Scientist warns that public knowledge of space engineering fixes for global warming may be undesirable

JimO: This is an excellent survey article and displays the political
power plans of some scientists -- it's wrong that people know we
might have an engineering remedy for global warming because then
people would be less willing to follow our orders to restructure the
world's economy to our guidelines.... So I guess it's better if people
DON'T know that, or if they suspect it, that the idea is denounced
by all right-thinking experts as impossible. Gee, maybe i should write
a book!



"The knowledge that we maybe could engineer our way out of climate problems
inevitably lessens the political will to begin reducing carbon dioxide
emissions," observes David Keith from the University of Calgary in Canada.

Guns and sunshades to rescue climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm

Naysayism is clearly what rules this Usenet, plus as much of the
internet and the mainstream media as possible.

Guns and sunshades to rescue climate (this is another mainstream status
quo joke)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm

In spite of what we're being told, there actually are perfectly viable
(meaning affordable and doable) terrestrial alternatives, plus a viable
nearby space-science alternative that'll salvage what's left of our
global warming fiasco butts, with providing far more clean and
renewable energy than either of us can shake our mutual fossil fist
full of burning sticks at. Of course, if you're 100% naysay and
thereby officially opposed to the truth of what's perfectly rational
and entirely doable, as then we're summarily screwed, blued and
tattooed as Easter Island.

The likes of "David Keith" are simply pro-Bush, and certainly not
nearly as few and far between as you'd think, though on the right
tracks of at least honestly contributing notions on behalf of our
environment and thus on behalf of humanity by way of his thoughtfully
thinking a bit outside the mainstream status quo box, whereas much like
all of those stealth WMD, chances are that such technical notions will
soon get summarily nuked by way of friendly or perhaps not so friendly
fire, by way of the orchestrated directives of whatever the Skull and
Bones cult decides is best for their offshore bank accounts.

Suggesting upon the sorts of notions that are truly out of this world
and thus unobtainable is exactly the sorts of ongoing ruse that's
taking many of us to the cleaners as well as to an early grave.
Whereas Dr MacCracken that's offering us viable alternatives that are
entirely down to Earth gets squat worth of funding.

Unfortunately, we have the all-knowing likes of "William Mook",
"Question Quigley", "Bill Miller", wizard "George" and so many other
Usenet rusemasters that are actually as pro-Bush and otherwise every
bit as pro-fossil energy all the way to our global warming demise as
you're going to find. What their pro Third Reich words are having to
suggest is per say not at all the same as what their actions as having
represented as per having accomplished the exact opposite, of their
being anything but pro-environment are telling us quite another story.

These cloaked minion troopers for Bush and on behalf the old gipper of
whatever suits thy Skull and Bones are of specifically what's making
the rest of us pay over and over for just about everything, while
flooding out and/or simply killing off the rest of us that simply can't
pay, and otherwise having put a serious dent into mother nature's butt,
not to mention their having spiked the global energy markets by a good
2:1 and climbing, while also doing a damn fine job of ****ing off
nearly half the world that's mostly of nice Muslims that clearly do not
have a sense of humor about any of this.

This issue of our being continually snookered by those supposedly
having "the right stuff" goes far beyond environmental and energy
factors, as it squeeses itself into and throughout all sorts of
mainstream education, of other science, religions and of sustaining the
ongoing orchestrated disinformation shell games of our having to
continually guess which moving cup covers the truth and nothing but the
truth.

Our mutually perpetrated fiasco of cold-wars as having cost humanity
trillions upon trillions and having set humanity intellectually
backwards by a good century per decade of our having created and
sustained such a perpetrated cold-war, is just a touch more of the
truth that folks may need to accept before our very own resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) starts WW-III with his nukes in space plan of action,
along with such actions taking most of whatever's left of our best
talents and resources that have not been in surplus for decades.
-

"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth

"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust

"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Even Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree that WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very result of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).

