Lets say for argument climate change don't exist.
|
lagrangepoint
|
Posted 9:43 am, 10/25/2016
|
CONRAD (view profile) | Posted 9:30 am, 10/25/2016 | YO lgp, let me be the first to call BS on your post. According to this report, there is absolutely no mention of your fictional glass capillary array storage in actual use nor development. |
You know the difference between an engineer and an ignorant twit like you?
https://core.ac.uk/download...994533.pdfActually knowing things.
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 9:30 am, 10/25/2016
|
YO lgp, let me be the first to call BS on your post. According to this report, there is absolutely no mention of your fictional glass capillary array storage in actual use nor development.
|
|
lagrangepoint
|
Posted 9:08 am, 10/25/2016
|
CONRAD | Posted 8:00 am, 10/25/2016 | Wrong again, lgp. Please show us "PROOF" of this nonsense.
For extra credit, tell us how "easy" it is to convert vehicles to run on hydrogen. Does the name Hindenburg mean anything to you? |
You don't even know how a modern jet engine for an airliner works so frankly I've been ignoring your idiotic posts so far. Please stop pretending like you actually know anything. It's like your engineering knowledge is from the 60ty's
As for converting vehicles to run on hydrogen eh it's doable but it's not easy. It's better to just build new vehicles designed to use it cheaper in the end as well.
And as for the Hindenburg comment it was basically a giant bag of hydrogen gas. For use in vehicles fuel would be stored most likely in a glass capillary array which binds and stabilizes the hydrogen until needed.
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 8:00 am, 10/25/2016
|
Wrong again, lgp. Please show us "PROOF" of this nonsense.
For extra credit, tell us how "easy" it is to convert vehicles to run on hydrogen.
Does the name Hindenburg mean anything to you?
|
|
lagrangepoint
|
Posted 1:17 am, 10/25/2016
|
I almost forgot we do have the infrastructure for transporting hydrogen in mass. It is currently being used for natural gas but the same system can be easily used for hydrogen.
|
|
lagrangepoint
|
Posted 1:16 am, 10/25/2016
|
Proverbs12:10 (view profile) | Posted 10:01 am, 10/24/2016 | We can clean up our energy use, however it will take two or three decades to fully separate ourselves from fossil fuel.
Why?
Solar/wind energy isn't ready for prime time. The batteries and inverters have to be replace every 5-10 years, which is expensive and environmentally unfriendly. Solar panels take a huge amount of energy and resources to produce. There needs to be improvements in the design/manufacturing of solar panels.
We don't have the infrastructure to move to hydrogen fueled or electric powered vehicles and it will take years to rebuild the supply structure.
There is no green energy source large enough to completely supply our nations energy needs.
There is an alternative. Fossil fuels produce CO2. Trees converts CO2 to O2. Lets plant more trees. |
Lets say every man woman and child planted one tree each day. It would still not be enough not that I discourage this.
As for inverters I don't know where you are getting them from. The typical warranty on an inverter is 14 years these days with an operational life expectancy of 25 years.
As for the battery's home systems can't use pump storage typically and the problem is not the operational expectancy but the cost of current technology though we are less than a decade away from solving that heck we could have it solved within a year if the development was properly funded.
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 12:42 am, 10/25/2016
|
springtime123 (view profile) | Posted 9:06 pm, 10/24/2016 | Ok, here goes. A solar is a device that take radiation from the sun and turns it into electric energy. The key word here is radiation. Image a device that takes radioactive waste and turns it into electric energy. Some radioactive waste has a half life of hundreds of thousands of years. A device that converts this type of radiation into electric energy would produce electric energy for hundreds of thousands of years. |
Leaping to nuclear radiation drags the discussion off the subject and is not a valid comparison. It only serves to enhance your ignorance, springy.
Now please tell us whether your personal printer uses sand as ink or toner, which is the original question in this otherwise fantasia of your disombobulation.
|
|
GoNC
|
Posted 9:17 pm, 10/24/2016
|
I removed a few posts that were off topic and/or trolling.
|
|
redfly
|
Posted 9:12 pm, 10/24/2016
|
You dummy, that same Radiation you talk about would make you glow like that Blue Telletubbie in about 10 minutes.
|
|
springtime123
|
Posted 9:09 pm, 10/24/2016
|
That should say solar cell is a device......
|
|
springtime123
|
Posted 9:06 pm, 10/24/2016
|
Ok, here goes. A solar is a device that take radiation from the sun and turns it into electric energy. The key word here is radiation. Image a device that takes radioactive waste and turns it into electric energy. Some radioactive waste has a half life of hundreds of thousands of years. A device that converts this type of radiation into electric energy would produce electric energy for hundreds of thousands of years.
|
|
redfly
|
Posted 8:15 pm, 10/24/2016
|
I wonder if Spriny can ever read, I am beginning to doubt it, so Spriny we are waiting for those Forever battery links, in the mean time, get someone to read this to you.
https://www.washingt...-in-china/
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 8:10 pm, 10/24/2016
|
springtime123 (view profile) | Posted 3:25 pm, 10/24/2016 | Proverbs, You don't know what you are talking about. The actually cost of producing a 220 watt solar panel is about $5.00 or less. You can actually print them on a printed at home. |
springtime123 (view profile) | Posted 6:28 pm, 10/24/2016 | CONRAD, it don't make since to anyone who don't know the industry. Solar cells are made mostly from sand. True it takes billions to set up the equipment but once the equipment is set up it takes only pennies to make a solar cell. Every time a new solar cell is made it cost less to make it. |
springy, you told us solar cells could be printed at home, then you told us it took billions of dollars to set up the equipment and only pennies to produce solar cells mostly from sand. Since most folks do not have these billion dollar printers and a supply of sand, could you clarify your lies for us? Please be specific.
|
|
redfly
|
Posted 7:48 pm, 10/24/2016
|
springtime123 (view profile) Posted 6:14 pm, 10/24/2016 CHINA IS BUILDING BATTERIES THAT NEVER RUN DOWN AND NEVER HAS TO BE RECHARGED. How many times do I have to say this? Cars using these batteries could be on the road in 5 years if we tried.
LINK and PROOF !!!
|
|
Ole Sarge
|
Posted 6:40 pm, 10/24/2016
|
springtime123 | Posted 6:14 pm, 10/24/2016 | CHINA IS BUILDING BATTERIES THAT NEVER RUN DOWN AND NEVER HAS TO BE RECHARGED. How many times do I have to say this? Cars using these batteries could be on the road in 5 years if we tried. |
They are already in Samsung phones. I though we heard this on the road in 5 years several billion dollars and 7 years ago.
|
|
springtime123
|
Posted 6:39 pm, 10/24/2016
|
CONRAD, Look up solar cells and read about them. It is not my job to educate you about them. Just look them up and read if you want to know what I am talking about.
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 6:35 pm, 10/24/2016
|
springy, does your home brew billion dollar printer use sand for ink or toner?
|
|
Crypt
|
Posted 6:32 pm, 10/24/2016
|
We'll have to go nuclear sooner or later. People I tried to get ya'll to quit driving those monstrosities around.
|
|
springtime123
|
Posted 6:28 pm, 10/24/2016
|
CONRAD, it don't make since to anyone who don't know the industry. Solar cells are made mostly from sand. True it takes billions to set up the equipment but once the equipment is set up it takes only pennies to make a solar cell. Every time a new solar cell is made it cost less to make it.
|
|
|
