I have also seen proposed pumping air into a huge cavern to store energy. And don't forget flywheels.

Bob

If you live where there is lots of sunshine, the most inexpensive and low maintenance way to use solar power is by using an array of black plastic water pipes to heat your water. The cost will be recovered in a very short time. Then you will have free hot water for life.

 

I wouldn’t worry about that one passing.

Hi,

Why do you say that?

I realize however that it came from a freshman (the bill that is).

 

And for those who consider hydrogen extremely explosive - that's only if there's oxygen in the tank as well. Hydrogen on its own is not combustable. It needs oxygen and heat to complete the fire triangle.

Oxygen and Heat unfortunately are abundant, almost everywhere on earth. Keeping oxygen out of the tank isnt the problem, its keeping the hydrogen in the tank. Cause if any of it gets out, hey old friend oxygen, lets hang out by this light switch..... Boom, water.

 

Hi,

Why do you say that?

I realize however that it came from a freshman (the bill that is).

Because replacing 90% of our energy needs would be hugely expensive and impractical. The economy would tank. Only a small minority of people support such an idea and the majority won't stand for it. Just another socialist cramdown pipe dream.

 

its keeping the hydrogen in the tank.

My point is that a tank of hydrogen is not a bomb. It doesn't explode if there's a spark. It's no more explosive than a tank of propane. A leak, combining with oxygen and a spark produces a jet of flame. The tank doesn't blow up unless it fails and releases its content in a dramatic way. The space shuttle Challenger had a catastrophic explosion because of hot gasses blowing against the strut holding the booster to the external tank. Hydrogen leaked profusely but the explosion came when the strut failed and the booster tipped into the liquid oxygen causing it to burst. The rupture allowed catastrophic mixing of hydrogen and oxygen, and boom. NASA has proven that the explosion occurred as the shuttle was going to full throttle-up. Dynamic stresses also played a hand in the destruction of the spacecraft. Had the oxygen tank not been ruptured there would have likely been a huge fireball and the shuttle would likely have run out of fuel before reaching a safe abort altitude.

Tanks of hydrogen do not blow up. Not unless they fail, OR if the leaking gasses accumulate in an inclosed area. In another discussion about car batteries exploding I made a comment about seeing how energetic a perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen can be. But it takes a perfect blend of oxygen/hydrogen to get that big explosion. So it's my stance that a tank of hydrogen can act as an energy storage device relatively safely. And since hydrogen is lighter than air (oxygen/nitrogen) an outside storage tank that is leaking is unlikely to pose a serious problem as the gas will likely float away as opposed to propane or any other fuel that is heavier than air. I think, and am not certain of this, but I think methane is heavier than air. Gasoline vapors are heavier than air. They can settle into a pool of flammable gas and be ignited with pretty bad consequences. Saw a video where some guys built a huge pile of wood and poured gasoline on it. By the time they struck the match the gas vapors had spread out 10 to 20 meters. The resulting flash took them by surprise. Fortunately the flash was quick and not prolonged.

 

If language offends you then mute the audio.

Slow motion

 

If you live where there is lots of sunshine, the most inexpensive and low maintenance way to use solar power is by using an array of black plastic water pipes to heat your water

I heat the Pool that way, but heat the water for the house with solar electric and The grid.
I would have a large excess of Solar power if i did not. Its a good way to use the excess.
I heat the Hot tub totally with solar electric.
Most of the solar hot water systems cost way to much anyway, but fairly easy to build your self.

 

I wouldn’t worry about that one passing.

The problem that we will be suffering for the next few years is that our lawmakers will be making decisions based on emotions instead of reality. The other problem is that without an understanding of the results of changes we will undoubtedly wind up with some very expensive problems that were intended to be solutions.
Probably the very first law should be one that bans any use of electrical power for air conditioning in both Washington, DC and also in California. And also forbid having AC in cars in those states as well. That should save a whole lot of electricity and add 3MPG to every car's fuel economy in those states. It might, just possibly, also convince some folks that the results of decisions have consequences that are not always what they want.