Life on Venus, a Venusian outpost w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Jim Oberg wrote:
JimO: This is an excellent survey article and displays the political
power plans of some scientists -- it's wrong that people know we
might have an engineering remedy for global warming because then
people would be less willing to follow our orders to restructure the
world's economy to our guidelines.... So I guess it's better if people
DON'T know that, or if they suspect it, that the idea is denounced
by all right-thinking experts as impossible. Gee, maybe i should write
a book!



"The knowledge that we maybe could engineer our way out of climate problems
inevitably lessens the political will to begin reducing carbon dioxide
emissions," observes David Keith from the University of Calgary in Canada.

Guns and sunshades to rescue climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm

Why is this a better solution than H2-PV pollutionless power on Earth
forever at lower cost? Why is planting plantations of fast growing
Bamboo, which can sequester the Carbon until the H2-PV solution is
fully deployed, not considered?

http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/pdp_54_aceves.pdf
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
Over 1000 downloads for you to read. Enjoy your taxes already spent in
acquiring a billion dollars worth of knowledge. Why get your news from
BBC, second-hand, when you can learn about the state of the art and
know the science as good as anyone else on Earth?


CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision
33162.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33162.pdf

CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual
Program 32405.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32405.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 57 MB Compressed Natural Gas-- A Collection of Resources
33945.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33945.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 585 MB Compressed Natural Gas-- A Suite of Tutorials
37146.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/37146.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip

Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip


Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf 50,775 KB
Evaluation of Natural Gas Pipeline Materials for Hydrogen Service 2005
04_adams_nat_gas.pdf 10,211 KB
Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy 2003 hydrogen.pdf 7418 KB
Center of Excellence for Chemical Hydrogen Storage-- LANL Tasks and
Collaborations 116058.pdf 8081 KB
DOE Carbon-based Materials Center of Excellence heben_st18_stp30.pdf
5265 KB
Fuel Cells Program Mission-Goals 2003 williams_fe_fuel_cells.pdf 7140
KB
Hydrogen Embrittlement Of Pipeline Steels-- Causes And Remediation 2005
09_sofronis_pipe_steels.pdf 6646 KB
Hydrogen permeability and Integrity of hydrogen transfer pipelines 2005
03_babu_transfer.pdf 5733 KB
Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Program 2005 02_parks_dtt.pdf
9416 KB
NREL H2 Electrolysis - Utility Integration Workshop 2004
euiw_4_h2tp_nrel.pdf 7604 KB
Overview of DOE Metal Hydride Center of Excellence (MHCoE)
stp15_wang.pdf 5425 KB
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Hydrogen Analysis
Capabilities 2004 13_pnnl_placet.pdf 6171 KB
Pennsylvania Regional 2005 11_wang_infra.pdf 9951 KB
Small Wind Systems Tutorial wind_turbine_towers.pdf 8820 KB
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf 9525 KB
Validation of An Integrated System for a Hydrogen-Fueled Power Park
tv5_keenan.pdf 5277 KB
Workshop_hydrogen_storage.pdf 8601 KB

dan wrote:
Dr. Keith is not a left-wing rejectionist. He is a major researcher in
this very field, with numerous publications on how this kind of
environmental modification might actually be done. Many of his papers
are available on the web. Clicking on the various topics on the left
side of this page will bring up different lists, many available online.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Publications.html

Perhaps the BBC quote was chosen to emphsize a controversial point, as
reporters should. But I would venture to guess that Keith does not
mean that people should be denied knowledge of the research; if he
believed this he would obviously not spend so much of his life
publishing it in the literature and on the web. Rather the word
"maybe" in the quote is the essential point. Geoengineering _might_
work. If so, he obviously supports it. But if it is reported in the
press as a painless solution that _will_ work, when it's really only a
rather speculative proposal, people may assume the problem is taken
care of and resist the use of other measures that subject them to minor
inconvenience until it's to late.

