forests on orbit

On Feb 27, 5:45*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 27 Feb, 00:19, wrote:



On Feb 26, 2:04*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:41 am, wrote:

I am sponsoring 8 energy projects overseas, and 1 energy project in
Ohio.

Due to recent legislation in Ohio I am currently offering the
following to anyone with more than 20,000 sf of roof top space;

I will pay the going rate per kilowatt-hour per month per square foot
of solar panels I put on your roof - in Ohio - based on DOE cost
figures. *In Ohio this is 7.71 cents. *So, I offer 7.71 cents per
square foot per month on a 30 year lease - to use your rooftop for
solar collector site. *This money is paid out of the revenue earned
from the equipment I build own and operate on the rooftop.

I am currently offering the following to anyone with more than 100
acres of un-reclaimed land in Ohio. *I will pay 1/4 the going rate per
kilowatt hour per month per square foot of solar panels I put on your
un-reclaimed brownfield site - in Ohio. *this is 1.92 cents per square
foot per month on a 30 year lease. - to use your brownfield site. *The
money is paid out of the revenue earned from the equipment I build own
and operate on the site. *This meets the requirement of productive use
according to the 1976 surface reclamation act.

There are non-recurring engineering charges paid by the property
owner. *$2 per square foot of rooftop per building - with a 20,000 sf
minimum - and $21,780 per acre for a mine site - 100 acre minimum.

Once the acrhitectural and engineering work is completed for each
site, a contract with a buyer for energy is entered into. *The
contracts are bankable - and the projected revenue streams are
monetized well before construction is even started - this adds $12 per
square foot to the value of buildings - based on roof area - and .
$130,680 per acre to the value of strip mines, plus eliminating
reclamation costs.

Now your are talking the sort of common sense that the rest of us
terrestrial limited village idiots can visualize as well as learn to
appreciate.

A viable plan of investment payback (though long-term) that'll
directly improve upon the quality and affordable way of life for the
greater good of humanity, and of indirectly improving upon our badly
failing environment without increasing our CO2/NOx footprint. *On this
you should get a fair number of takers.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, especially since the contracts can be monetized today to realize
value today for those signing up. *This wasn't possible last week,
because the legislation wasn't signed into law until this week in the
State of Ohio.- Hide quoted text -

One interesting question. When the US enters into a system of carbon
credits and carbon trading (All three serious contenders say they
would). Would you consider gaining carbon credits overseas and selling
them on?

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously any company takes revenue wherever it may be efficently
found. Getting carbon credits involves a decision by UN officials -
and we're pursuing it in a number of projects overseas. I will pursue
it for US projects as well.

The Chicago Carbon Exchange trades carbon for about $4 per ton
presently. So, this is added to the revenue stream - if the UN
officials agree to accept the project and process. Which isn't
automatic. For one, they are biased against US capital, and against
projects that are profitable. That is, if you're making a profit on
your primary business, then to the minds of the UN regulators, you
don't 'need' those credits. So, there's a tendency for folks to lie
about projects, or to segment the projects into money losing
operations to gain the revenue, and then use the losses to defray
taxes even while collecting the revenue.

These sorts of shenannigans will eventually decimate the alternative
energy business - about the time the major energy companies decide to
buy up the best.

That's my prediction.

Yet, without engaging in a lot of anti-competitive bull**** - we are
pursuing things fairly and hope to gain the $4 per ton or whatever the
price - for carbon avoidance.

I am treating this as icing on the cake and not as the raison d'etre
of the progrram.

The value of the carbon credits can be estimated.

A 1 GW coal fired power plant burnts about 10,000 tons of coal a day
and produces about 32,000 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By carrying
out a controlled burning of 13,400 tons of oxygen, with 10,000 tons of
coal, 23,400 tons of carbon-monoxide is formed - and 32,000 tons of
carbon dioxide is avoided. The value of the avoided carbon at $4 per
ton is $128,000 per day - which has a present value of about $1
billion.

Now, in the plant, the 23,400 tons of carbon monoxide is combined with
3,350 tons of hydrogen to create 26,750 tons of methanol.

Two methanol molecules are combined and dehydrated to form 19,226 tons
of di-methyl ether and 7,524 tons of water.

Two di-methyl ether molecules are combined with a hydrogen molecule to
create a butane molecule with high efficiency. In this way 19,226
tons of dimethyl ether is combined with 418 tons of hydrogen to
create 7,524 tons of water and 12,121 tons of butane each day.

Two butane molecules are polymerized to create an octane moleule and
hydrogen. In this way 12,121 tons of butane each day are converted
into 11,912 tons of octane (permium gasoline) and 209 tons of hydrogen
each day.

That's 87,315 barrels of premium gasoline worth $11 million per day -
adding $93 billion to the value of the operation.

So, you can see that the gasoline is quite worthwhile.

The electricity made by the 1 GW power plant at $0.03 per kWh - adds
$720,000 per day - which adds $6 billion to the value of the
operation- not countng the cost of coal.

The utility pays the $2.6 billion for the upgrade as a clean coal
technology - and gathers tax and other credits - including the carbon
credits.

I agree to pay for a portion of the coal going forward!

We can see how many solar panels are needed for this operation..

13,400 tons of water is made from 15,075 tons of water leaving 1,675
tons of hydrogen.

An additional 1,675 tons of hydrogen is needed in the first step, and
an additional 209 tons of hydrogen for succeeding steps. - 3,559 tons
of hydrogen. At 50 MWh per ton - that's 177,950 MWh - an average of
7,414 MW over 24 hours to support 1,000 MW of continuous electrical
output from the coal plant - along with 87,315 barrels per day...

With typical insolation levels that's 37,072 MW of solar panels
totalling 206 sq km of panels (51,000 acres) which takes my production
plant 4 months to produce and install.

11 coal fired plants converted in this way provides over 950,000
barrels of premium gasoline per day at a cost of $8.57 per barrel.