A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Scientist warns that public knowledge of space engineering fixes for global warming may be undesirable, But never mentions the benefits of H2-PV

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 6th 06, 12:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Scientist warns that public knowledge of space engineering fixes for global warming may be undesirable, But never mentions the benefits of H2-PV

William Mook wrote:
H2-PV NOW wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Closing the industrial carbon cycle is one way to control carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. The production of low-cost hydrogen with
very low-cost PV arrays would allow just that!

Using the Sabatier Process we can take CO2 and produce CH4

Water breakdown with energy: 4 H2O + energy --- 4 H2 + 2 O2

Combine Hydrogen with CO2: CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O

The water in the second step is recycled.

You can then take CH4 and run it through a zeolite system to cause
larger hydrocarbon molecules to be produced.

Here's what I already have, and the Argonne National Laboratory is
close to catching up, is the conformable hydrogen lighweight pressure

You need more than a tank sir, you need cheap hydrogen and lots of
other things besides. Using solar electric power to generate hydrogen
is one way, if the cost of the solar panels are less than $1 per watt -
including all balance of systems. They're $7 per watt today - I have a
technology that could reasonably reduce that cost to $0.07 per peak

You don't see me stopping you. The cost of solar panels at the mfgr's loading dock cost him less than
$2/watt today, according to Shell, who makes them, and bragged about it in 2003 at a DOE conference.
Slide 20 of 34. PDF #34.

Slides originated from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586.pdf
NCPV and Solar Program Review Meeting Proceedings (CDROM)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586CD.zip(ZIP 130 MB)NREL/CD-520-33586June 2003

With that baby anything I touch could turn to gold -- it's the missing
piece from the Hydrogen Economy being real in 2006.

Nonsense. Look at the entire fuel cycle - you need lots more than a
tank. Get real. It can be done - but not anytime soon.

PV is no state secret. 13% efficiency flat rooftop mounting in California, measured out the panel DC
regardless of the nameplate 17% efficiency claim, times 4047 meters^2 per acre, times 6 hours average per
day peak power (see: http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html) is 12 kilograms H2 per hour, 72
kilograms H2 per day, 26,000 kilograms H2 per year per acre. What's the bottleneck? Tanks for cars,
tankers for delivery to stations, tankage for seasonal storage.

It can happen anytime people want it enough. The technical problems are already solved with public domain
know-how and all kinds of proprietary development is going on in submarine fashion that may suddenly
appear on the surface with a big fanfare.

But I won't disclose anything to people who want to prop up the Oil
Moguls with their dirty carbon Business-as-Usual.

Its not proping up anything. Its just a matter of economics. Our
entire industrial economy runs on oil.

No it doesn't. Most of it runs on electricity which is at least four times the energy production of oil per day.
The oil portion is a measly 20%, and lots of that can be converted over mucho pronto to clean(er) fuels, like
CNG for a while. And HCNG, and HYTHANE and NaturalHy.

Everything from motorcars, to
jet airplanes, to heating to plastics to fertilizer, to you name it.

The Haber-Bosch fertilizer process combines N2 and H2 to make NH3. It needs zero fossil fuels at all, and
that is an early candidate to accept the Hydrogen Economy and H2-PV. 50% of all hydrogen used in the
world goes into NH3, and that frees up that portion of CH4 in NatGas to go into transportation for an
immediate cut in greehouse gases versus gasoline.

The Russians have 30 years experience in flying Hydrogen fuelded cargo jets. Don'y you suppose the US
could finally begin to get ONE years's experience? Or are you PROPPING UP BUSINESS AS USUAL with
tired excuses for never beginning to tke your kisser of the rump-end of the Shieks of Arabique?

ALL of those processes must find a hydrogen equivalent, and ALL of
those equivalents must be as convenient, logistically simple, and as
inexpensive as oil is today - if we are to maintain our standard of

Our present standard of living includes sewers backing up onto the streets of Miami after hurricane Wilma,
and $300,000,000,000 hit to the economy by katrina-Rita.

We DON'T want to maintain THAT standard of living -- we want to replace it with one where we don't sell 21
ports to the Shieks of Arabique.

We can't do that today. And even if we could, we have another
issue. The $60 trillion per year we make in the global economy
requires something like $300 trillion of capital equipment. That

You can't spend money when you are dead. 30,000 Americans are killed each year from coal particulate air
pollution, enough to fill Arlington National Cemetary every ten years.

Al Qaeda only killed 3,000 and we bombed their headquaters. How many do the coal companies get to kill
before they are targetted for revenge strikes?

We can clean up this mess. The technology already exists. The more we use it the more we learn how to
make it cheaper. Every time we double PV installed base the cost goes down 19%, so the faster we install
PV the faster the price will drop like a rock.

equipment runs on oil. Telling everyone they have to rush out and buy
a hydrogen version of whatever oil fired system they have is tantamount
to saying - this won't get done in a generation.

Not by lazy slaves to the Oil Moguls like you, it won't get done in a generation.

How about if we PAID people to scrap their oil burning furnaces? That would be cheaper than fixing entire
cities destroyed by all-hell-breaking-loose from Global Warming. We could use the $1,000,000,000 per day
we spend in Iraq, and say to them "My mistake, no WMDs here, we'll just be going now, bye-bye".

How about the $4.7 billion dollars subsidy to cotton farmers in RED STATES, where US cotton costs 60
cents/pound to GROW, and the world price is 40 cents a pound. Not only would we save a million gallons of
federally subsized water per acre per year, but we could subsidize the same farmers to grow H2-PV farms
where they grow 26,000 kilograms of H2 per acre per year. Last year 340,000 acres of Arizona were planted
in welfare-queen federal-dole cotton.

But, using hydrogen to make hydrocarbons from CO2 in the air, draws
down CO2 and simultaneously builds up low-cost hydrogen production -
while making money immediately to expand hydrogen production and
support research into getting all those conversions done.

