Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98
Like Tree23Likes

Thread: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

  1. #81
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-06-14 @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,668
    Likes Received
    3824 times
    Likes Given
    7479

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    No actually a small generator at home is far less efficient that centralized power distribution. And small is less efficient when it comes to power generation, any engineer could tell you that.

    Again the media has brainwashed you people into thinking the opposite of what is real.
    Most people advocating solar do not expect back-up generators to fill in the gaps. Generators, especially fossil fuel generators, are pretty much contrary to the solar viewpoint.

    That attitude is more likely to come from a survivalist than anywhere else, so I don't know which "you people" you are referring to but it sure isn't the solar crowd.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 02-04-12 at 05:39 AM.

  2. #82
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-23-12 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574
    Likes Received
    641 times
    Likes Given
    233

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Most people advocating solar do not expect back-up generators to fill in the gaps. Generators, especially fossil fuel generators, are pretty much contrary to the solar viewpoint.

    That attitude is more likely to come from a survivalist than anywhere else, so I don't know which "you people" you are referring to but it sure isn't the solar crowd.
    We're not talking about that cliche.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    usa
    Last Seen
    10-21-13 @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,395
    Likes Received
    67 times
    Likes Given
    2
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Instead of investing in companies that fail, like sooo many are right now, Battery Companies, Solar power failures...

    Instead of offering "government loans"... Offer a $1,000,000,000.00 prize to the company that creates, produces and sells an alternative "green" energy solution. Make the whole thing VERY public, and give the prize TAX FREE.

    Watch incentive, not politics, create magic.
    why just a company? Why not say just a million tax free for those that find reasons nobody in humanity gets along psychologically? How about why the end of times will never come because time is not part of how eternity remains here. Gee bet I get accused of spamming when this moment is the base of every theory trying to convince humans time changes everything.

    Solution to 99% of humanity's problem is misleading information.
    Last edited by OneMale; 02-04-12 at 07:34 AM.

  4. #84
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,889
    Likes Received
    1905 times
    Likes Given
    4743

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    No actually a small generator at home is far less efficient that centralized power distribution. And small is less efficient when it comes to power generation, any engineer could tell you that.

    Again the media has brainwashed you people into thinking the opposite of what is real.
    I guarantee that you are wrong. The small generator pipes the exhaust into a heat exchanger for potable water and home heating whenever the generator runs and it only runs to charge batteries that are also charged by solar and wind. AC is obtained by plugging into inverters. Lamps are LCD. All appliances/electronics are chosen for efficiency (low wattage). Wahing machines and dryers may temporarily increase loads and require the generator to turn on, but again the exhaust heat is captured in the hot water.
    The petroleum cycle converting to electricity is about 13% efficient. The natural gas cycle to electric is about 30% efficient. Nuclear is about 30% efficient. Coal is about 30% efficient. It's not complicated. It is an existing monopoly with huge political clout and not an icon of efficiency. Owns and operates large numbers of politicians. These politicians prevent Renewable Energy initiatives at a local level from being implemented on a National scale.
    Last edited by DaveFagan; 02-04-12 at 08:15 AM. Reason: word change

  5. #85
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-23-12 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574
    Likes Received
    641 times
    Likes Given
    233

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I guarantee that you are wrong. The small generator pipes the exhaust into a heat exchanger for potable water and home heating whenever the generator runs and it only runs to charge batteries that are also charged by solar and wind. AC is obtained by plugging into inverters. Lamps are LCD. All appliances/electronics are chosen for efficiency (low wattage). Wahing machines and dryers may temporarily increase loads and require the generator to turn on, but again the exhaust heat is captured in the hot water.
    The petroleum cycle converting to electricity is about 13% efficient. The natural gas cycle to electric is about 30% efficient. Nuclear is about 30% efficient. Coal is about 30% efficient. It's not complicated. It is an existing monopoly with huge political clout and not an icon of efficiency. Owns and operates large numbers of politicians. These politicians prevent Renewable Energy initiatives at a local level from being implemented on a National scale.
    Well you do whatever you're going to do Grizzly Adams, but whoever's side your taking with making petrol HALF the efficiency of everything else; the agenda of greens is not exactly green, it's quite mysterious.

  6. #86
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,889
    Likes Received
    1905 times
    Likes Given
    4743

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Well you do whatever you're going to do Grizzly Adams, but whoever's side your taking with making petrol HALF the efficiency of everything else; the agenda of greens is not exactly green, it's quite mysterious.


