It's Like the Hydra

[Nashwan]

nashwan... I will have to dispute your math as I know people who have less than 30,000 dollar systems and their bill is zero.

That's certainly possible with subsidies.

A $30,000 system will generate about 10 kw/h a day. If they got a 50% subsidy, then that's a $60,000 system, which would generate about 20 kw/h a day.

The average electricity usage in California is apparently just over 20 kw/h a day.

So yes, a $60,000 system could certainly get the average electricity bill to zero. Even a $30,000 system could do so if you use only half of average electricity.

Where you are wrong is in claiming their bill would otherwise be $500 a month. $500 of electricity is more than 5 times average consumption.

they power company did it to save themselves money...

No, the power company cannot save money by paying someone a lump sum so that they don't have to buy power.

The power company do it because the state government mandate it. It's not something they want to do, it's something they are forced to do. They pass the costs on to their other customers.

Once again it's a system that only works in small numbers. If everybody did it, they would all have to pay the true price, rather than getting other people to pay for their solar panels.

Note also that the subsidies are already declining as the uptake increases.
The first 70 mw installed in residential areas had to be subsidised by the power companies at $2.5 per watt. The next 30 mw were at $2.2, PGE is about to switch to stage 4, where the subsidy is down to $1.9

You advocate the free market, but the entire home solar system exists only because of subsidies.

And... the unit is not a loss... it increases the value of the home.. you will get every penny back when you sell and.. in todays market.. they are the only homes selling.

You will get every penny back of an overpriced, declining asset? Somehow I doubt it.

electric cars? expensive.. stupid but... there are some neat ones... neat enough to drive 5 miles to the supermarket or walmart in any case... hybrids? hate em but... you can make em plug in and then it would be "free" after initial cost and not including maint which would occur with any vehicle

The batteries just aren't up to it. Once again, even with petrol at $8 a gallon, no one wants them. They cost too much, are too limited.

Nope.. at least here in the states... it is gonna happen.. soon there will be systems that drop your bill to zero that cost like $10,000 the will be selling kits at home depot.

If solar ever gets that cheap, your bill still won't drop to zero. Everyone will be generating their own power in the day, when the sun goes down they will all need to buy power from the power company. And the power is going to be much more expensive if they have to run all the infrastructure just to sell power for a few hours a day.

And that still doesn't address the oil issue at all. Almost no oil is used for power generation in the developed world. Even if you can replace coal and gas and nuclear with solar, which is a long way off yet, then you still have to have some way of carrying the power with you in a car.

oh..here is the electric car drag racing association.. looks like fun to me.

I'm sure it is. Most people want to be able to drive more than a a quarter of a mile, though

[Tigeress]

Nashwan,

Hydrogen burns directly.  

Hydrogen has 3 to 4 times more energy, when directly burned, than gasoline per unit of weight.

Any internal combustion engine can be modified to burn it.

Why do you think the Hindenburg Air Ship went up in flames?
It's Hydrogen caught on fire.

Hydrogen is both a energy source and a energy carrier. Can be used either or both ways.

What do you think the Space Shuttle uses for fuel for it main engines?

TIGERESS

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Nashwan,

Hydrogen burns directly.  

Hydrogen has 3 to 4 times more energy, when directly burned, than gasoline per unit of weight.

Any internal combustion engine can be modified to burn it.

Why do you think the Hindenburg Air Ship went up in flames?
It's Hydrogen caught on fire.

Hydrogen is both a fuel source and a fuel carrier. Can be used either way.

What do you think the Space Shuttle uses for fuel for it main engines?

TIGERESS

I've read that it was the skin of the Hindenberg that burned so fiercely and not the hydrogen, though surely the hydrogen must have burned.



Well, the skin has been blamed for starting the fire anyhow and it is believed that the dirigible would have burned even if filled with helium.

[Nashwan]

Hydrogen burns. Where are you going to get hydrogen?

[Tigeress]

You can get Hydrogen from H2O, also there are microbes which produce Hydrogen.

It’s referred to as a biomass Hydrogen source.

AKIron: It is thought the skin of the Hindenburg was the match that started the Hindenburg's Hydrogen fueled fire.