 

Heating a pool with solar power can be very cheap and easy. Years ago I heated our above ground pool by sinking one of those cheap thin black plastic 79 cent drop-cloths to the bottom and weighting it down so it would stay in place. after two sunny days the water was about 82 degrees. Probably the cheapest pool heater ever, but not much temperature control. I don't know how it would work with a hot tub since they are a lot smaller and run a lot hotter than that.

And on that video, gasoline is not an effective way to start a campfire. Unless you first dissolve a whole lot of styrofoam in the gas first. A pound of foam per gallon of gas gives a mix that works fairly well, but to really make it good, first add half a cup of Napthalene moth crystals, or mothballs. But be careful because the smoke is fairly toxic.

 

My point is that a tank of hydrogen is not a bomb. It doesn't explode if there's a spark. It's no more explosive than a tank of propane. A leak, combining with oxygen and a spark produces a jet of flame. The tank doesn't blow up unless it fails and releases its content in a dramatic way. The space shuttle Challenger had a catastrophic explosion because of hot gasses blowing against the strut holding the booster to the external tank. Hydrogen leaked profusely but the explosion came when the strut failed and the booster tipped into the liquid oxygen causing it to burst. The rupture allowed catastrophic mixing of hydrogen and oxygen, and boom. NASA has proven that the explosion occurred as the shuttle was going to full throttle-up. Dynamic stresses also played a hand in the destruction of the spacecraft. Had the oxygen tank not been ruptured there would have likely been a huge fireball and the shuttle would likely have run out of fuel before reaching a safe abort altitude.

Tanks of hydrogen do not blow up. Not unless they fail, OR if the leaking gasses accumulate in an inclosed area. In another discussion about car batteries exploding I made a comment about seeing how energetic a perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen can be. But it takes a perfect blend of oxygen/hydrogen to get that big explosion. So it's my stance that a tank of hydrogen can act as an energy storage device relatively safely. And since hydrogen is lighter than air (oxygen/nitrogen) an outside storage tank that is leaking is unlikely to pose a serious problem as the gas will likely float away as opposed to propane or any other fuel that is heavier than air. I think, and am not certain of this, but I think methane is heavier than air. Gasoline vapors are heavier than air. They can settle into a pool of flammable gas and be ignited with pretty bad consequences. Saw a video where some guys built a huge pile of wood and poured gasoline on it. By the time they struck the match the gas vapors had spread out 10 to 20 meters. The resulting flash took them by surprise. Fortunately the flash was quick and not prolonged.

Most flammable storage tanks do not explode unless they fail. Explaining how the challenger hydrogen tank went off, doesn't make it safer.
By nature it will never be perfectly safe. safe enough for the risk reward to be positive, likely. I would say it would be safer than nuclear, but the generation potential is so much lower. Weighing the risk reward? i'm not doing that math.

Basically what I'm saying is, your not wrong, but.

There is no magic pill that will fix our energy addiction. We will become like the aliens in Independence Day, roving the universe consuming everything. Or we build a Dyson sphere around the sun and colonize Venus.

 

The problem that we will be suffering for the next few years is that our lawmakers will be making decisions based on emotions instead of reality. The other problem is that without an understanding of the results of changes we will undoubtedly wind up with some very expensive problems that were intended to be solutions.
Probably the very first law should be one that bans any use of electrical power for air conditioning in both Washington, DC and also in California. And also forbid having AC in cars in those states as well. That should save a whole lot of electricity and add 3MPG to every car's fuel economy in those states. It might, just possibly, also convince some folks that the results of decisions have consequences that are not always what they want.

Hi,

Yes emotions run wild on capital hill, and they fuel the voters for all the wrong reasons.

But sticking to the technical side, have you ever looked into the heating effects of solar panels vs the special white shingles that are made for maximum reflectivity? I have wondered how much atmospheric heating they cause vs the specially designed white shingles.

 

It is not reasonable to call the use of energy an addiction. That is propaganda designed to elicit a negative emotion. The use of energy to make life more comfortable and more productive is not a bad thing. Certainly it is far different from the way some other societies live, where the only energy they can ever control is their cooking fires, and they spend the vast majority of their waking time working toward their next meal. THAT is the alternative to using energy to support our way of life. Those who would choose that lifestyle are certainly welcome to choose it, but NOT to try to force it on me. I have been given the gifts of insights and abilities to make the world a happier place for folks to live in, and the primitive lifestyle I described is not part of it.
In addition, I ask the rather nasty question as to why those seriously primative societies have not advanced in the past few hundreds of years. And the second nasty question about why that lifestyle would be better, in your opinion. What is the mechanism of any claimed better aspect?