    Usage/Misusage/Global Warming/Ice/Solutions

    And you really don’t want to know. You could stop reading now. Did you know that the engines in most automobiles are just 25% efficient? Did you know that all of the heat in your home leaks into the atmosphere and inevitably heats that atmosphere? Diesels and turbines are 30% efficient. Why would we want to know about this? If I said we only actually use about 10-15% of all the energy of the petroleum and natural gas we distribute and we waste the remainder as lost heat to the atmosphere, would that surprise you? You could counter with, “This writer is a card carrying moron.” A statement alluding to such extreme waste would be an indictment of the status quo of energy distribution and use. That is the point. The giant energy companies know this and work hard to make sure you do not. Per usual, it is about the money. Enough surprises, let’s suck it up and look at the facts.
    First step in energy distribution is finding the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must develop the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must transport the energy from its source to its user or in the case of oil to its refiner. If it is Natural Gas and used for heating, then all of the energy (BTUs) content of the natural gas, except the amount used for transportation, is lost as heat to the atmosphere. The energy used for transportation may be considered lost as well. Natural Gas destined for a gas turbine generator operating at 30% efficiency only loses 70% of the energy content (BTUs) to the atmosphere. In some instances a co-generation facility makes hot water for heating from the waste heat and that still escapes to heat the atmosphere. In the generation of electricity 5 KWH must be produced to deliver 4KWH to the end user incurring another loss. If you generate this electricity with a gas turbine, 70% of the energy content of the natural gas went out the exhaust as waste heat. That leaves 30% for KWH generated and 4 units out of 5 used (80% * 30%) leaving 24% of the potential energy actually used. We have allowed nothing for discovery, development, and transportation of the natural gas to the generation facility. More losses. These figures indicate that something much more than 30% of the energy content (BTUs) of all Natural Gas is not useful power but waste heat to the atmosphere. If 90% of the world’s Natural Gas is used for heating purposes, then only 10% produces useful power and the rest heats the atmosphere of the planet. That would be wasted energy and could conceivably cause other problems. Two readily apparent problems would be Global Warming and picking the pocket of the local end users, because the resource is not usually of local origination. Very profitable for the energy distribution network that could also be the status quo of big money and I am sure they like this system.
    How about Oil? Similar story. Use energy to find a source. Use energy to develop a source. Use energy to transport (tankers, pipelines, trucks, etc.) the oil. First, transport it to a refinery and use energy to refine it, and then use more energy to transport the refined product to its end users (cars, trains, planes, turbines, heating units, etc.), and these end users will operate at 25-30% efficiency and waste the remaining energy content to the atmosphere as waste heat. We have a 70-75% heat loss before we add the energy lost in transporting twice, refining once, and pumping losses. Optimistically, we might use 15% of the Oil as shaft horsepower. That leaves 85% as lost heat to the atmosphere.

  7. #87
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,889
    Likes Received
    1905 times
    Likes Given
    4743

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Most people advocating solar do not expect back-up generators to fill in the gaps. Generators, especially fossil fuel generators, are pretty much contrary to the solar viewpoint.

    That attitude is more likely to come from a survivalist than anywhere else, so I don't know which "you people" you are referring to but it sure isn't the solar crowd.
    Just a matter of slapping a dream upside the head with reality. I'm from SW New York and sometimes the sun isn't seen for three weeks at at time. You can be a freezing idealist or a warm realist. Not complicated.

  8. #88
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-06-14 @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,668
    Likes Received
    3824 times
    Likes Given
    7479

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Just a matter of slapping a dream upside the head with reality. I'm from SW New York and sometimes the sun isn't seen for three weeks at at time. You can be a freezing idealist or a warm realist. Not complicated.
    If you have no power lines then I would expect you to use other forms of heating. MO may not be NY but it freezes here, too, and there's lots of backwoods country. My grandmother used wood-burning stoves all her life until she went to the nursing home. My (step) grandfather split firewood almost 'til the day he died - no joke. I often wonder if that's what kept him alive for 92 years. Today there are wood pellets that (as I understand it) burn fairly clean and hot.

    But if you're on the grid then that's what most solar advocates prefer as "back-up". (IDK, maybe the extreme radicals expect more but what can you do about those kind of people? *shrug*)
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 02-05-12 at 11:07 AM.

  9. #89
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,914
    Likes Received
    4873 times
    Likes Given
    2743

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Just a matter of slapping a dream upside the head with reality. I'm from SW New York and sometimes the sun isn't seen for three weeks at at time. You can be a freezing idealist or a warm realist. Not complicated.
    I guess you should check your "reality" for some real-life reality.


    Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power

    It rains year round in Germany. Clouds cover the skies for about two-thirds of all daylight hours. Yet the country has managed to become the world's leading solar power generator.

    Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.

    So far just 3 percent of Germany's electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent.


    some more real-life reality...


    Solar PV Installations from Jersey to Germany

    Although many parts of Jersey live up to the state’s nickname of “The Garden State,” Jersey is still part of the Northeast. That means somewhat snowy winters; cloudy, rainy springs (April showers and all that), and hazy, hot and humid summers (with an emphasis on the “hazy” part for our purposes). The Jersey shore, while a fun getaway spot, is not exactly South Beach. According to a Reuters report, only three in every eight Jersey days are sunny.

    Yet, Jersey ranks number two in the U.S. in generating solar power, right behind (not-so-surprisingly) California. The cost savings of a solar array, and the popularity of solar in various regions, has far more to do with available incentives than typical weather conditions.
    Last edited by poweRob; 02-05-12 at 06:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative
    The left is paralyzed by logic and reason.

  10. #90
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-23-12 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574
    Likes Received
    641 times
    Likes Given
    233

    Re: The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Usage/Misusage/Global Warming/Ice/Solutions

    And you really don’t want to know. You could stop reading now. Did you know that the engines in most automobiles are just 25% efficient? Did you know that all of the heat in your home leaks into the atmosphere and inevitably heats that atmosphere? Diesels and turbines are 30% efficient. Why would we want to know about this? If I said we only actually use about 10-15% of all the energy of the petroleum and natural gas we distribute and we waste the remainder as lost heat to the atmosphere, would that surprise you? You could counter with, “This writer is a card carrying moron.” A statement alluding to such extreme waste would be an indictment of the status quo of energy distribution and use. That is the point. The giant energy companies know this and work hard to make sure you do not. Per usual, it is about the money. Enough surprises, let’s suck it up and look at the facts.
    First step in energy distribution is finding the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must develop the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must transport the energy from its source to its user or in the case of oil to its refiner. If it is Natural Gas and used for heating, then all of the energy (BTUs) content of the natural gas, except the amount used for transportation, is lost as heat to the atmosphere. The energy used for transportation may be considered lost as well. Natural Gas destined for a gas turbine generator operating at 30% efficiency only loses 70% of the energy content (BTUs) to the atmosphere. In some instances a co-generation facility makes hot water for heating from the waste heat and that still escapes to heat the atmosphere. In the generation of electricity 5 KWH must be produced to deliver 4KWH to the end user incurring another loss. If you generate this electricity with a gas turbine, 70% of the energy content of the natural gas went out the exhaust as waste heat. That leaves 30% for KWH generated and 4 units out of 5 used (80% * 30%) leaving 24% of the potential energy actually used. We have allowed nothing for discovery, development, and transportation of the natural gas to the generation facility. More losses. These figures indicate that something much more than 30% of the energy content (BTUs) of all Natural Gas is not useful power but waste heat to the atmosphere. If 90% of the world’s Natural Gas is used for heating purposes, then only 10% produces useful power and the rest heats the atmosphere of the planet. That would be wasted energy and could conceivably cause other problems. Two readily apparent problems would be Global Warming and picking the pocket of the local end users, because the resource is not usually of local origination. Very profitable for the energy distribution network that could also be the status quo of big money and I am sure they like this system.
    How about Oil? Similar story. Use energy to find a source. Use energy to develop a source. Use energy to transport (tankers, pipelines, trucks, etc.) the oil. First, transport it to a refinery and use energy to refine it, and then use more energy to transport the refined product to its end users (cars, trains, planes, turbines, heating units, etc.), and these end users will operate at 25-30% efficiency and waste the remaining energy content to the atmosphere as waste heat. We have a 70-75% heat loss before we add the energy lost in transporting twice, refining once, and pumping losses. Optimistically, we might use 15% of the Oil as shaft horsepower. That leaves 85% as lost heat to the atmosphere.
    I graduated high school in AP physics/AP math and then 3 more years in college studying nothing but math and physics; dropped out off my ~350 something math and physics classes, I don't like modern physics. I am familiar with all of that stuff, in a "close and personal" way; I tried to break all the laws but couldn't. I am telling you, you are wasting your time.

    You are wasting your efforts and your precious time on this stuff.
    Last edited by Matt Foley; 02-17-12 at 03:15 AM.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •