Re: Wind-energy customers pay less than those buying fossil-fuel power


"Paul Vader" <pv+usenet@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:11lspisatflvreb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "JMA" <jmDOTa@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Um, no. A) your array will only produce about 2KW even if full sunlight,
>>
>>You are wrong about your figure of 2KW for a 100m^2 area.
>>100m^2 of PV will produce 10KW easy.
>
> I am using actual figures based on actual solar panels you can buy.
> Sanyo's
> HIT demonstration plant, the solar Ark, to be specific. It's made with
> about the best cells you can commercially buy:
>
> http://www.sanyo.co.jp/clean/solar/hit_e/index_e.html
>
> So, the key dimensions are 630kw, in an 11,686.5 square meter array.

Where did you get those 11,686.5 square meter?
Only 54 W/m^2 maximum output? From SANYO?

Look at the figures:
Total length: 315 m
Depth: 13.7 m
The area is about 4,315.5 square meter, which means a
maximum output of 146 W/m^2.
You are puzzled with the drawing? Its just a drawing!
If you don't believe it is just a drawing I will make some
trigonometry for you.

Look at the annual power output: 530,000 kwh.
How many hours of Sun ? Make it 200 Sunny days during
8 hours a day. It makes 1,600 hours a Year.
The average output must be: 530,000 / 1,600 = 331 kw

According to your figures only 28.4 W/m^2 average at
full Sun.
According to my figures it is 74.3 W/m^2 average at
an average full Sun.


> So
> yes, it does look like I made a mistake - a 100sq/m array will generate
> 5kw, not 2kw. Still half of what you're claiming. You can't simply take
> the
> insolation number and multiply by an efficiency factor - not all the
> surface
> area is collecting sunlight. A 5kw solar array will cost between $45,000
> (do it yourself) and $55,000 (professionally installed). Remember that
> number, we'll be using it eventually.

I accept a figure of about 50-60% of the maximum output as a
day average output if the solar panel cannot be motor orientated
towards the Sun.


>>Hence make it 3-4 hours, not 6 hours, to produce 1kg hydrogen.
>
> Let's split the difference and say 5 hours, just for the sake of
> continuing
> this ficticious number game.

Fair enough.
I've said 1 kg hydrogen per day on Year average, here that I have
250 Sunny days during 8-12 hours.


>>At yours 20% efficiency Solar-Electricity it will be 2kg hydrogen per day.
>
> Only if I accept your bogus ideas about how PV systems are built, which I
> don't.
>
>>You are also wrong about the value of 1kg hydrogen.
>>Your $2.46 figure for 1kg hydrogen could be 10 times out.
>
> I came up with that number based on energy content.

Sorry, but there is no known value for energy.
It depends on the type of energy.

> 1kg of liquid Hydrogen
> has the same stored energy as a gallon of gas.

Here you are also mixing units, and below you've said:
««STOP DOING THAT! Mixing units is bad, m'kay?»»

You mean GAS? Gasoline I presume. OK. Gasoline.


> I looked out the window to
> get the current conversion value. Of course, we're totally neglecting the
> costs related to actually STORING our fuels (a simple plastic bottle
> vs. a cryogenically insulated and very heavy metal containment system).

Yes. Storing hydrogen is a big problem.
A figure of 350 bar or 700 bar is very dangerous.
Not because of the hydrogen. It could be helium instead.
Helium at 350 bar is dangerous as well.


>>Let's do some math:
>>1 liter gasoline has 9,000 KWH energy
>>1 kg hydrogen has 39,000 KWH energy
>
> Leaving aside that you're off by 3 orders of magnitude on both of these,
> and it's actually 9.7 kwh/liter for gasoline and 39 kwh/kg for hydrogen,

Yes, I've notice my mistake already. Thank you.


> you have committed one of the classic errors (not the one involving a land
> war in Asia). You are comparing a measure of volume to a measure of mass.
> This is a VERY bad move.
>
> Fuel By Volume By Mass
> Hydrogen 2.6kwh/l 39kwh/kg
> Gasoline 9.7kwh/l 12.2kwh/kg

You also have a mistake above. The figure for hydrogen by volume at
STP must be 2.6 wh/l, not 2.6 kwh/l (a commume mistake I believe).