We can draw down CO2 by subsidizing bamboo plantations instead of heavy-metal machines to do what
bamboo does for free just by using solar energy.

Your lips need to get surgically removed from those Oil Mogul buttocks.

I'll turn down the
money because I have something that few people alive understand any
mo I have personal integrity.


Like you have ever displayed a speck of personal integrity.

If you take CO2 from the atmosphere you can also get water from the
atmosphere, since there is a lot more water in the air than CO2. It
also takes energy to concentrate the CO2 and H2O.

I can take more CO2 out of the air with vast Bamboo plantations than
any technology you can ever think of. The Bamboo can sequester the CO2
long enough for nature to dispose of the toxic overload and pull our
chestnuts out of the RED ZONE in about 20 years of stopping putting any
more Carbon up there.

Hmm.. the fastest growing bamboo sucks up 12 tons per hectare - but to
grow it requires special growing conditions, water, and other inputs.

SO? Pay Haitians to plant those denuded hillsides, cheapskate. Evidently, from mass mudslide deaths,
Guatamala and Philipines are too other places that could use some foreign aid to plant bamboo, or water
hyacinth or duckweed plantations and turn that cO2 into sweet oxygen.

More typical is 8 tons per hectare. So, that's 800 tons per sq km. We
needed to absorb what? 12.8 BILLION TONS PER YEAR. That's 16 MILLION

Whatever it takes. You plan to use oil to operate heavy metal is far more insane. We could STOP adding
carbon and we would need less CO2 sponges to mop it up.



Water Hyacinths and pond scum (duckweeds) turn Carbon into biomass at a
rate of double their bulk every 14 days.

In the right environment, yes. But the range of that environment is
limited. That's why we don't see duckweeds everywhere. This is
rather simple stuff guy - why don't you get it?

WE have a multitude of options where nature will help us undo our mistakes.

First we have to admit the problem and stop repeating the mistakes.

And a brief review of literature available on the internet shows that
duckweed is a SOURCE of methane and biogas and carbon dioxide...

No citations. My own website has a page on Duckweeds and a page on W.H. links and several pages on
bamboos. They are dated because my interests have moved but plenty of the links are surely still good. I try
to take important excerpts of page data in case the links break. Here, try these:


There's no need to go through
your heavy-metal fix when you get Ecological Synergy. Nature's
solar-powered carbon cleanup crews can do the job,

Well, bamboo is about 1% as efficient as solar collectors I've cited,
and duckweed is a SOURCE of CO2 according to the literature I brought
up - looking for its sink rate...

Especially if you harvest it and feed it to cows as silage -- it becomes methane farts PLUS MEAT. If you
harvest the Water Hyacinths there's things you can do with that too, and Bamboo makes hardwood floor tiles
that can sequester the carbon for 50 years before they need to be scrapped. By 50 years we will be past the
hump and H2-PV will be everywhere and carbon pollution will be nowhere on Earth.

if they get the
space they need and a wee bit of help from US.

There is not sufficient space to grow 16 million sq km of bamboo. The
entire Brazilian rainforest possesses 86,000 sq km of bamboo - and its
declining. Its more than a wee bit of effort. Its more like greater
effort than we now expend in growing ALL THE FOOD IN THE WORLD!

You are assuming we add carbon at your preferred rates. I assure you we won't allow you to kill the world
with you BUSINESS-AS-USUAL scenario.

The bonus is the air
will have more oxygen, not less, if we don't do it your way.

Um, you missed the part where water is converted to hydrogen and
OXYGEN? ????

And burned right back into CO2 again. You thought your slight-of-hand 3-card monty could get away with a
fast one.

Humanity burns about 30 billion barrels of oil per year and produces.
This is about 4.1 billion tonnes of oil. That's about 12.8 billion
tonnes of CO2 per year.

To balance this production of CO2 using the Sabatier process requires
the produciton of 2.3 billion tons of hydrogen per year.

If you go straight to H2-PV there's zero CO2 pollution to mitigate,

So? If the queen had balls she'd be king! So what? The fact is we
burn 30 billion barrels of oil per year. We produce 12.8 billion
tonnes of CO2 that way. If we absorbed this CO2 and produced synthetic
oil using hydrogen, we would capture IMMEDIATELY the energy markets and
use the profits to redirect toward more efficient use of hydrogen.

We are in the RED ZONE NOW. Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Beta, Zeta, Bonnie, Charlie, Jeanne, Frances, Stan,
Tammy, Ophilia, ... REMEMBER?

Recycling CARBON keeps it at RED ZONE LEVELS.

We need to cease the carbon as fast as possible so that the natural sinks can help us draw back down into
the green zone in 20 years or so AFTER we stop putting any big carbon into the air.


That's the way to do it. You on the other hand would rather exort
people to change their evil ways and say how proud you are as the last
surviving example of personal integrity! hahahaha... If you had any
integrity you'd be able to hold a decent conversation. LOL.

I back up my statements with factual research BEFORE I publish them. The bamboo-WH-duckweeds pages
are seven years old and have been moved from seven different webhosts over the years.

I do my homework FIRST before I ever open my mouth. I make a good-faith, and due diligence, effort to be
factually correct before I say something.

you need zero ounces of Hydrogen to clean up your dirty tailpipes above

Ultimately the hydrogen would be used directly. But that's impractical
to expect everyone to change overnight. What's more reasonable is to
produce a fuel that everyone already buys using hydrogen and
atmospheric CO2 - and do so at a cost that's competitive with today's
extracted products.

Look very closely at your birth certificate again and make real sure that your guarantee that you are exempt
from participation in solutions to very serious problems is not a delusional figment of your imagination.

I DON'T OWE YOU, and nobody owes you, total freedom to be a gluttenous pig and mass murder. IF you get
inconvenienced because you didn't plan ten years ago to wean yourself off of oil, a lack of planning on your
part does not constitute an emergency on my part. If you are inconvenienced because you missed the memo
in 1992, too freaking bad.