Something ignited the paint on the skin, probably static discharge from a build up of free electrons on the surface of the Hindenburg which caused an electrical arc when the mooring lines provided an electrical  conduction path to ground.

Hydrogen burns extremely well. Why do you think it is you are cautioned not to charge a lead acid battery near flames?

The electrolysis process of charging said battery produces Hydrogen gas.
 
What the heck do you think the Space Shuttle burns in it main engines?
Answer: Hydrogen

Remember the explosion shortly after takeoff of the Challenger Space Shuttle?

Its huge orange external fuel tank which was full of Hydrogen and Oxygen, exploded due to a burn through from a booster which suffered an o-ring failure.

Of interest, the Sun is a huge ball of Hydrogen.

Its Hydrogen does not burn directly because there is no Oxygen present but, by process of Fusion which was started and is maintained by the energy of extremely strong gravity, its Hydrogen is converted to Helium and the energy given off as a result is the energy the Sun produces.

Hydrogen is a miracle and is the single most abundant element in the universe.

TIGERESS

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Tigeress
AKIron: It is thought the skin of the Hindenburg was the match that started the Hindenburg fire.

TIGERESS

You're right, see my edit.

[Nashwan]

To get hydrogen from water, you have to put in enough energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds. When you burn oxygen and hydrogen, you get the same amount of energy released, if both reactions are 100% efficient.

They may, one day, approach 100% efficiency. They cannot, ever, exceed 100% efficiency.

You will never, ever, get more energy out of hydrogen you have produced from water than you used to produce it.

also there are microbes which produce Hydrogen.

Which may prove a useful source of energy one day. I'm not arguing that hydrogen can't be used, just pointing out that producing hydrogen from water requires more energy than it produces, and therefore cannot be an energy source.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Nashwan
To get hydrogen from water, you have to put in enough energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds. When you burn oxygen and hydrogen, you get the same amount of energy released, if both reactions are 100% efficient.

They may, one day, approach 100% efficiency. They cannot, ever, exceed 100% efficiency.

You will never, ever, get more energy out of hydrogen you have produced from water than you used to produce it.



Which may prove a useful source of energy one day. I'm not arguing that hydrogen can't be used, just pointing out that producing hydrogen from water requires more energy than it produces, and therefore cannot be an energy source.

It could prove to be a useful energy storage mechanism though. Wind/wave/solar/thirdworldworker farms could be used to cheaply mass produce hydrogen. Storage and distribution facilities then become the problem to solve.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by AKIron
I've read that it was the skin of the Hindenberg that burned so fiercely and not the hydrogen, though surely the hydrogen must have burned.



Well, the skin has been blamed for starting the fire anyhow and it is believed that the dirigible would have burned even if filled with helium.

Agreed the skin burned. But... the Hydrogen was the fireball.

The USA had a corner on the Helium market and witheld Helium from the world forcing Nazi Germany to resort to Hydrogen gas... a very explosive gas.

TIGERESS

Edit: see --> http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1052864.htm

excerpt: "The disaster was blamed on the extreme flammability of the hydrogen lifting gas that filled most of the airship.

This bad reputation of hydrogen still bothers car manufacturers today, as they explore the use of hydrogen as a safe, non-polluting alternative to fossil fuels for powering cars. But it turns out that the extreme flammability of hydrogen is a mythconception."

The author of this article states Hydrogen is safe. Well it is not safe... but can be safe enough to use in automobiles.

Gasoline is not safe... power itself is not safe.

Not even the power of love.

Lazs and I have long debated the power of male dominance over females.
Its not safe for us unless it is contained and self-controlled.

The Hydra is out of control and that brings us back full circle as to the point of this thread.

The Quran gives permission and authority, in the Name of God, to use the power of male dominance to conquer the non-Muslim world and make it submit to the control of Islam.

Every damn time we fill our gasoline tank we are putting money into the pockets of Islam.

Switching to Hydrogen will stop that.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Nashwan
To get hydrogen from water, you have to put in enough energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds. When you burn oxygen and hydrogen, you get the same amount of energy released, if both reactions are 100% efficient.

They may, one day, approach 100% efficiency. They cannot, ever, exceed 100% efficiency.

