, when I seen the
>> practices used to promote energy efficiency. The way conservation is
>> practiced in today's world, it often ends up wasting more energy than it
>> saves. When it finally hit me is when I seen a bunch of electricians
>> changing out florescent ballast in an office building. I said to them,
>> "Didn't you just change them out two years ago?" The electrician said,
>> "Yes, but we have to change them again, to meet current efficiency
>> requirements." Two years previous, they had changed them to Mark3 energy
>> saver magnetic ballast. But that year, they removed the almost new
>> ballast, and put in electronic ballast. I done some figuring and come to
>> the remarkable conclusion that the forced change out of the ballast two
>> years ago, wasted vast amounts of energy, and was a very waste full
>> practice. They would of conserved energy if they would of left the old
>> ballast in for two more years "wasting energy" until they put in the
>> electronic ballast that year. The energy that the ballast saved those two
>> years, is less than the energy that it took to produce that ballast. So
>> all you did was relocate the energy use, and added a lot of waste.
>> Conserving is the last thing you did.
>>
>> Relocating energy use, instead of true conservation is the majority of
>> stuff I see. It is like trying to grab an egg. If you try to hard, then
>> you will destroy what you are trying to get. If they try to hard to
>> achieve energy conservation, you will end up wasting more than you save.
>> The concept of forced change out, and replacing operational equipment
>> before it's useful life has come to an end, is fundamentally flawed.
>> Unless the savings in energy is phenomenal, then it is a total waste of
>> energy to change it out before it had finished it's service life. Once it
>> has finished it's service life, then you should upgrade to the newest,
>> most efficient system. The total environmental impact of replacing the
>> system will already be incurred, so that's the time to do it. If you
>> replace a $10,000 refrigeration system for a model that is 10% more
>> efficient, the monthly electrical cost is $500 a month, the service life
>> is 10 years, and the system is still within it's scheduled lifespan. then
>> you have just wasted energy. The accumulated energy impact for
>> replacement is $1000 a year. The energy saved is $600 a year. If you
>> change it with 5 years of life left, then you have thrown away $5000 worth
>> of energy, to save $3000, The replacement system will have to be replace 5
>> years earlier, so you won't make up that $2000 in wasted energy that was
>> wasted by changing it 5 years early.
>>
>> You may ask, why am I measuring energy in dollars? Well.. Because that is
>> the most accurate way I can discern energy used to produce a product, and
>> keep it running. You may say, "Well not all of that money goes to buying
>> energy to make the product!" but that concept is slightly flawed. Yes,
>> there is a lot of profit. But profit will be spend on other stuff that
>> requires energy to make, so it all energy spent to get the product made,
>> and delivered to you. The delivery man gets a pay check from it, but that
>> pay check buys electricity for his house, fuel for his car, and gas to
>> keep his house warm in the winter. If a person makes more profit on an
>> item, then that means that he don't have to sell as many to stay in
>> business, which means that every item that he sells has a higher energy
>> tag to it, because the energy to keep the business running will remain
>> constant. The lights are still on, the trucks still make their routs, but
>> they just don't haul as many units. So the per unit energy tag is higher.
>>
>> All in all, if you spend $100 on a product that will save $10 in energy
>> over it's life, compared to a $20 unit, then you have just wasted energy.
>> Because the $100 product has five times as mush energy overhead than the
>> $20 product. You have, in essence, wasted $70 dollars in energy. Yes, the
>> $20 product has 2 people producing it, and the $100 product still only has
>> two people producing it, and the actually energy used in making the
>> product, is the same, and they are producing the same number of unit's a
>> year, but the two people producing the $100 unit is using the extra
>> profits to pay 8 other people to take care of their privet yachts, so you
>> actually you have 5 times as much energy being used to support the
>> production of the $100 unit. If you take use that frame of mind to look at
>> the modern conservation concepts, then you realize how much of a fallacy
>> modern conservation is.
>>
>> It makes the idea of forcing companies to spend large sums of money to
>> save a handful of power, look almost insane. You have all these big
>> companies pop up, to provide products to save energy, that the government
>> forces people to use, but the infrastructure that supports the companies
>> providing energy efficient products is consuming more energy than the
>> products are saving.
>>
>> Maybe the reason why we are having these energy shortages is because of
>> everyone building all this stuff to save energy.
>>
>> Like governments, and people changing out mercury vapor lights for metal
>> halide in an application where they don't really need true white light.
>> They say, "It may cost more over the long run with the more frequent bulb
>> changes, but the metal halide will only use half the power, so it will be
>> helping the environment." I say to myself, "you freaking ignorant piece of
>> #^*W$!!!!!!!!! The extra infrastructure required to change out the metal
>> halide bulbs more often, consumes more energy than the metal halide bulbs
>> save over mercury vapor." And thin they come out with a real wacko comment
>> along the lines of..."And the metal halide bulbs will be more friendly to
>> the environment, because they don't contain mercury, like the mercury
>> vapor bulbs do." Just because Metal halide bulbs don't have "mercury" in
>> their name, doesn't mean that they don't contain mercury, you freaking
>> imbecile!
>>
>> All in all, government forced conservation, doesn't rank very highly on my
>> list. I think we have to much of it as is.
>>
>> Energy conservation has it's place, but right now, most people don't seem
>> to realize where that place is.
>>
>> The only real option we have, is to find ways to produce more energy. Be
>> it via nuclear fission/fusion, solar, geo, wind, hydro, bio, or fossil.
>> And with all ways of procuring energy, it takes energy to get energy. It
>> takes energy to build ships, drilling rigs, and equipment to hunt for oil.
>> It takes equipment to build a reactor. It takes energy to build a solar
>> panel. Like people saying, we shouldn't worry about the energy shortages,
>> we should just build PV panels. May I ask them this question.. Where do we
>> get the energy to build the solar panels. If a drilling rig has no gas to
>> run it's engine, then it can't drill to get the oil. The easiest way is to
>> use the fossil fuel, and nuclear industries to produce the power now. The
>> are already established, and the energy load that will be endured by using
>> them to meet the demand, will be minimal, compared to the alternatives.
>> And once you get enough excess energy into the system provided by those
>> methods, then you can use that extra energy to support the expansion of
>> the alternative energy sources.
>>
>> A crystal growing plant, can't produce silicon crystal for PV panels, if
>> the coal fired power plant that powers it can't get enough coal to keep
>> the power on.
>>
>> On that note, the ideas for a "solar breeder" is borderline stupid.
>> Oh.Look... The crystal growing plant is using power to run some crystal
>> growing furnaces. Whoopty do.. It's like using a solar panel to power an
>> exhaust fan on a factory, and calling it a solar powered factory. To have
>> a true "solar breeder" you would require all of the energy used in
>> producing the panels, to be provide by panels you produce. The crystal
>> growing operation needs to be powered by PV. All the energy for the homes
>> of the crystal growing factory workers needs to be powered by PV. The
>> vehicles that transport the workers to the factory needs to be powered by
>> PV. All the industries that support the workers (hospital, food,
>> consumables ..on and on) needs to be supported by PV. The infrastructure
>> for mining and purification of all the elements to supply the crystal
>> growing factory, their workers and related infrastructures, need to be
>> powered by PV. The factory that puts the cells into the panels, and it's
>> related infrastructures (metal foundries workers.. ec. ) need to be
>> powered by PV. The people, and companies that distribute, and install the
>> modules, need to be powered by PV. All the companies that build the
>> inverters, batteries, and equipment to use the panels, and their related
>> infrastructures, need to be powered by PV. And all the PV panels that
>> power all of the above, needs to be replicated by the entire system,
>> within the lifespan of the panels. That is why it is just easier to figure
>> that when the panel has paid for it's self in dollar terms, (in reference
>> to energy cost, at the date of it's production), then it is safe to say
>> that it has yielded a positive energy payback, and that it's production
>> has made a positive impact on the environment.
>>
>> And, all that PV breeder stuff is missing the entire point that, it
>> doesn't mater if the energy is used to power the production process, or
>> not. As long as the panels are in use, then that is more conventional
>> energy that is free to go other places, or to be saved for a later date.
>> If the PV production plant has 100KW of PV to run it, but the homes around
>> it have to run off of a local power plant, or the homes have a distributed
>> 100KW of PV, and the PV production plant runs off of the local power
>> station. What's the difference? It will still take 10 or more years to pay
>> back the energy it took the produce the panels. And for that 10 or so
>> years, producing PV will actually cause a net burden on the energy supply.
>> So, if we go crazy with production right now, we will need extra power
>> from other sources to hold us over for the 10 or so years until we finally
>> break even on production related energy burden, compared to the energy the
>> panels are producing in the field.
>>
>> Take this formula based on an imaginary panel and community.
>> Existing community takes X watts per year.
>> Total cumulative energy usage producing a panel, will consume 1MW.
>> The panel will produce 100KW per year.
>> Total energy payback time is 10 years.
>>
>> You start panel production in the community.
>> Panel production is 1000 unit's a year.
>> That will increase energy consumption of the community by 1GW per year for
>> the first year.
>> Second year, with one year's worth of units in operation, you will have a
>> net positive load of 900MW from the production.
>> Third year, 800MW.
>> Forth year, 700MW.
>> .......
>> ........
>> Eleventh year, with ten years worth of units in the fields.
>> Or ten times the yearly production, then the units in the field will be
>> producing the same amount of energy as the PV production infrastructure is
>> consuming. From that point on, you have a positive energy benefit to the
>> community.
>>
>> In 20 years, you will have a net zero energy budget, from the time the
>> factory started production. If the panel life is twice the energy payback
>> time, then the total community energy payback of the factory will be 2X
>> the payback of the panel, or the lifetime of the panel.
>>
>> If the total life expectancy of the PV panels is 20 years, then you will
>> have to have a PV production industry with a power consumption that is
>> equal to the energy usage of the community that is being powered by Pv
>> production industry. Ten years worth of panels will be powering the PV
>> production system, while the other 10 years of panels will be powering the
>> community that is not related to the PV production system.
>>
>> I guess it is a way to provide extra jobs. You will basically employ half
>> of the population in the PV industry to supply power to the other half of
>> the population.
>>
>> The panels better have a life expectancy three or more times their payback
>> period, or half the US population is going to be working for something
>> that relates to the PV industry. Or we better find other sources of
>> energy like fusion, or something else with a quicker payback period.
>> Otherwise, the majority of the energy produced by the panels will be used
>> in making more panels.
>>
>> Any way you go about it, if we want to get PV off the ground, we are going
>> to have to find an existing source of energy to get the PV production
>> system of the ground, and get it running. Otherwise, we will be the
>> operator setting at the controls of an oil drilling rig that has no gas to
>> run it's engine.
>>
>> My opinion is that solar thermal will be a better choice for large scale
>> solar energy production. Energy payback is a lot quicker.
>>
>> On hydrogen.
>> People say that it's not a useful energy source. I have to agree. No, it
>> is not a useful energy source, but it is critical as an energy transport
>> system. For years, the energy transport system, was the energy source it's
>> self. That being oil. But that will no longer apply. Just like electricity
>> is not a useful energy source. No, the world hasn't got one ounce of
>> useful energy from electricity. It is just a transport. It carries the
>> energy from a chemical reaction in a battery, to the circuitry in a radio.
>> It carries the energy from a steam turbine in the power plant to the
>> compressor shaft on your refrigerator. How would you like a drive shaft
>> running clear from the power plant to your fridge, to power the
>> compressor? Yes, hydrogen is not a very efficient transport system. The
>> same can be said for electricity, but it works.
>>
>> It is also critical as energy storage. With all these non-reliable energy
>> sources, then you need a storage system that can hold large quantities of
>> energy to run us for many weeks, if the sun don't shine. And it has to be
>> loss free storage. Not like batteries that run down over a few month. You
>> put energy in a storage unit, and it has to be there three years from now.
>> A 30 to 50 percent loss in conversion is acceptable, but once you convert
>> it, it needs to be in a stable form. The energy has to be movable across
>> long distances with little to no loss. And the transport system should
>> require very little energy to operate. The transportation and storage
>> infrastructure equipment should have an achievable lifespan of many
>> decades. Movement of the energy to a car or other vehicle should be quick
>> and simple. With compressed and metallic storage systems, and pipelines,
>> Hydrogen meets those requirements. Batteries do not.
>>
>> Without hydrogen, then nuclear power plants will be required indefinitely
>> as a power source during the nighttime, and any other time that the sun
>> doesn't shine. Without a system that we can stockpile massive quantities
>> of energy for a rainy day, month, year, then renewable energy will never
>> be able to exist as a stand alone power source. And it's most likely
>> partner will be nuclear power of some type.
>>
>> And as far as conservation, yes, it will probably have it's place in
>> there, someplace. But, hopefully, it won't be the same concept of
>> conservation that they are pushing now. Hopefully, by that time, energy
>> conservation will actually achieve real reduction in energy required by
>> the world to operate.
>>
>> N9WOS
>>
>>
>