Renewable Energy Sources

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

jinstall wrote:

Honda 20 months ago said they could have a Hydrogen car in dealerships within 24 months and everyone laughed. Well the FCX goes on leasing this summer in California for $600 a month. Who's laughing now?

The same time MB annouced BlueTec, Honda annouced they did the same without urea injection. No I am not a Honda buff but I know when cutting edge when I see it. Wait and see what VW-Audi-Seat-Skoda do with FSI in the next 24 months.

Who laughed at Honda making a hydrogen car? BMW has had a hydrogen motorcycle for a couple years now, its not that the engine is especially difficult to design. The issue is that there is no hydrogen infrastructure, and people who buy those cars have to get them filled up in special locations designed for the trial.

And I'll wait and see on the Honda until it passes California emissions. If it can pull that off and not require urea, then kudos to them. That said, urea systems aren't complicated and it seems like a reasonable compromise.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:47 pm

I hope they will be planning on using new technology covered in the article that retmil46 posted and not just strip the H2 off of Methane and send the CO2 into the air (I gave up Soda [but not Guinness] to reduce CO2 emissions). Another option would be to convert water with a little H2SO4 in it and trickle some DC through it with an anode and a cathode.
The only ISSUE brought up by engineers years ago is steel embrittlement caused by the hydrogen. As much as I am not a Honda fan, they do their homework and may have solved this problem.

Steve

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:35 pm

What ever happened to the giant solar collectors in space beaming micriwaves to earth for unlimited power

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:34 pm

nursecosmo wrote:

What ever happened to the giant solar collectors in space beaming micriwaves to earth for unlimited power

Indeed, I remember that proposal from better than 20 years ago. Can anyone point toward info giving reasons, economic/technical/political, why there's apparently been no further research along that line?

If doable, that would seem a far better use (and justification) of NASA's budget for manned spaceflight than a return to the moon, along with a far greater payback.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:13 pm

I am often very critical of our elected officials, but in this case, I suspect it was something beyond their control.
After all we have enough trouble keeping much smaller communications satellites in the proper orbit, some exceed their expected life spans and others crash too soon.
Hubble has worked out OK, but not without some problems, but keep in mind that it is much smaller that a large array of mirrors.
Another problem since deflector grids aren't commercially available yet, is the space junk that would be a hazard.

Steve

MOSFET · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:40 pm **Posts:** 295

Quote:

(I gave up Soda [but not Guinness] to reduce CO2 emissions).

I thought Guinness used 1/2 CO2 and 1/2 Nitrogen in their beer to combat GHG (Green House Gas) emissions. :wink:

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

The problem with space collection is that you have to collect solar energy, convert it to electricity, convert it to microwaves, beam it to the ground, convert it back to electricity and transmit it. I have difficulty believing that that process, especially when one factors in all the energy spent putting solar collectors into space and maintaining them, could possibly be more efficient than just collecting solar on the ground, even though it has to come through the atmosphere.

It does however seem promising for space based platforms.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:47 pm

I'd be more inclined to believe it had to do with simple logistics.

Transporting that many PV panels into orbit, then assembling them in large arrays, moving those arrays into geosynchronous orbit, and the issue of developing a manned spacecraft capable of routinely making a trip to that high an orbit for routine maintenance.

I seem to remember there was also some concern about the effects of the microwave transmission beam as well - airliners accidentally flying thru the beam, it's effect on animal and plant life, etc.

As far as parts of the SA grand plan, covering large swaths of land with PV arrays and/or solar thermal plants, I believe I could give them a location to use that wouldn't cause too much of an uproar - the sites used for nuclear weapons tests in the 50's and 60's, that are still off limits and unuseable for the most part due to residual levels of radiation/contamination. For that matter, the government and military control large swaths of land in that region that aren't being used for any apparent reason other than to keep the general public at arm's length.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:56 pm

Placing large objects in space would be a logistical problem. When our technology can evolve to where we mine the asteroids, we would have an abundance of resources to build mega structures in space. Sunlight could be used to help process the ore; but to control costs, the mining equipment and processing equipment would need to be fabricated in space as well.
With all the waste byproducts (tailings), ionic propulsion engines would work well to move the stuff around and for short distance transport. Ionic propulsion engines would use induction to accelerate the ion sized ore tailings away from the craft to propel the equipment (MV=MV).
When will this happen, when the big money gives it the go ahead, and they feel it will make money, of course.
I suspect any large mirror arrays placed in space will be used for electric or other power needs in space.