It will be hard to stop climate change. We do not even have a good
predictive model. If we really want to do something about it, we'd
better start soon and try a lot more than one or two approaches.


Why is this a better solution than H2-PV pollutionless power on Earth
forever at lower cost? Why is planting plantations of fast growing
Bamboo, which can sequester the Carbon until the H2-PV solution is
fully deployed, not considered?

http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/pdp_54_aceves.pdf
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
Over 1000 downloads for you to read. Enjoy your taxes already spent in
acquiring a billion dollars worth of knowledge. Why get your news from
BBC, second-hand, when you can learn about the state of the art and
know the science as good as anyone else on Earth?


CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision
33162.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33162.pdf

CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual
Program 32405.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32405.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 57 MB Compressed Natural Gas-- A Collection of Resources
33945.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33945.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 585 MB Compressed Natural Gas-- A Suite of Tutorials
37146.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/37146.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip

Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip


Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf 50,775 KB
Evaluation of Natural Gas Pipeline Materials for Hydrogen Service 2005
04_adams_nat_gas.pdf 10,211 KB
Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy 2003 hydrogen.pdf 7418 KB
Center of Excellence for Chemical Hydrogen Storage-- LANL Tasks and
Collaborations 116058.pdf 8081 KB
DOE Carbon-based Materials Center of Excellence heben_st18_stp30.pdf
5265 KB
Fuel Cells Program Mission-Goals 2003 williams_fe_fuel_cells.pdf 7140
KB
Hydrogen Embrittlement Of Pipeline Steels-- Causes And Remediation 2005
09_sofronis_pipe_steels.pdf 6646 KB
Hydrogen permeability and Integrity of hydrogen transfer pipelines 2005
03_babu_transfer.pdf 5733 KB
Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Program 2005 02_parks_dtt.pdf
9416 KB
NREL H2 Electrolysis - Utility Integration Workshop 2004
euiw_4_h2tp_nrel.pdf 7604 KB
Overview of DOE Metal Hydride Center of Excellence (MHCoE)
stp15_wang.pdf 5425 KB
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Hydrogen Analysis
Capabilities 2004 13_pnnl_placet.pdf 6171 KB
Pennsylvania Regional 2005 11_wang_infra.pdf 9951 KB
Small Wind Systems Tutorial wind_turbine_towers.pdf 8820 KB
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf 9525 KB
Validation of An Integrated System for a Hydrogen-Fueled Power Park
tv5_keenan.pdf 5277 KB
Workshop_hydrogen_storage.pdf 8601 KB

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

JimO: This is an excellent survey article and displays the political
power plans of some scientists -- it's wrong that people know we
might have an engineering remedy for global warming because then
people would be less willing to follow our orders to restructure the
world's economy to our guidelines.... So I guess it's better if people
DON'T know that, or if they suspect it, that the idea is denounced
by all right-thinking experts as impossible. Gee, maybe i should write
a book!



The kind of engineering discussed has a fatal flaw that any
competent mathematician should immediately see. They
wish to change a variable that effects every other variable
on the planet simultaneously. Such as incoming sunlight.

The flaw is that it's not possible to predict the effects of
such change as it's non linear in character. Non linear
or cascading reactions, such as Islam to the 'cartoon', are
not predictable from an examination of the components.


Nonlinear Science - Chaos Tamed

"This phenomena is known as sensitivity to initial conditions, or
the Butterfly Effect. It arises because the errors that accumulate
from each collision do not simply add (as linear analyses assume),
but increase exponentially and this geometric progression rapidly
diverges any initial state to one that is unpredictably far
from the estimate."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm


To propose global change without having the ability
to predict the consequences is lunacy. To move
ahead without the informed consent of the entire
planet would be immoral.

Such scientists are a far greater threat to humanity
than global warming. Imho.


Jonathan


s









"The knowledge that we maybe could engineer our way out of climate
problems
inevitably lessens the political will to begin reducing carbon dioxide
emissions," observes David Keith from the University of Calgary in Canada.