You were warned. You were told. The people we pay to warn us, warned us 4,745 days ago. That's enough
time for you to have completed your plans for the big change in behaviors.

GOOGLE.COM Results about 12,700,000 for Warning to Humanity.

That's 12,700,000 chances you got to get warned and get ready to do your part. Time's up, ready or not.

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
18 Nov, 1992.
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often
irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current
practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms,
and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.
Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

That way, you undermine extraction in the
marketplace, and displace it with product that cycles the CO2 - and you
use your profits to develop and introduce technologies -like improved
storage systems- to displace the CO2 altogether - with the hydrogen YOU

You had your chance to put this on the market. I don't see it. The USA has a roadmap and is pushing
forward to complete it. Read 'em.

H2-PV is moving ahead, a juggernaut you can't stop.

CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision 33162.pdf

CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual Program 32405.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and Accelerating Ultimate Pathways

CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the Generation of Electricity or
Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf

Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP 344.8 MB) 28494.pdf

the amount you were going to use anyway. You propose 2.3 billion tons

That's what's needed to sequester all the CO2 being produced and
recreating the oil it came from. The H2 produced far and away exceeds
the energy needs of the planet. Its about 2x as much as is needed.
So, you're in the catbird seat actually once you get this rolling. You
will put the oil companies out of business, and then convert to direct
hydrogen use over time by investing a portion of the profits to that
end. The same 177,000 sq km of collectors will be used to provide
twice the energy to market at half the cost - while reducing the CO2
levels as the synthetic oil remains unsold.

Now, at 39 MWh per tonne, this equates to 89.7 billion MWh per year to
produced the needed hydrogen for this closed loop system. If you use
solar collectors to generate this energy and they are illuminated for
2,000 hours per year, then each watt of solar capacity will produce 2
kWh of energy per year. So, you need 44.85 trillion watts of solar
electric generating capacity to achieve this end.

Your figures are inflated.

If I assumed fewer hours I would get a larger area - so the figures are
deflated right?


Very little Earth surface gets 2000 hours
per year of peak illumination

177,000 sq km is less than 0.1% of the Earth's land surface anyway.


2000 hours per year is 5.4 hours per day. Please note the areas that
receive more than 5.4 hours per day on average - they constitue more
than 5% of the world's land area - which means that covering only
1/50th of that area with collectors will be sufficient for our needs.

to produce the wattages you are

Calculating you mean. lol.

Not all of the locations which do have the best solar
power are usable for assorted reasons.

We are planning centralized solar power stations that produce
electricity efficiently and then produce hydrogen efficiently. The
hydrogen will be combined with CO2 in the air, water will be extracted
from the air as well, and synthetic liquid fuels will be produced

Here's maps of the solar distributions for all 50 states:

I've already provided a map of global insolation - we have more than
50x the area we need to implement the program I've outlined.

Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf

This isn't the world - its North America

Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf

That's nice - this is of the West - not the world.

Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf

This is California - not the world.

Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf

Your point is what exactly? That you're a pedantic fool who would
rather be right than happy? lol.

CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf

The US - not the world - please refer to my map - thanks.

CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf

sigh You're an asshole you know that?

30 billion barrels at $60 per barrel translates to $1.8 trillion per
year. This could support $18 trillion of capital equipment. Dividing
this limiting value by the number of watts translates to $0.40 per peak
watt - including balance of system costs to make this system work.

Solar is on an ever decreasing downward price trend.

Its at $7.00 per peak watt today. It needs to be at $0.40 per peak
watt to be competitive using the system I've proposed here. It could
be as high as $1.00 per peak watt and be competitive with oil if we use
hydrogen directly. It could be as high as $1.50 per peak watt and be
competitive with electricity.

For every doubling
of the installed base the price decreses 19%. This trend has not
deviated since 1979 through every recession, world crisis, change of
administration or anything you can think of.

I think you have it backwards. Every decrease in price causes an
increase in utilization. When the price is competitive with oil, it
will displace oil.

The crossover of 2012-2015 time point will produce $1/watt PV panels

This depends on the rate of investment and the success of that
investment in reducing costs. But, yes, at $1/peak watt PV panels will
be competitive with oil.

and $0.03 watt on the retail customer's bill, unless we increase the
installation rate and bring the prices down faster.

Investment in R&D and developing lower cost techniques is the way
prices come down. Demand increases as prices fall. Increased demand
doesn't cause lower prices. Lower prices cause increased demand. DUH!

California has
allocated $2,700,000,000 as our share of increasing the installed base
and bring the price down 19% each doubling. Japan is doing its share.
Germany is doing its share.

Government subsidy reduces the rate at which prices fall and shelters
the oil industry. If all subsidies were eliminated, solar power would
stand on its own, and investment would be focused like a laser on lower
costs. Subsidies reward inefficiency and fuzzy thinking of the type
you exhibit here.

I don't need, want, or encourage subsidies. You have your proprietary process, god knows how many others
have theirs.

But I won't give mine to people who won't change their behavior when they have been fully noticed and
informed that their behaviors are contributing to mass negligent manslaughter (to put the best face on it), or
premeditated willful and deliberate mass murder (to call it what it is).

I DON"T SUBSIDIZE SOCIOPATHIC BEHAVIORS. There's no SUBSIDY from me rescuing their chestnuts
from the fire. I believe in free-will -- if you choose hell, I don't oppose your early departure to there.

Nothing you can do or say can stop this juggernaut

What makes you think I want to stop it?

from completing the

Subsidies will slow down conversion. Surviving in the market without
subsidies will create the strengths the alternative energy markets need
to survive and kick ass.

We shall see if that is true.

All you can achieve is needless deaths from continued use
of Carbon Poison

What? How many die from carbon poison each year in the world?

1,400 from Katrina. 1,300 from Stan, 30,000 from particulates from coal plants -- within the past 12-months.

Coal Power Plants have a specific area consumption on a particular piece of real estate. However they are
useless and do nothing without three other consumptive territories.
Coal power plants require
1. fuel to be provided from vast tracts of land,
2. require large volumes of atmosphere to dispose of the invisible but destructive gases output up the
flues, and
3. require cemetery tracts to bury the dead killed by the entire process.

any longer than minimally required.

Unless you are prepared to foot the $300 trillion bill in converting
our entire industrial economy to hydrogen using technologies we haven't
developed yet, you are talking out of your ass!

Your numbers are coming out of your ass.

Its far simpler to create hydrogen and use it to make hydrocarbons and
sell those. This provides IMMEDIATE PROFITS - and a means to CLOSE
be used to assist in the large scale conversion of our economy to the
underlying hydrogen fuel source, - and provide a means to pull the oil
needle out of our arms within a generation - WHILE INCREASING THE

30,000 People Are Killed Every Year by Coal Pollution in the USA.

We're talking about OIL not COAL. You're being dishonest confabulating
the two - I guess you're personal integrity doesn't extend to being
honest in your discussions does it! hahahaha...

You are being dishonest. Read the data links I gave you before and repeated here.

Transportation only represents 30% of global energy use. Carbon pollution is an inter-related cartel. When
Exxon-Mobil's founder, John D. Rockefeller, died his estate included numberous chunks of oil companies,
numerous coal companies, and more than a dozen major newspapers. Oh, between him and his brother Bill,
they also were controlling stovcckholders in what are now called JP-Morgan-Chase, and Citibank also.

It's the same group of heirs collecting the profits for oil or gas or coal or petrochemicals made from those
things and fertilizers and grains and cattle.

When it's said that 0.5% of the population owns 40% of the country, what is unsaid is they leave the other
99.5% of the population the 60% as private homes, cars, TVs and chattle, and own the valuable stuff. Even
their Chase owns your mortgage, and Koch Oil probably owns your electric utility that lights your home.

They take threats to their "ownership society" seriously. It is a unified front to keep stationary fuel cells out
of autonomous buildings as long as possible, just like they want to keep H2-PV out of the market using every
dirty lying trick.

40% of energy use is transportation and about 35%-40% is building power. They are related in their minds and
in mine. Fuel cells run reversably are electrolysers. They can burn H2 and make H2, and Exxon-Mobil-
Chevron-Shell can't put their brand name on it.

If you have PV and make H2 at home you can run your car without ever giving a cent to Exxon at all. If the
grid goes down -- those fuel cell cars are 60 kilowatt generators -- just plug you home into the car and stay
bright and warm. Distributed power means the end of their monopoly. They love YOU, tying the SHEEPLE
back into centralized power plants owned by Entergy-Koch instead of cheap PV that comes from ever
expanded installations fueling experience curves in price reduction cycles.

I don't see you as the white hat. You excuse their murders and you corral the SHEEPLE into helpless
consumerism. A PV home has the rectifier to let you plug in your fuel cell car in a grid blackout. Your central
plants spew CO2 and remove the rectifiers from the SHEEPLE's homes. Every car on the road, even your
lawnmower, can be converted to CNG or H2 and you know it. $300,000,000,000 economic hit from Katrina-
Rita alone is $1,000 to every American man, woman and baby, and that buys a lot of conversion kits and
fuel cells, and freedom from the buttocks of Oil Moguls.

You are fostering dependency on energy cartels as the ONLY solution.

That's enough to completely fill
one new Arlington National Cemetery
every ten years.


At 850 MW per square kilomoter, at 30% efficiency, translates to 177,000
square kilometers of solar collectors.

Your numbers are unsupported.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?. Insolation at the Earth's
surface is 850 watts per square meter or more. There are 1 million
square meters per square kilometer. That's 850 MW per square
kilometer. At 30% conversion efficiency that's 255 MW per square
kilometer electrical. 177,000 sq km x 0.255 GW = 45 TW which is what I
calculated we needed to make all the hydrogen needed to absorb all the
CO2 we make via the Sabatier Process.

WE don't make this CO2. Bad energy choices make this CO2. It is not the USA duty to fix the bad choices
overseas so we can ditch 75% of your numbers right off the bat. Let those people find places to put their PV.
That's not OUR problem.

By giving the total global numbers you scare the heack out of people that the job is too big and the cost is
too high. OUR job is only one fourth of that and OUR cost is only one fourth of that. That's what I object to -
- your grandious exaggerations encompassing the whole planet.

Then your numbers are again bogus, by assuming constant annual CO2 spew and calculating what kind of
heavy-metal solution you have for for a never-getting-any-better polluted air. You insure that the CO2 cannot
draw down.

My solution is to ditch the carbon and go with H2-PV entirely. Then the biomass help is worth a lot more than
your bogus figure based on never reducing CO2 from the RED ZONE where we are now.

You really **** me off you know that? You make these wild ass claims
about bamboo soaking up all the CO2 we make - and you don't provide one
****ing piece of information to support it. So, I gotta go out on the
internet and read up on bamboo to see just what the sam hill you're
talking about - and what do I find? That bamboo is about 1% as
efficient as a solar panel in soaking up CO2 - Do you know that? NO

And now here you are telling me my numbers aren't supported and you
start out telling me how you're so damned full of integrity? You are a
****ing fraud and an asshole besides! Shut the **** up that's all you
can usefully do.

You are confusing the WHOLE WORLD'S

Where the hell did you get that?

OH I see, you are obviously proceeding from some sort of socialist
paradigm right?

That's about right for you I guess.

No. You numbers might be valid for a planetary PV solution but they are exaggerated for a USA solution.

Look, these problems ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE MONEY! See? There's a
world market out there that will pay good money for synthetic fuels
that help clean up the air - and can be made in virtually unlimited
quantieis. See? Oh, you don't see that's the ****ing point!

You can make money more than your wildest dreams of averice and never have to knowingly kill one of your
customers or neighbors. H2-PV will make lots of people rich. Just making gas tanks for 200,000,000 USA
cars and light trucks will make fortunes. At 26,000 kilograms of H2 per acre, it doesn't take many acres (and
65,000 gallons of water per year per acre is equal to 1.8 inches of rain) to make farmers rich as H2-PV

The H2-PV Breeders are expected to turn out an acre of PV every 35 days for each acre of power supply PV
they own, and people who run one of those will be respectably wealthy turning out 500,000 new watts of PV
every month or so, even if the price is $1/watt. If they own ten acres, well that's $5m every 35 days gross.
In the quantities people are needing, as fast as they need it, there's plenty of money without going over the
fence into the Dark Side of the Force.

Money is not the only value. You can't pay me enough money to become a murderer, but don't get me wrong
-- I believe in captal punishment for those who do commit murders and I stand ready if everybody else gets
squeamish to volunteer to take out the trash. Tell your governor to call me. I can see the difference and
distinctions even if you are too amoral to tell the difference yourself.

Money is not the only value and it's not even close to my highest value. It does blur people's vision and
make them tel lies and lead others into destruction.

THe USA is
responsible for it's share which is much lower.

Try this one on for size bubba. The USA has a huge opportunity to
capture and dominate the world's fuel markets by making domestic
synthetic fuels in quantities and at prices that are competitive with
mid-east oil. In short, with the right kind of business model, the USA
could kick the Middle-East's ass economically, and instead of having
hundreds of billons of dollars pour out of the US intot the Middle East
- we could reverse that flow and have trillions of dollars flow into
the US!

Exxon has so much money, that if what you say was good they would already be on it. As it is the Standard
Oil Heirs who own Exxon-Mobil-Chevron and pieces of Shell and BP also own PV factories. They ship 75% of
their total production out of country to Germany, who is paying $7 a watt for Shell PV that costs $1.80 a watt
to make,
See slide 20 of 23.
33586034.pdf, 1,232KB R&D on Shell Solarís CZ Silicon Product Manufacturing

Slides originated from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586.pdf
NCPV and Solar Program Review Meeting Proceedings (CDROM)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586CD.zip(ZIP 130 MB)NREL/CD-520-33586June 2003

Ever wonder why the future looked so bright in 1950s for the US and it
looked so bleak from 1970s onward?

Well, I'll give you a clue jerk.

In the 1950s we exported fuels and everything else in the world to the
rest of the world.

After 1970s we imported fuels and nearly everything else from the

You figure the rest out if you can!

You numbers
unnecessarily scare people into hopelessness that a job that big can
never be done.

But we can easily plant 16 million sq km of bamboo right? What a jerk
you are.

We don't have to plant it here. And we don't need so much if we reject your PERPETUAL CARBON
POLLUTION PLAN, which we have already rejected, haven't we?

Look, did you know that the two largest mining companies in the world
already own and mine in exess of 200,000 sq km of land in sunny
regions???? DID YOU KNOW THAT????

We can easily cover this area in low-cost solar panels in less than two
decades - and over this same period we can shift from hydrocarbons to
hydrogen - lowering the cost of energy to below that enjoyed today -
while cleaning up the air, and eliminating pollution going forward..

The H2-PV transition will be completed globally ten years from the date it begins.

There's $2.7 billion seed money in California for 1,000,000 solar PV rooftops already.

I hope you like BLUE because the world is going to see a lot of it, on building sides as well as rooftops, on
freeway and railroad right-of-ways, on carports at malls and factory parking lots. Of course modern PV can
be made transparant, translucent, and a wide range of decorator colors, but PV-Blue is nice, don't you think

We have developed a solar panel technology that has a total cost of
$0.07 per peak watt, when produced in quantities of 100 GW per year.
The size of an optimal plant. To produce 44,850 GW in 20 years will
require the operaiton of 23 plants.

H2-PV Breeder Farms can do much better.

I don't know what an H2-PV Breeder Farm is. But given your abyssmal
bamboo bull****, I don't hold out any hope that its anything

Yours is the BS. You calculate on a business-as-usual basis that keeps us PERPETUALLY in the RED
ZONE, spewing carbon forever and needing to always be using heavy-metal cleaup technology to stay in the

My way we stop the carbon and enlish nature's help to suck up our past mistakes and follow the straight and
narrow path and live happily ever after.

You keep trying to fit part of my solution onto your perpetual problem-making, and I never offered that halfwit
idea that you created. Don't blame me if you take half a plan and find it don't work tacked onto your
halfassed plan.

Concentrating PV on the other hand is a proven method to reduce the
cost of solar panels. Our patented method of using water filled
cavities created at very low cost, as lensing materials, is a way to
reduce the cost of optics to pennies per watt.

You don't see me standing in your way. Any failure on your part is none of my making. Good luck to you. PV
is made of the exact same starting stuff as beer bottles and mayonaise jars. It does not have ten times the
energy embodiment or technology-machinery as beer bottles aand it shouldn't cost more than ten times what
beer bottles cost. In my state, the recycle value for beer bottles is 2-for-a-nickle, and a watt of PV at ten
times that price ought to cost 25 cents. When the volume of PV is as high as the volume of beer bottles, PV
will be two bits per watt.

Concentratrator technology depends on expensive silicon to compete. The window of opportunity is closing.
By 2012, or as late as 2015 PV will be a $1/watt including BOS, so you've got 6 to 9 years to make your pile
before the rug is pulled out from under you.

Who knows. I may even relent and dump my H2-PV IP onto the public domain at some point, and your
window slams shut for CPV within three years from that date.

There's a freshness date stamped on your CPV. You ought to spend less time on the net arguing with guys
you think are screwy and get peddling your products before the pull-date expires and cheap PV Panels are
giving you the blues.

Unfortunately, you can't have
the technical disclosures until you abandon spewing death and

Yeah, its a big ass secret cause there's nothing behind I'd wager.
You're so full of integrity - NOT.

That would be psychology trick number 4073 in the book, to taunt a sucker into giving you their IP without
paying anything?

What is disclosed is THIS, from US Dept of Energy National Renewable
Energy Laboratories:


This says nothing of a technical nature.

Right. THere are people who need BASICS before they are ready to grok technical details.

This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely
similar result to my own computations.

Riight... could you share your calculations? Especially since you ****
on mine without providing one whit of analysis - and you wildly
exaggerated the potential of bamboo!

Seems to me they were posted numerous times on these same news groups during periods recording your
posting messages.

There was a thread "Does H2-PV Work"

Some of my computed data and sources were cited: http://snipurl.com/n8a7

Another message where I did number crunching in public: http://snipurl.com/n8a9
One acre of PV in the US southwest sunbelt makes 12 kgs of H2 out of
water per hour, 72 kgs of Hydrogen per 6-hour solar day, 26,280 kg of
H2 per year per acre.

One H2-PV Breeder farm makes a new H2-PV farm every 35 days, or 10.5
new acres of PV Panels per year. ...

Another discussion occurred here, chock full of numbers: http://snipurl.com/n8ac

A page was published as HTML on some computations of PV-Breeders:
The link was cited repeated times. Google archives record the link being posted ten times previously.

7% of the State of Arizona can
replace all the USA daily oil consumption, powering 200,000,000 cars
and light trucks, all heavy transportation, 18-wheeler over-the-highway
trucks, trains, and planes.

Ideally yes, but we don't know how to make safe reliable hydrogen
vehicles right now as cost efficiently as we make gasoline cars. We

Every car is an H2 car with a tank, some fuel lines, fuel injection and brainbox. It's not the best of all worlds,
but we don't have to wait for fuel cell cars to hit the roads or junk cars with lots of years on them.

Dual fuel cars are an option today. Tri-fuel cars: gasoline, CNG, and H2 are another option.

I already have the answer for the 200-400 mile range CH2 tanks that can take LH2 as an option. The range
estimate is made on 10 gge basis.

The tank ought to be in the $400 range, not counting the plumbing, much cheaper if made overseas.

don't know how to make fuel cell vehicles last as long as cars. Look,
the average car today costs something like $20,000 and lasts 7 years.
A new fuel cell car would cost something like $60,000 for the same
performance and last 3 years. So,200,000,000 vehicles today cost the
economy something like $600 billion per year. A fuel cell fleet would

None of this is my problem. Fuel cell cars ought to be cheaper than gasoline cars. There's nothing on your
birth certificate that guarantees you can haul one to two tons of metal around everywhere you go. Indy 500
cars are made of spaceage composites. Is your driving environment more hazardous than theirs?

GM prices their vehicles by the POUND. I know it sounds stupid, but they have done that for decades. The
more pounds, the higher it costs.

We should not be talking about MPG. We should calculate ton-miles per gallon. How many tons do you get
per gallon hauled how far?

How about we put the energy in the roadway with maglev and zoom our cars at 400 mph? Why do we have
to pretend that the good old days were the 1950s, which were not such good old days when you get down to

Why do we have to repeat the failed lifestyles of the 20th century in the 21st century?

cost something like $4,000 billion per year. Asking our $10 trillion
economy to absorb this cost is foolish. Its far better to make massive
quantities of renewable hydrogen use that hydrogen to pump down the CO2
in the air, and sell the resulting hydrocarbons in the existing
hydrocarbon market - at prices that undercut extracted hydrocarbons.
This is the most efficient way to elminate the production of oil from
extracted reserves. At the same time, offer hydrogen for sale at
reduced prices, spend a portion of the profits on new hydrogen
technology, and make fuel cell cars cost competitive and as reliable
and long lived as gasoline cars - and you will have your hydrogen
economy without subsidy, and without exorting people to change their
evil ways. lol. Of course then you couldn't claim you're so full of
integrity! lol. What an asshole you are.

How can your keyboard still function with all that blood dripping off your fingers?

The Red box on their map is centered for
convenience and does not imply that the PV farms would all be in the
State of Colorado. It is there for comparison to an actual sunny
section of Nevada which does have the solar hours to power the entire
nation's electricity grid, maked in Yellow box

Actually, Newmont Mines and Anglo Ashanti Gold, have over 6,000 sq km
of land tied up in the State of Nevada alone - that's more than enough
to provide all the energy we need. And they're convenient to the Union
Pacific rail lines, which provides a nice right of way to send HVDC
lines across the US. You can sell HVDC power to utilities who buy
inverters and sodium sulfur batteries for less cost than generators,
and you sell electricity to them when the sun shines at less cost than
the cost of coal in a coal fired generator. THAT'S HOW YOU DISPLACE
COAL CONSUMPTION. Meanwhile, you produce hydrogen from water
throughout the US with excess power from the HVDC grid, and you pump
down CO2 and sell synthetic liquid fuels using that hydrogen - THATS
HOW YOU DISPLACE OIL CONSUMPTION. Then you use the profits from the
sale of electricity and synthetic liquid fuels to fund deployment of
hydrogen technologies that make use of the hydrogen directly.

This is a practical system not dependent on government or the
cooperation of big oil.

No, you just are dependent on the Wall Street Kremlin to approve your plan from their centralized command
and control structure, loan you money from their banks, and negociate terms with you on their mines, their
railroads, their transmission lines and their utility distribution nodes, plus sell you petrochemical parts from
their factories, and provide you retail outlets for your new-oil at their service stations. Dreamer. When you
get a little bit along the way they will do to you what they did to the the Masabi Ore Merritt Brothers. Or did
you think hostile-takers only happen to the other guy? Does the tiger ever change it's stripes, and do you
really want one in your tank or in your business?