Steve

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Agreed about the logistics. It would be a mess, we can't even keep Hubble serviced. And imagine when another shuttle disaster happens and it suspends our space flights, but a major power source needs servicing *now*. That would be messy...

BTW, interesting thought about using the ground from nuclear testing, I'm generally opposed to the 'coat the desert with solar panels' since the desert itself is actually a fairly vital ecosystem(just cuz humans don't live there dosen't mean its not an important part), but that land is already wasted. I wonder though if it wouldn't create major problems for the equipment, radiation breaks lots of things down, and of course we'd have to be able to service the equip, which seems difficult to do in a radiation suit...

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:58 pm

I have been in deserts from here in the US to the Persian Gulf and all of them are full of life. Some desert life thrives even more with Responsible Human activity and Responsible Development.
Lets say we go out to a Nuke blast zone and put up some Solar Panels, we will need service paths to do the construction and maintenance, paved roads cost too much, raise the local ambient temperature increasing maintenance costs, and are not needed.
Here is what will happen: 1) Solar panels will provide shade for the wild life and provide shelter from the intense sun beating down with 1500 watts per square meter.
2) Native desert vegetation will grow among the solar panels providing food for the wild animals.
3) Workers will get along with the wild life and appreciate it.
4) Maintenance paths between solar panels will provide open areas for larger wild life to move through the array.

Making the assumption that all human activity is bad and is going to destroy the environment is a form of arrogance that is annoying.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

warp2diesel wrote:

I never thought a PC obsessed person would own a Jeep.

Hardly PC. I grew up in the south. I spent time in Korea. My wife is Korean. If someone called her a "dog eater" I'd knock their teeth out. Sorry if that offends you.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Can't agree that that would happen, for maintinence reasons they would have to keep the area clear. After all, a plant can destroy equipment just as fast as an animal(which they would also want clear). Chances are they'd have this stuff fenced off to prevent pests of both the natural and unnatural kind(looters).

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:50 am

An engineer worth his/her degree would pride them selves in putting the structure high enough so the local vegetation would not encase it. Having the Solar Panels higher than the sage brush or desert Juniper would make them easy to work on. Deserts are not full of 300' trees or Kudzu. Clearing as you describe costs too much money, contractors are not stupid, they only move what they need to and nothing more. Landscaping with local vegetation is cost effective and reduces wind erosion and damage to the equipment. Having the equipment buried in blowing sand like a snow drift is a royal pain.

Another case where theory and fact do not agree.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Go look at your driveway. See the stuff growing in the cracks? Seriously, plants do destroy even concrete. If they are going to be installing millions of dollars of equipment, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be growing a garden underneath, slowly undermining the foundation. If they did they'd be pretty negligent with our tax dollars.

But this is a pretty silly argument. As I said before, whatever works out, works out, but we need to start building what we can right now, not holding out for technologies that may or may not work in 50 years. Thats why I think we need to follow France's example and build nuclear.

jinstall · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:34 am

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

It is here.

Honda Accord CDTi 2009

http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/142 ... -2009.html

Mind you ,you make it in Europe and 99% chance it has a diesel version. The Audi R8 V12 TDi is now out. What's next? Now exotic cars are coming with diesels.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:46 am

Lets put Nuclear reactors on remote weather stations and flashing road signs and rip the Solar Panels off them.
I am for Nuclear Power, Plant upgrades, and Plant conversions where they will work.

But with all due respect, what civil engineer in their right mind would pave an area in the desert that is going to have Solar Panels? The sensible engineer would use Sonotubes with concrete poured into them with embedded anchors to bolt them down. The big factor is the wind load that will lift up the panels in a storm, simple engineering that an intern engineering student could design before the PE stamps the drawing.

What may be an accomplishment of engineering would be to develop a roof tile that is also a photo voltaic to produce power instead of letting all of the 1500 watts per square meter just create excess heat.

Perhaps Reflex should create more inspire more and let go of being the devils advocate role, we hear enough of that from our elected officials and news media.

jinstall · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:18 pm

I believe Holland is using the sea waves to generate electricity as well.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:30 pm

did someone already post this?
micro-nuke?
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

hatchetman · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:58 pm

Roof shingles/photo cells already exist. I plan on building and am looking into a roof of them. Shingles/solar cells in one package. :evil:

Renewable Energy Sources

Who is online