Guns and sunshades to rescue climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

http://www.usoal.com
http://www.mokindustries.com

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
tank.

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

But I won't disclose anything to people who want to prop up the Oil
Moguls with their dirty carbon Business-as-Usual. I'll turn down the
money because I have something that few people alive understand any
mo I have 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.

Water Hyacinths and pond scum (duckweeds) turn Carbon into biomass at a
rate of double their bulk every 14 days. 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, if they get the
space they need and a wee bit of help from US. The bonus is the air
will have more oxygen, not less, if we don't do it your way.


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
you need zero ounces of Hydrogen to clean up your dirty tailpipes above
the amount you were going to use anyway. You propose 2.3 billion tons
of H2 ON TOP OF WHAT IS USED IN THE VEHICLE FLEET.

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. Very little Earth surface gets 2000 hours
per year of peak illumination to produce the wattages you are
guesstimating. Not all of the locations which do have the best solar
power are usable for assorted reasons.

Here's maps of the solar distributions for all 50 states:
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP
344.8 MB) 28494.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip

Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/atlas_final.pdf

Renewable Hydrogen From Wind In California 2005 UCD-ITS-RP-05-09.pdf
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publicati...S-RP-05-09.pdf

Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/...4_Full_Doc.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and
Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf

CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the
Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip


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. 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.

The crossover of 2012-2015 time point will produce $1/watt PV panels
and $0.03 watt on the retail customer's bill, unless we increase the
installation rate and bring the prices down faster. 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.

Nothing you can do or say can stop this juggernaut from completing the
transition. All you can achieve is needless deaths from continued use
of Carbon Poison any longer than minimally required.

http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
30,000 People Are Killed Every Year by Coal Pollution in the USA.

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. You are confusing the WHOLE WORLD'S
RESPONSIBILITY as if it was the USA's RESPONSIBILITY. THe USA is
responsible for it's share which is much lower. You numbers
unnecessarily scare people into hopelessness that a job that big can
never be done.


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

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

http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely
similar result to my own computations. 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. 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

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
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip


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



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.

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

The Triple Sustainability of. CPV Within the Framework of. the Raviv
Financing Model. Barcelona%20poster%20award%202005.pdf
http://www.rmst.co.il/Barcelona%20po...ard%202005.pdf

The Triple Sustainability of CPV Within the Framework of the Raviv
Financing Model 38185.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38024.pdf

A Synergistic Approach to the Development of New Hydrogen Storage
Materials st8_mao.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...05/st8_mao.pdf

Advanced Concepts for Containment of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Storage
Materials st16_aceves.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...t16_aceves.pdf

Advanced Concepts for Containment of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Storage
Materials vi_e_2_aceves.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...e_2_aceves.pdf

Advanced Hydrogen Storage-- A System's Perspective and Some Thoughts
on Fundamentals 2002 adv_h2_storage.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...h2_storage.pdf

LOAD THIS PAGE and search for "STORAGE":
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html







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.

http://www.usoal.com
http://www.mokindustries.com

TOO BAD. You could be participating in H2-PV Breeders, H2-PV
Electrolysis Farms, Conformable H2 Storage Tanks, Spaceplanes, Low
Earth Habitats, Geostationary Habitats, and L5-Habitats.

By solving the conformable tanks, the purification of SoG Si, and a few
keystone breakthrough I'm building a ladder to the Planets and the
Stars. Your attachment to carbon-burning is sinking the planet into the
grave instead.

And I am not sharing anything with those who refuse to renounce mass
murder of their fellow beings. 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. OR dig the grave
you intend to die in with your destroyed planet. Those are two
unambiguous choices. Pick one and stay with it.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

JimO: This is an excellent survey article and displays
the political power plans of some scientists -- it's
wrong that people know we might have an
engineering remedy for global warming because then
people would be less willing to follow our orders to
restructure the world's economy to our guidelines....
So I guess it's better if people DON'T know that, or
if they suspect it, that the idea is denounced by all
right-thinking experts as impossible. Gee, maybe i
should write a book!