The map comes from this CD-ROM:
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf

It shows a much lower area required which is not so frightening to

What utter nonsense you spew.

What makes you think 6,000 sq km of solar collectors is less
frightening than 177,000 sq km of solar collectors?


About 40,000 messages on usenet makes think that.

You're comparing apples and oranges anyway.

One is meeting the world's need for carbon dioxide sequetrastion, the
other is making the electricity the US needs and is currently making it
from coal.

BOTH areas are vastly bigger than anything we've contemplated to date.

What is frightening is you have no clue as to how to make a practical
business out of doing what you claim to want to do. You'd rather tell
us the oil companies are evil and we're lazy and so forth - rather than
come up with a practical system that will put the oil companies and
coal companies out of business. lol. You have to much integrity for

Little old moi, is going to take on the industrial-military complex all by myself? Surely you jest. Put them out of

I think the 2006 hurricane season might hurry the H2-PV vision along. They are stalling on the Fuel Cells
until they can totally automate the process and put the hated United Auto Workers out of business. Who is
on the "FreedomCar Team"? Got any idea?

None of Bush's budget for the H2 FreedomCar goes to anything but robotics assembly R&D. If it can be done
in small shops or small factories by people who get up every day and need a job to go to to "put food on
their families", then it has no place in the R&D budget.

A person would have to be extra-smart to compete in a skewed playing field like that, let alone win and put
140 year-old Standard Oil, oops I mean Exxon-Mobil-Chevron-BP-Shell, out of business. Surely You don't
think I'm smart enough to undertand how to play high-stakes poker in that game?

anything as practical as that! haha.. If you capture the revenue
stream the oil companies are making - and use it to fund the expansion
of low cost solar - you could cover as much surface area as you need -
whether people are frightened or not.

You seem to have this socialist bug in the back of your head which says
that people have to agree to everything because they're paying for it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Are you slugging the Jim Beam as you type this?

Business doesn't work that way. Business organizes capital as its
needed to meet the needs of its customers. If we need 177,000 square
kilometers of land area to meet the world's energy needs - then that's
what is needed. We've already identified the world's largest land
owners and have been in discussion with them. We've figured out the
scale of the problem, we have a marketing model, and a revenue model
that works.

What do you have?

NOTHING except pie in the sky bull**** and rude remarks for anyone who
is doing anything real.

You've invited a tiger home for dinner, and guess who's on the menu. After they have taken everything you
worked your whole life for and you are about to commit suicide, write me one simple message: "You were

These solar panels use water filled PET to focus sunlight onto tiny PV
cells built into a large array connected by a foil into a single
circuit, and then 1,1,00 panels are linked together in a train - like
Christmas tree lights. The bulk of the material used - and the cost
driver - is the precision molded PET, which forms water filled
cavities. Each plant uses about the same amount of PET as a large
bottling plant, and far less water.

By comparison, humanity operates over 1,200 bottling plants world-wide,
so this system isn't that difficult to set up.

The silicon foundry associated with each plant though, does add
substantial cost.

Over this same period we can expect humanity to increase its level of
energy use, by about 4% per year. This means that in 20 years we'll
consume 66 billion barrels of oil (equivalent) - but we needn't spend
more money on collectors. Why? Because over the same period we can be
developing technologies to use the hydrogen directly, which is far more
energy efficient than making hydrocarbons.

Why make hydrocarbons in the first place?

Because that's what we're using today!

But if you used your time to solve the conformable, lightweight
high-pressure tanks you could run the whole fleet on Hydrogen until it
wears out, by which time the Fuel Cell fleet will be ready.

PEM materials within fuel cells don't last more than three years and
they're the primary cost driver in a fuel cell auto. The tank is as
nothing compared to this problem. Asking everyone in America to switch
to fuel cells at this date is asking the US economy to spend 40% of its
revenue on new technology - this is a powerful statement that we're not
ready. Its a good target, and we need to move agressively toward it.
But that shouldn't stop us from taking the oil needle out of our arm
and switching to solar powered economy - converted to meet our needs -
by using the hydrogen to make synthetic fuels from CO2.

I'm not asking them. Katrina-Rita-Wilma-Hugo-Ivan-Jeanne-Frances is telling them, OR ELSE.

If you want to live than pay the cost of living. There are lots cheaper, even far more interesting, ways to
commit suicide than what you propose: Business-As-Usual.

You work on a problem that has been solved 30 times over, and ignore
the problem which is the bottleneck.

Who is making synthetic liquid fuels cost competitively with extracted
fuels from water sunlight and air? NO ONE! So, your comment - like
your comment on bamboo - doesn't hold up.

There are numerous fuels in liquid form made from carbon compounds. Nobody is selling it for
$39,000,000,000 reasons. Why do you think you will get to sell it if nobody else can?

If you think the US Oil Moguls are anti-Arab and just eager to replace Saudi crude with good-old-boy
homegrown, your nuts. Didn't you see the picture of Bush and the prince strolling hand-in-hand in the Rose
Garden? Didn't you read the papers about 21 US ports transferring to the Shieks of Arabique?

The Triple Sustainability of. CPV Within the Framework of. the Raviv
Financing Model. Barcelona%20poster%20award%202005.pdf

The Triple Sustainability of CPV Within the Framework of the Raviv
Financing Model 38185.pdf

A Synergistic Approach to the Development of New Hydrogen Storage
Materials st8_mao.pdf

Advanced Concepts for Containment of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Storage
Materials st16_aceves.pdf

Advanced Concepts for Containment of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Storage
Materials vi_e_2_aceves.pdf

Advanced Hydrogen Storage-- A System's Perspective and Some Thoughts
on Fundamentals 2002 adv_h2_storage.pdf

LOAD THIS PAGE and search for "STORAGE":

You're a person of such high integrity NOT - you'd have us believe that
the only thing keeping us from a hydrogen economy was a pressure tank.
lol. what a crock! haha.