 

have you ever looked into the heating effects of solar panels vs the special white shingles

Sorry to be dense

A'm I missing something to refer to wayneh . R U saying SolarPanels cause Global Warming?
Or some such thing?

 

A'm I missing something to refer to wayneh . R U saying SolarPanels cause Global Warming?
Or some such thing?

Hello,

White roofs are known to reflect more sunlight than dark colored roofs so in some places they have programs where they pay you some money back to use those special shingles.
So it is reasonable to ask about how much a solar panel reflects relative to the white shingles to see if they heat the local atmosphere. There is some written online about this as i remember reading back when the roof here was being done over.

 

A'm I missing something to refer to wayneh . R U saying SolarPanels cause Global Warming?
Or some such thing?

Not me. Solar panels probably do absorb more heat than plants or sand, but it’s a small concern at this point. We could get an awful lot of energy without covering much of the landscape.

 

Of course the solar panels absorb energy, that is a part of the mechanism of delivering electrical power. In fact, at one time the reflectivity of solar panels was a problem. But if a material reflects the energy, consider that now it is once again in the atmosphere where it can heat the air, instead of heating the ground, or things near the ground. That reflected energy must once again pass into the atmosphere where much of it is absorbed on the way through. It does not just magicaly vanish into space. The benefit of the reflective roof materials is in keeping the buildings cooler. And in many parts of the world free heat is a benefit for much more of the time than reduced heating. Here in Michigan, USA, the air cooling system is only needed for a very few weeks during the summer, while heating is often needed from October through April. It may be different in southern New Mexico.

 

Of course the solar panels absorb energy, that is a part of the mechanism of delivering electrical power. In fact, at one time the reflectivity of solar panels was a problem. But if a material reflects the energy, consider that now it is once again in the atmosphere where it can heat the air, instead of heating the ground, or things near the ground. That reflected energy must once again pass into the atmosphere where much of it is absorbed on the way through. It does not just magicaly vanish into space. The benefit of the reflective roof materials is in keeping the buildings cooler. And in many parts of the world free heat is a benefit for much more of the time than reduced heating. Here in Michigan, USA, the air cooling system is only needed for a very few weeks during the summer, while heating is often needed from October through April. It may be different in southern New Mexico.

Hi,

I think that is very good reasoning and i think more should be studied on that. However, from what i have read in the past the same issue was talked about in reference to the ice caps. The idea was that as the ice caps melt more solid (darker) ground is exposed and thus the ice cap melting rate increases because less is reflected back into space. Consider how much the sun actually heats the atmosphere rather than the ground...if it heated too much the sunlight would never make it to the ground. Because of this i think reflected light is better than absorbed light.

Of course, unfortunately, we are still left with the fact that if 1000 watts per square meter was absorbed AND turned into electrical power and that electrical power was entirely 'used' at the same time, then we still have that energy to deal with. Then how much is turned into heat.

Maybe it's a no-win situation, long term.

BTW the reason i quoted the white shingles is because they are touted as keeping the local area atmosphere cooler, not just the inside of the buildings. Consider a white snow covered ground vs dark brown dirt ground. The air just above the dirt ground will be warmer than that just over the white snow even though the snow is not melting.

 

All true, but every man made structure on earth could be snow white on top, or pitch black, and it would have a minuscule impact on the globe. It could have some impact where the people are, though. Cities get hotter in the sun than surrounding areas.

 

If language offends you then mute the audio.

Slow motion

Hey Tony, here hold my beer while I load my gun.

Ron

 

All true, but every man made structure on earth could be snow white on top, or pitch black, and it would have a minuscule impact on the globe. It could have some impact where the people are, though. Cities get hotter in the sun than surrounding areas.

Hi,

Yes i think the argument was for LOCAL heating, not really global. That means the town itself yes. That also means more energy for AC cooling in those towns.