Scientists define problems, engineers solve them, both tend to get into
trouble when trying to do the other's job. For the most part, the
engineers have yet to be called in to solve the global warming problem,
which goes to show that no one is seriously looking for a solution just
yet.

No where is it written that the Earth's climate is inherently stable,
(except insofar as the historical record shows climate stability under
far more extreme conditions than the current one). For all we know it
could become naturally unstable tomorrow even without our help.

Life on Earth has been around close to 4 billion years. We know that 500
million years from now the Sun will be far hotter and the current type
of surface life mostly dead. It seems to me that if there is some
inherent instability in the Earth's climate as the scientists preach
then, excepting anthropomorphic climate stabilising, such instability
will show itself long before those 500 million years are up. The
scientists can not have it both ways, if the climate is approaching
stability limits due to human interference then the aging sun will soon,
(relatively speaking), exceed those stability limits without human
interference.

All this goes to say that the seeming act of faith by many scientists
that the Earth's climate is naturally stable and that active climate
control is ill advised is ultimately wrong. At some point in time
intelligent life will need to take active control of the Earth's climate
if life is to continue. The sooner we gain this capacity, the sooner we
can ensure the future climate of Earth from near term catastrophes
natural or unnatural. I might even go so far as to say that as guardians
of life on this planet it is our moral responsibility to gain such a
capacity.

If the objective is to maximise the quantity, variety and evolution of
life on Earth then more localized climate control is also warranted.
More intensive farming, conservation and preservation of biodiversity if
you will. Although of course we would want to adopt a softly softly
approach to begin with while we refined our global climate models.

As for engineering solutions, a space based solar shade is probably the
most controllable but is currently unaffordable. Dust in the upper
atmosphere is probably the cheapest and easiest. It does not have to be
Sulphur and might be accomplished for a few billion dollars per year. To
some extent it might also be localized. This is probably the best short
term fix.

My preferred solution would probably be the development of an extensive
system of ocean current turbines, (similar in cost to wind turbines but
with far greater thermal energy flow rates), perhaps combined with a
couple of order of magnitude increase in wind turbines. This could
largely pay for itself via power production on the side and would
hopefully provide a slight influence over wind and ocean currents, (like
the Gulf Stream) - sufficient for some climate influence.

For example, by keeping warm ocean currents out of the polar areas ice
cover could be increased. Such a system of slight ocean and wind current
influence would give some local control over temperature, rainfall,
bring life to deserts, (if desired), decrease droughts and floods,
etcetera. One could also deflect nutrient rich waters into barren parts
of the ocean, suck nutrient rich water up from the depths, etcetera.

Pete.

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:42:11 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
wrote, in part:

JimO: This is an excellent survey article and displays the political
power plans of some scientists -- it's wrong that people know we
might have an engineering remedy for global warming because then
people would be less willing to follow our orders to restructure the
world's economy to our guidelines.... So I guess it's better if people
DON'T know that, or if they suspect it, that the idea is denounced
by all right-thinking experts as impossible. Gee, maybe i should write
a book!

"The knowledge that we maybe could engineer our way out of climate problems
inevitably lessens the political will to begin reducing carbon dioxide
emissions," observes David Keith from the University of Calgary in Canada.

Guns and sunshades to rescue climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm

Well, if we knew that we could, with *absolute certainty* engineer our
way out of climate problems, then indeed you would be right about not
keeping it a secret.

But isn't it legitimate to criticize publicity to schemes that provide
only _false hope_, because they might let *powerful moneyed interests*
avoid painful changes that genuinely *are* needed to save humanity from
a horrific disaster that will happen somewhat later than when these
scoundrels have made their fortune?

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

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
tank.

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
watt.

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.

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

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.

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

LOL!

