High school plus 2 years college level: Quantitative, Qualitative, and two terms of Organic.
Magnesium will not burn in hydrogen, however magnesium hydride shows some potential as a hydrogen storage medium.
This is a perfect example of how economics leads to bad decisions for the planet. Hard to get around this problem and as the world becomes more resource-constrained it will become a bigger problem over time.
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund Scientific's) and still producing power. the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse as it is to make them better.
Hi Earle, And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane legally. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com
Curiosity is killing me, what do you power with a mili watt? Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
thanks for the tip on alt.binaries.e-books.technical - snagged a pdf version of the 98-03 TJ FSM...
reboot
What kind? Don't care. The problem is the total energy cost of the panel. Coal, oil, nuke, or solar--as long as the panels produce more energy in their lifetimes than what they took up to be made themselves, the situation is a win, otherwise it is a waste...
/herb
#> /herb # # # #-- #Posted via a free Usenet account from
actually the energy cost has decreased over the years. as newer techniques have been discovered and better, more efficient methods of refining materials have been developed.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is a one time cost.
The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting solar power to energy.
And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn squeezins...
Note the word "if".
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of movement!
Hi Herb, The energy it took to make this iPod charger is the equivalent of a hundred and ten bucks, I don't know about you, but I don't bother to pull my chargers out of the wall:
In article , L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III wrote: #Hi Herb, # The energy it took to make this iPod charger is the equivalent of a #hundred and ten bucks, I don't know about you, but I don't bother to pull my #chargers out of the wall: #
Well, yeah! Anything that has "iPod" or "for iPod" on it is way the heck over priced for what you get!
Heck--look at it--the cells are way to small to do jack.
The thing to do is to leave the iPod charger stuck to your wall and have a bank of *decent* sized solar panels on your roof. Forget storing in a battery array--use the grid (your meter will run backwards when you make more than what you use). After a year or five, as you mentioned in another post, the juice they give off will be energy return on investment (EROI) positive and so your iPod getting charged off of them would pretty much be free in terms of new energy use. (That does NOT mean the money you dumped into the panels will be paid back! That depends on the price of electricity over the years you have the panels going.)
/herb
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.