So take the 2.3 liter tank that Quantum spent $100,000,000 developing and put that in your car instead. It's
an industrilal marvel totally made by machines untouched by human hands. I think they'll let you have one for
about a thou or so. When the fuel cell cars made without human hands are ready.

There is a whole infrastructure that needs to be built up. We can
build HVDC lines over the Union Pacific rights of way - and we can use
those HVDC lines to provide low cost electricity - with zero emissions
- while shutting down the coal mines, and use the same HVDC lines to
make hydrogen from water - and use that hydrogen both directly in a
growing fleet of hydrogen autos, but also indrectly in synthetic
hydrocarbons - putting the oil companies out of business, and reversing
the flow of dollars out of the US.

And you already showed them your whole business plan, right? You are "in discussions", right?

All I ask is that one goodbye-cruel-world message: "You were right".

We can make hydrocarbons and sell them in vast quantities and in the
process support huge productions of hydrogen from sunlight. This sets
the stage for the hydrogen economy, without requiring the entire world
convert to hydrogen today. It also pays dividends in that there is not
net production of CO2 using this process.

So, this is what we're doing.



No, its a good thing because its practical.

You could be participating in H2-PV Breeders,

Um, I thought you said these were secret technology. How can I
participate in something I know nothing about and which you are
unwilling to share any details on?


You could wash the blood off your hands for a start.

Electrolysis Farms,

I don't know what this is.

Conformable H2 Storage Tanks,

LOL! We don't need tanks until we have low cost hydrogen ...

There's the sun. There's the silicon rocks. There's the water. What's YOUR problem putting them all


How does this help the world's energy problems?

Space manufacturing. There's 7 times more sunlight in high orbit and 3.5 times as much in low orbit. Really
big silicon crystals can be grown in space. The problems with zone refinement, float zone, CZ crystal sizes
all have to do with gravity. It's too soon to say, but I expect that very thin sheets of solid monocrystalline Si
can be grown with no saw kerf waste.

I expect that several other energy aspects of space can be tapped: +/- 500 degrees diffrence in temperature
from sunny to shaded can exist inches apart. Zero-G frictionless homopolar generators.

Whiskers can be grown that make superstrong composites, alloys, metals.

Foamed metals, lightweight, but below Griffith crack criitcal distances.

Manned "satellites". Instead of $300m per launch, solitary units, just send the critical guts and the guys will
fix it and maintain it on station along with hundreds of others on station.

Earth Habitats,

How does this help the world's energy problems?

Making launch vehicles in configurations that cannot themselves survive surface launch.

A place to position supplies for outward bound transfers, and much later, inbound traffic going down.

Geostationary Habitats, and L5-Habitats.

How does this help the world's energy problems?

Nobody can even predict yet with any assurance what will be known by permanent habitation where zero-G
and ideal vacuum is just outside.

By solving the conformable tanks,


the purification of SoG Si, and a few
keystone breakthrough

You are a crack pot.

Ssid by the guy who is "in discussions" with vampires".

I'm building a ladder to the Planets

How does this help the world's energy problems?

You seem to think everything is about money and world energy problems, and you call me the crackpot. For
all you know I'm testing out plots for a sci-fi script to pitch to hollywood, but you are serious -- seriously one-
tracked with no visible values other than counting your pile of money like Scrooge McDuck in his vault.

and the

How does this help the world's energy problems?

Scrooge McDuck counting his money. One-track. No values other than money. The Wall Street Kremlin
would love you as a member except the rules state you have to have been born rich -- Not even Bill Gates is
a member, but his kid might qualify.

Your attachment to carbon-burning

question is, do we extract more carbon from the ground, or do we use
the carbon already in the air along with sunlight and water? If we

The other choice you forgot to mention is H2-PV. No carbon. Never have to say you're sorry.

use the Sabatier process to make hydrocarbons from hydrogen and CO2 -
we immediately create a revenue stream that grows as we grow our
ability to make low-cost hydrogen. We use part of the profits here to
diversify out of hydrocarbons and into hydrogen, and create a natural
pathway that grows in size and scope to put both the oil and coal
companies out of business.

Scrooge McDuck swimming in his pool of gold coins.

is sinking the planet into the
grave instead.

Its not me dude, its all of us. You have proposed a system that is
impractical unworkable and too expensive. I am proposing a practical,
workable, cost effective system that will achieve the goal of a
hydrogen economy without reliance upon massive changes in the way
people do things, without reliance upon government subsidy, and without
reliance upon the oil companies and coal companies doing what we want.

And I am not sharing anything with those who refuse to renounce mass
murder of their fellow beings.

Where the hell did this come from? You are a ****ing loon!

I won't let one of them step foot on a
single one of the fleet of spaceplanes,


or ever get into one of the
habitats in orbit.


Admit your mistakes and surrender your murderous ways.

Let's see, I have a clear system that will put the oil and coal
companies out of business by going them one better in their own
markets. You have proposed a fantasy world where everyone voluntarily
changes because they're good guys. WHO DO YOU THINK WILL BE MORE

You actually gave the other team your playbook? You are "in discussions"?

OR dig the grave
you intend to die in with your destroyed planet.

Dude, you're the one planning to leave, not me! LOL

Those are two
unambiguous choices.

They sure are - they're both the ravings of a lunatic - but they're
certainly unambigous.


Pick one and stay with it.

Ever hear of a false choice? hahahaha.. ****, man, look, you make one
of your choices, I've got my own life to live. What a hoot!

Glad you enjoyed our little chat.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discovery and competitiveness: the keywords in Europe's policies and programmes for space Jacques van Oene News 0 December 3rd 05 11:46 AM
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.