> Again, leaving aside the ridiculously lopsided costs of containment
> between
> the two fuels, this means that if you switched your car to drive on
> hydrogen, carrying onboard enough for equivalent range, your car (assuming
> a 15 gallon gas tank) would weigh 30 kilograms less. On the other hand,
> your tank would be 3.7 times bigger. In a transport application, the
> weight
> savings is insignificant. The volume lost (and again, this is ignoring the
> very heavy and complex tanks you would need to safely store all this LH)
> would be very significant - you just lost all your cargo space, or room
> for
> a whole person in the passenger compartment.

The storage of hydrogen and the re-fuel is a problem.
Cannot play with hydrogen like people used to play with gasoline.
People simply cannot play with hydrogen and so it must be
respected very carefully. So it could become safe.

OK. The hydrogen storage will be bigger and much heavy.
But the engine will be much smaller.
No gearbox needed, no differential needed.
Electrical motors directly on the wheels.
It is not the same car at all.
Bad for storage tank, good in many other aspects.



>>1 kg hydrogen = 4.333 litres of gasoline
>
> STOP DOING THAT! Mixing units is bad, m'kay?

What is a gallon?

The point is - energy content.
1 kg hydrogen has the same energy content of 4.333 litres
of gasoline, according to Don Lancaster tables.

I will have that kilogram of hydrogen stored in a 4.333 liters
container at 700 bar pressure.


>>One liter gasoline here costs 1.4 Euros (about 1.7 Dollars)
>>So the value of 1 Kg of hydrogen must be 6 Euros (7.2 Dollars).
>
> It depends on what form the hydrogen is in. Uncompressed, it's worth about
> a dollar a kilogram. Liquified (which takes lots more energy) you might
> note be that far off - I would guess about $4.50/kg based on what I could
> find on the web.

Not liquified.
Hydrogen cannot be liquified because it is to much expensive.
Liquid hydrogen costs money every hour it is stored and
hydrogen that boils off must be released. It will be lost if not used.


>>cell car and an IC car. Fuel cell plus electric motors direct on wheels is
>>about 2-4 times more efficient then the gasoline IC engine, that is only
>>20-40% efficient engine (depends on load) plus the 75% efficient
>>gearbox and the 80% efficient transmission, gives 12-24% final.
>>Compared with a 60% efficient for fuel cell and a 90%
>>efficiency electrical motor including inverters (54% final).
>
> As Don would say, not even wrong. PEM fuel cells, not to put too fine a
> point on it, SUCK for efficiency. Demonstrator vehicles are getting less
> than 20% conversion efficiency, and that's before the membrane gives out
> and has to be replatinized after just a couple thousand miles.

Like the old cars about 100 Years ago.
Nope. Unless people lies the actual fuel cells efficiency is of
about 50% and has an economical potential up to 70% (as
electrolysis clearly shows).

You must understand that a fuel cell is an electrochemical device
and all electrochemical devices are by far much more efficient then
simple heat devices. A gasoline motor is an heat device.
Electricity is much more efficient then heat/pressure transfer.
Chemical reactions are much more efficient then heat/pressure.


> Read
> carefully the stories about hydrogen vehicles making long PR trips - very
> often they'll mention, seemingly in passing, that the fuel cell was
> 'upgraded' during the trip. Read that as 'replaced, at exhorbitant cost'.

Where to read?

Yes. Fuel Cells costs are exhorbitant and they don't last forever.
Fuel Cells must be replaced, like batteries must be replaced.

A gasoline motor costs about $5,000 (only the motor).


>>So, 1 kg of hydrogen in the tank has a value of about 20 Euros for car
>>transportation (or $24.0).
>
> Complete and utter bovine post-digestive residue. This is not how you
> establish value for a product. I'm not even going to try to make sense of
> that.

Why not?
Actually the energy content of 1 kg of hydrogen to produce electricity
to drive a car costs me the gasoline equivalent of 20 Euros.

Actually I will save money because won't be driving a 165 kw
gasoline beast and I should be driving a modest 50-65 kw economic
no-pollution car.

Fuel Cell car don't show up because people don't like to drive
a 30-40 kw car (for economic people), nor money people will
want to be driving a 60-70 kw maximum output expensive car.

People love horse power. Fast cars and lovely girls.
Make it 200 kw and you have a real car.

Unfortunately there won't be any fuel cell formula 1 racing cars.
Today fuel cell still look heavy and have to much volume per
unit of power, like the old gasoline motors did.
It is not a matter of efficiency. It is a matter of maximum
power. Again because electrochemistry is not the same has
mechanical power. Mechanical power is given by torque
times angular velocity. The torque is limited by the gasoline
explosion power over the unit of area. But rotation as no limit.
So powerful engines are always high rotation and very
well feed by gasoline and air.

