Re: SHEC Labs
From: SHEC Labs is the answer (mdandml_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/29/04
- Next message: George Ghio: "Re: Redesigned Renewable Energy Website"
- Previous message: Bill Ward: "Re: Banana Power"
- In reply to: Rob Eldred: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Next in thread: John Larkin: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Reply: John Larkin: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Reply: Rob Eldred: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Aug 2004 00:05:15 -0700
Rob,
Absolutely wrong on all accounts. Firstly the disassociation of water
is done at 850 C which is the lowest on record. Secondly I am
involved in the financing on all ends and trust me when I tell you
money is not going to be a problem. Their thermocatalytic process is
as far from trivial as you are from being right on this one. It is
not at all costly at 100 dollars per square foot and according to the
TWO independent validations, it is the cheapest, most renewable source
of energy invented. Not sure if you also read that the Canadian
government seems to disagree with you and made a small investment a
while back. I know for a fact since I am involved that once they tie
down a strategic partner, Canada is in line at the grant table for
more cash. They just demonstrated their process in Phoenix starting
in May after 8 years of research. I would take another look if I were
you because this is the future. By the way, I have the test results
and that is why I speak with such astounding confidence.
"Rob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<z84Yc.9061$QJ3.217@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> "SHEC Labs is the answer" <mdandml@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f7b8bd6.0408270525.291437bd@posting.google.com...
> > This company is in my very strong opinion, the future. www.shec-labs.com
>
> The company, in my very strong opinion, will be a minor foot note in the
> future and will most likly go bankrupt or otherwise cease to exist. The main
> reason it because their solar scheme requires focused solar energy to
> generate the high temperatures required for disassociation. Focusing solar
> energy is problematic and costly. It requires a far greater capital
> equipment outlay than passive solar. Furthermore it has greater operational
> costs, maintenance cost, and is more suceptible to dirt and dust and won't
> work at all with overcast or cloudy conditions. In general, focused solar
> cannot compete with passive solar. Solar power of any kind is iffy because
> capital equipment costs, land costs and installation costs are high on a
> collected watt basis. Adding to that burden with a complicated mechanism,
> mirrors and a non-trival chemical process will doom this company. If solar
> is going to succeed, it must be simple, reliable, low maintenance, low labor
> and be cost effective. Notice, we haven't even talked about the hydrogen
> collected which is a whole other issue.
- Next message: George Ghio: "Re: Redesigned Renewable Energy Website"
- Previous message: Bill Ward: "Re: Banana Power"
- In reply to: Rob Eldred: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Next in thread: John Larkin: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Reply: John Larkin: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Reply: Rob Eldred: "Re: SHEC Labs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