You will never, ever, get more energy out of hydrogen you have produced from water than you used to produce it.



Which may prove a useful source of energy one day. I'm not arguing that hydrogen can't be used, just pointing out that producing hydrogen from water requires more energy than it produces, and therefore cannot be an energy source.

The point is... it is efficient enough now to work as an energy carrier but not yet cost effective on a macro-scale and Hydrogen, when burned directly, is 300% to 400% more powerful than gasoline per unit of weight.

I think we have reached consensus.

TIGERESS

PS: just having my morning coffee; almost time to start the day and go to work.

[lazs2]

nashwan... you continue to miss the point.   the power companies subsidize it because it is good for them.. they get power when it is most needed instead of pushing it through the grid.

the systems are indeed $30,000... follow the links.. the power company gives out loans and subsidies that make it much cheaper.

and yes.. you will get back every penny when you sell and yes... houses with these systems are the only bright spot in our housing market.. they are selling as fast as they go on the market.

in vacaville...near me.. a whole tract of 100+ homes is built now with the systems standard.. they look much like tile roofs.   They are all selling.

I am not for government subsidies but if the power companies want to then it is a great idea.

I checked with the guy at work.. his system, after rebates etc.  costs him $135 a month for the life of his home loan and his power bill for 2 years has been zero.  

He figures he gets a net gain out of the deal of about $50 a month.. it would be more if the power company bought back power instead of gave credit... some places do this.

electric cars.. lets take worse case scenario... say 75 miles on a recharge.. that will still take care of 90% of our daily driving.   We had pure electric cars at work that the state gave us for test purpose... range on the nissan van was about 125 miles for a day.. it was seamless to drive but not good after about 45 mph..  great around town... would not want it for the freeway tho.

lazs

[Torque]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Nashwan? Are you in the oil business?

Point is... The objective is... to stop using crude oil as much as possible. To stop buying oil from the middle east.

The point of the thread is eliminate the threat the middle east (The Hydra) poses to Humanity.

TIGERESS

well nashwan might not be... but uncle sam is in the oil business... or rather it is more akin to a mafia style protection and extortion racket..

tigeress... what you fail to realize is that the usd is kept afloat by these very dictators who run the opec oil trade.

it all goes back to 1971 when kissinger offered the oil cartel members a deal they couldn't refuse... and since then all oil from opec had to be bought and sold in usd funds making it the de facto world currency. the opec dictators also agreed to invest vast amounts of their embezzled wealth back into the us economy. now if by chance the opec countries became democratic states... they'd surely pull all that embezzled wealth from wall street and invest it at home... and the usd would crash.

so that is why uncle sam keeps these sordid dictatorships in power and attempt to overthrow democracies like in venezuela and iran... it's called recycling the petrodollar and it means a free lunch for the american economy.

what it basically boils down to is that the rest of the world has to horde usd funds to pay for their energy costs and commodities... which means they're subsidizing the american economy. but now there is a tectonic shift in the world banking system as more countries are going to the euro to buy and sell oil. that means all those american cheques are coming home to roost and your standard of living will pay the cost.

the war in the middle-east is a war between the petrodollar and the petroeuro with the muslims and religion caught in the middle.

the neo-cons tripping over lies and broken bodies in hast to annex iraq to western corporations... was all about returning iraqi oil sales from the euro ( which saddam did in 2000 )  back to the usd.

it's just a dirty sunni secret that uncle sam likes to hide from the public.

ron paul one of the last few honest americans left is telling the truth about it...

[GovtFlu]

Originally posted by Torque
well nashwan might not be... but uncle sam is in the oil business... or rather it is more akin to a mafia style protection and extortion racket..

tigeress... what you fail to realize is that the usd is kept afloat by these very dictators who run the opec oil trade.

it all goes back to 1971 when kissinger offered the oil cartel members a deal they couldn't refuse... and since then all oil from opec had to be bought and sold in usd funds making it the de facto world currency. the opec dictators also agreed to invest vast amounts of their embezzled wealth back into the us economy. now if by chance the opec countries became democratic states... they'd surely pull all that embezzled wealth from wall street and invest it at home... and the usd would crash.