Fuel cells work based on voltage and amperes and both are
limited by size and weight. Time will solve the problem.
Nevertheless I don't expect to see powerful cars like gasoline
cars are today.
200 kw at a safe 100 Volts means 2,000 Amperes RMS
(without losses by means of reactive power).
Make it 2,350 Amperes instead.

But heat losses by means of Joule effect are proportional
to amperes squared. So forget the safe 100 Volts and make
it unsafe 500 Volts and 470 Amperes.

So, electric will never drive a 600 kw formula 1 racing car.

The reality is that people drive a very powerful car stopped
in the morning and afternoon traffic.

Fuel cell cars can have very powerful acceleration.
Electrical torque (electric motor) is proportional to current.
Fuel cell cars will be high current (in order of 200 Amperes
which is not available easy). But, torque is proportional to
amperes squared. So Fuel Cell cars will beat gasoline cars
in the first 100 meters easy (without shifting gears).
Fuel Cell cars usually won't pass the 120 km/h and they will
never reach dangerous speeds like 200 km/h.
Nevertheless they will be more speedy on acceleration.


>>If 1 kg hydrogen is made in 6 hours by 100 m^2 solar panels, that
>>gives 3.33 Euros an hour ($4.00/hour).
>
> You're forgetting how much it costs to liquify it, and that your array is
> only making hydrogen 6 hours (likely less) per day on average. But let's
> just say that you could make $20 per day worth of hydrogen using your
> numbers. Remember the solar system costs? $45,000? In the magical world
> where your PV system has no downtime and no maintenance costs, it will
> take
> you 6 years (using your inflated figures) to pay back the investment. In
> the
> real world, that's probably wrong by an order of magnitude - you won't
> pay back the investment during your lifetime.

Why not?
First you have to cut the cost for inverters, since I don't need
to have AC current of 110V or 230 Volts.
If the aim is hydrogen I will use the solar cells in parallel
instead of serial. It means directly from the solar panel to the
electrolyser.
Insurance is a problem. So I will pay for a solid system and
make some arrangements in order to take the risk. No hurricanes
here, nor floods.

Within 10 Years one could be making good money.


>>The conclusion is that:
>>- produce hydrogen from the grid electricity to drive a fuel cell car is
>>very economic.
>
> Myth Busted!
>
>>Taxes on gasoline are about 70% around here (233% taxes).
>>So the gasoline that costs 1.4 Euros for the consumer, untaxed costs
>>only 0.42 Euros ($0.5).
>
> And you think that hydrogen, should we start living in bizarro world and
> it
> becomes a transportation fuel, will never be taxed? Ha!

Taxes will always be a problem.
The great difference is that everybody can make hydrogen at home,
but no body can make gasoline at home.
They cannot tax hydrogen. Get it?


> Your numbers are laughable - please play again. *

Taxes are the key.
Here there is a rush for windpower. Why?
Everybody want to burn the money? I don't think so.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GMs Electric Lemon
    ... I would go with some figures for cost of energy and efficiency of ... Gasoline appears to me to cost lately $2.65 per gallon. ... Car engines have to do a lot ... USA national-average residential electricity cost is nowadays probably ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Charging Uphill -- the Art of Selling the Electric Car
    ... Push down hard on the accelerator and the car takes off, pressing you firmly back into the seat. ... The Volt can hit 60 miles per hour in about 8.5 seconds. ... Unlike hybrids and so-called plug-in hybrids, which power the wheels with a combination of power drawn from a gasoline engine and batteries, this car's wheels were turned only by electricity. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Charging Uphill -- the Art of Selling the Electric Car
    ... down hard on the accelerator and the car takes off, ... The Volt can hit 60 miles per hour in about 8.5 seconds. ... power drawn from a gasoline engine and batteries, ... cents a mile during periods of peak electricity demand and 1 cent a mile ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Seeking Fiscal Health Without Gas Tax
    ... That comes down to how much is paid for electricity relative to ... gasoline, and what value is placed on flexibility. ... car would be cheapest. ... cents in West Virginia and Idaho, ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: The Newly Redesigned 2008 Honda FCX Fuel Cell Car
    ... A coal-burning car. ... Then we turn the electricity into hydrogen and oxygen. ... Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are considered as zero emission vehicles. ... Honda motors has developed a concept fuel cell car called the "Honda ...
    (rec.backcountry)