Re: High Energy Density Storage, Zinc-Air

From: Eric van Bezooijen (eric_at_webmethods.com)
Date: 06/03/04 

Date: 3 Jun 2004 09:56:45 -0700

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<40BE5DC4.895E4045@tinaja.com>...
> Eric van Bezooijen wrote:
> >
> > Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<40B231D3.AD74F1B0@tinaja.com>...
> > > charliew2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don Lancaster wrote:
> > > > > "Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:40B12430.3E88F3BF@tinaja.com...
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>> Solar panels on vehicles make no sense whatsoever.
> > > > >>> The energy is far too diffuse, and a stationary panel would be
> > > > >>> ridiculously more efficient.
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > > Not one net watthour of solar pv electricity has EVER been generated.
> > >
> > > When and if breakeven occurs (theoretically possible in a decade or two,
> > > but certainly NOT with conventional silicon pv), it will happen ONLY on
> > > those systems that are carefully optimized for CONTINUOUS operation
> > > under IDEAL conditions.
> >
> > Although I agree that PV powered cars are not going to work, the
> > statement "Not one net watthour of solar pv electricity has EVER been
> > generated" probably hasn't been true for quite a while.
> >
> > Source: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
> >
> > "Based on models and real data, the idea that PV cannot pay back
> > its energy investment is simply a myth. Indeed, researchers Dones
> > and Frischknecht found that PV-systems fabrication and fossil-fuel
> > energy production have similar energy payback periods
> > (including costs for mining, transportation, refining, and
> > construction)."

[ snip ]

> Total horse***.
>
> If pv had the remotest chance of being a net energy source at the
> present time, you would see panels on every power pole and you would be
> leasing your panels from the power company.
>
> 1 KW 110 ac plug and go panels would also clog aisle 13 at Wal Mart.
>
> It does not and you do not.

Nuclear energy is a energy positive but we aren't building any more
nuclear power plants because people don't want them.

I cannot buy a nuclear power reactor at Wal Mart either, does that
mean nuclear energy is a net energy sink?

Solar panel sales are growing at double digit % growth rates for
years. Does that mean people don't want them?

Burning wood is an energy positive but we prefer heating our homes
with natural gas.

Just because a power source is a net energy positive doesn't mean it's
going to be the cheapest or most desirable or most used source of
energy.

Plus solar panels produce 0 power at night.

>
> Proof it does not is that the present cost today of just the synchronous
> inverter exceeds any possible fully amortized energy payback. That is
> with free panels, free pv, and free interest.
>
> pv energy parity can be expected after the fully burdened, totally
> amortized grid locked costs drop under eight cents per kilowatt hour.

Your peer-reviewed, published source. I gave you mine.

>
> The more distant actual energy breakeven would possibly be as soon as
> eight years after that, but certainly not using conventional silicon pv
> technology.

Your peer-reviewed, published source. I gave you mine.

>
> For pv to actually become a renewable net energy source, total costs in
> the seventeen cents per peak watt range would have to be achieved. At
> the highly touted fifty cents per watt, it is simply a transfer
> mechanism that is gasoline in disguise.

Your peer-reviewed, published source. I gave you mine.

-Eric

Loading