so that is why uncle sam keeps these sordid dictatorships in power and attempt to overthrow democracies like in venezuela and iran... it's called recycling the petrodollar and it means a free lunch for the american economy.

what it basically boils down to is that the rest of the world has to horde usd funds to pay for their energy costs and commodities... which means they're subsidizing the american economy. but now there is a tectonic shift in the world banking system as more countries are going to the euro to buy and sell oil. that means all those american cheques are coming home to roost and your standard of living will pay the cost.

the war in the middle-east is a war between the petrodollar and the petroeuro with the muslims and religion caught in the middle.

the neo-cons tripping over lies and broken bodies in hast to annex iraq to western corporations... was all about returning iraqi oil sales from the euro ( which saddam did in 2000 )  back to the usd.

it's just a dirty sunni secret that uncle sam likes to hide from the public.

ron paul one of the last few honest americans left is telling the truth about it...

Saddam had already ditched the US dollar for the Euro and was going to sell all his oil in said Euros. Of course the 1st thing the US did was revert Iraqs oil back to the dollar. I dont recall the exact numbers, but doing so wasted a bunch of Iraqs money.

Iran, via the Iranian oil Bourse which last month changed its oil from petrodollars to petroeuros..  now offers countries a choice:$50 dollars in oil on the NYMEX and IPE, - or for €37 - €40 euros. Also of interest, between 2003-2004 Russia and China increased their central bank holdings of the euro... to buy up some cheap oil perhaps.

Iran doing this alone could be a bad thing for the US economy, but had Saddams Iraq and Iran done so together, it could have just about caused the dollar to collapse... and would expose the DC mafia deal our leaders and their super rich pals have enjoyed for so long.

edit: certainly this is one reason Bush / Cheney have a wicked case of priapism for Iran, once the bourse becomes popular, Iran will be wealthy enough to laugh at US sanctions and could toy with US oil prices like OPEC has been known to do. Besides that, Russia & China will get drunk on cheap petroeuros and pee in any bowl of Cheerios the US takes to the UN.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Torque
well nashwan might not be... but uncle sam is in the oil business... or rather it is more akin to a mafia style protection and extortion racket..

tigeress... what you fail to realize is that the usd is kept afloat by these very dictators who run the opec oil trade.

it all goes back to 1971 when kissinger offered the oil cartel members a deal they couldn't refuse... and since then all oil from opec had to be bought and sold in usd funds making it the de facto world currency. the opec dictators also agreed to invest vast amounts of their embezzled wealth back into the us economy. now if by chance the opec countries became democratic states... they'd surely pull all that embezzled wealth from wall street and invest it at home... and the usd would crash.

so that is why uncle sam keeps these sordid dictatorships in power and attempt to overthrow democracies like in venezuela and iran... it's called recycling the petrodollar and it means a free lunch for the american economy.

what it basically boils down to is that the rest of the world has to horde usd funds to pay for their energy costs and commodities... which means they're subsidizing the american economy. but now there is a tectonic shift in the world banking system as more countries are going to the euro to buy and sell oil. that means all those american cheques are coming home to roost and your standard of living will pay the cost.

the war in the middle-east is a war between the petrodollar and the petroeuro with the muslims and religion caught in the middle.

the neo-cons tripping over lies and broken bodies in hast to annex iraq to western corporations... was all about returning iraqi oil sales from the euro ( which saddam did in 2000 )  back to the usd.

it's just a dirty sunni secret that uncle sam likes to hide from the public.

ron paul one of the last few honest americans left is telling the truth about it...

Yes... "oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive"

The US is guilty as sin, IMV, of manuplation and self-serving at the expense of others.

Also guilty of a serious "holier than thou" Arian-esque attitude.

TIGERESS

[GovtFlu]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Yes... "oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive"

The US is guilty as sin, IMV, of manuplation and self-serving at the expense of others.

Also guilty of a serious "holier than thou" Arian-esque attitude.

TIGERESS

Here is an article that explains the problem Iran poses to the rich folks who own the politicians:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7319

"As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. . . . If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind."

"That could explain the big guns trained on Iran. The intent may not be to thwart the development of nuclear weapons so much as to pluck a budding economic alternative out by its roots before it has a chance to spread. Dominoes that won't fall into the debt trap must be pushed."