Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: Ed Earl Ross <edearl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:25:42 GMT
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
The first cost effective use of solar will probably be to supplement the input of a coal fired plant. I think the plant near Barstow is still operational:
Technically, both hydroelectric and biomass are solar technologies, each providing about 3% of US energy. I'm not certain, but suspect there may be cost effective biomass installations over land fills and in feed lots. Moreover, solar water and home heating are cost effective solar applications.
-- Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him." (Mark Twain) .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: Mike McWilliams
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- References:
- Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: zoe_lithoi
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: Tim.Ward
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: Dan Bloomquist
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- From: Dan Bloomquist
- Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- Prev by Date: Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- Next by Date: Re: Cost of Generating Hydrogen Through Electrolysis
- Previous by thread: Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- Next by thread: Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|