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.
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
SQ KILOMETERS OF BAMBOO!!!!

THIS IS 100X MORE THAN THE AREA OF SOLAR COLLECTORS PROPOSED EARLIER
AND IS 10% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OF THE PLANET! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH
FRESH WATER AND OTHER INPUTS TO MAKE THIS A REALITY - AND WHAT WE DO
WITH ALL THE BAMBOO PRODUCED IS ANYONE'S GUESS.

LOL!


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?

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

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...


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!

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? ????


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.
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.

so
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. 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
ARE ALREADY PRODUCING AT A PROFT!


the amount you were going to use anyway. You propose 2.3 billion tons
of H2 ON TOP OF WHAT IS USED IN THE VEHICLE FLEET.

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?

lol.

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.

http://sunwize.com/info_center/insolmap.htm

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
guesstimating.

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
directly.

Here's maps of the solar distributions for all 50 states:
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

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
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip

This isn't the world - its North America

Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf
http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/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
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publicati...S-RP-05-09.pdf

This is California - not the world.

Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/...4_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
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/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
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip

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.


Nothing you can do or say can stop this juggernaut

What makes you think I want to stop it?

from completing the
transition.

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.


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?

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!

Its far simpler to create hydrogen and use it to make hydrocarbons and
sell those. This provides IMMEDIATE PROFITS - and a means to CLOSE
DOWN THE OIL COMPANIES BY TAKING THEIR MARKETS AWAY. Those profits can
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
STANDARD OF LIVING WORLDWIDE AND ELIMINATING ALL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
AND CONTROL OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY MARKETS BY GOVERNMENTS THROUGH
CONTROL OF THE SUBSIDIES..

http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
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...

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

Nonsequitor.




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.

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
WAY.

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
RESPONSIBILITY as if it was the USA's RESPONSIBILITY.

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.

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!

lol.

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!

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
world.

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.

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..




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
worthwhile.

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.


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

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

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

http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html

This says nothing of a technical nature.

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!

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
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
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.

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.


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
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip


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

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?

lol.

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
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.


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.




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.

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.

The Triple Sustainability of. CPV Within the Framework of. the Raviv
Financing Model. Barcelona%20poster%20award%202005.pdf
http://www.rmst.co.il/Barcelona%20po...ard%202005.pdf

The Triple Sustainability of CPV Within the Framework of the Raviv
Financing Model 38185.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38024.pdf

A Synergistic Approach to the Development of New Hydrogen Storage
Materials st8_mao.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...05/st8_mao.pdf

Advanced Concepts for Containment of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Storage
Materials st16_aceves.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...t16_aceves.pdf

Advanced Concepts for Containment of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Storage
Materials vi_e_2_aceves.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...e_2_aceves.pdf

Advanced Hydrogen Storage-- A System's Perspective and Some Thoughts
on Fundamentals 2002 adv_h2_storage.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...h2_storage.pdf

LOAD THIS PAGE and search for "STORAGE":
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html


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.

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.


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.

http://www.usoal.com
http://www.mokindustries.com

TOO BAD.

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?

hmm..???

H2-PV
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 ...

Spaceplanes,

How does this help the world's energy problems?

Low
Earth Habitats,

How does this help the world's energy problems?

Geostationary Habitats, and L5-Habitats.

How does this help the world's energy problems?

By solving the conformable tanks,

LOL

the purification of SoG Si, and a few
keystone breakthrough

You are a crack pot.


I'm building a ladder to the Planets

How does this help the world's energy problems?

and the
Stars.

How does this help the world's energy problems?

Your attachment to carbon-burning

Look around you dude - WE ARE ALL ATTACHED TO CARBON BURNING! The
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
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.



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,

hahahahahahahahaha...

or ever get into one of the
habitats in orbit.

ROTFLMAO!

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
EFFECTIVE AT GETTING THE RESULTS YOU WANT? hahahahaha

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.

lol

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!