Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?
From: Don W. (dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com)
Date: 11/07/04
- Next message: Mike Ackerman: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Previous message: Kurt: "Call for Oil Producer Transparency"
- In reply to: Ray Drouillard: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Next in thread: Ray Drouillard: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Reply: Ray Drouillard: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:00:49 -0800
"Ray Drouillard" <cosmicpam2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2v5c7vF2g5lbdU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Don W." <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kZWdnWvEkf_0whDcRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> > "Ray Drouillard" <cosmicpam2@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:2v4kf4F2had9lU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d81e59c9.0411060623.55ad512b@posting.google.com...
> > > > Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<417936AA.2010001@lakeweb.com>...
> > > > The only justifications for turning electricty into
> > > > hydrogen with electrolysis are if the marginal cost
> > > > and value of electricity are negligible. Currently,
> > > > this only happens if you have renewable electricity
> > > > which can't be turned off or sold elsewhere. For
> > > > example, if you have an island powered by wind
> > > > turbines.
> > >
> >
> > There is no justification for turning electricity into
> > hydrogen with electrolysis, so no one does that. If
> > there ever was such a thing as 'negligibly valuable'
> > or 'marginal cost' electricity in great quantity, then
> > pumped storage or some form of energy-intensive
> > industry would be a reasonable use of the 'excess'
> > electricity.
> >
> > > Or photovoltaics or some forms of hydroelectric
> > > (as I mentioned).
> >
> > PV electricity is anything but cheap!
>
> Once you own the panels, the marginal cost is essentially
> zero. That's what Alex was saying.
I see. Sort of like after you pay for a newspaper or a car or groceries or
a house, then the cost is essentially zero? I respectfully disagree.
Forever after the purchase of a solar system (more than just panels), there
is a 'lost opportunity' cost because the money spent on the system is no
longer available to spend on other things (like electricity!) Some people
seem to think that the cost should not be amortized if they pay cash
instead of borrowing money for the purchase. This makes for a senseless
model because the money they paid for the system could be earning interest
if not spent.
>
> (Does anyone need a lecture about the definition of "marginal cost"?)
>
Perhaps I do. In classical economics "marginal cost" is the difference in
total cost per widgit between production of a few widgits and production of
a lot of widgits. How does this apply here (or are you using some other
definition of "marginal cost"?)
>
> >
> > Transportation is one of the reasons hydrogen is not practical.
> > Hydrogen is too fluffy to easily and cheaply transport in huge
> > quantities. Electricity is much easier to transport over great
> > distances and it is routinely transported over great distances
> > in huge quantities.
>
> I partially agree. H2 is difficult to store and transport. I have to
> wonder what the volume storage density of the entire system (H2
> tank and fuel cell) is compared to a standard battery. For small
> quantities of work stored, a battery is going to be more cost
> effective. At some point, H2/fuel cell solution is going to be
> better. If that wasn't the case, the shuttle would be lifting big
> batteries instead of fuel cells.
>
Sounds like a bigger leap in logic than I'm willing to make. If I
understand you correctly, you're saying that if one is storing a big enough
quantity of energy, then hydrogen is a better way to store then energy than
batteries and evidence of this 'fact' is the fuel cells on the shuttle?
Please help me understand that logic or help me understand my
misunderstanding.
> >
> > The major advantage of EVs is that we pay less taxes on
> > electricity than on gasoline or diesel.
>
> For now. Maybe not for long. They are talking about putting GPS
> receivers in our cars and charging us by the mile. At that point, it
> won't make a difference what you use to fuel your car. At that point,
> fuel efficient cars will lose some of their economic advantage because
> you'll be paying your road taxes by the mile rather than by the gallon.
>
This is the first I've heard of such talk, but please be assured if there
ever is any such tax, it will be in addition to whatever tax is paid on
fuel. Fuel taxes are the most successful taxes (from the perspective of
governments) in all of history and it is more likely fuel taxes will
increase than decrease.
> > In this low-tax environment, electric vehicles can
> > actually make sense (especially if the cost of the vehicle is
> > partially underwritten by government subsidies to which I'm
> > philosophically opposed.)
>
> If the government pays for the car, you and I are still paying for the
> car. It might give an individual an incentive to get an electric car,
> but it is not a solution that will cause an economic gain for the
> system.
>
> The government is good at this kind of sleight-of-hand.
>
>
> Ray Drouillard
>
So true, so true.
Don W.
- Next message: Mike Ackerman: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Previous message: Kurt: "Call for Oil Producer Transparency"
- In reply to: Ray Drouillard: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Next in thread: Ray Drouillard: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Reply: Ray Drouillard: "Re: Solar-hydrogen home power system?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
