98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
#371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
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
In article <4647d44f$0$10114$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote:
# What kind of energy do you think made the solar energy panels? And like
#the panels we see powering the cell emergency phone along our free ways,
#"just pencils out" building poles to each one.
# God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
#mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#
#
#"Herb Leong" <herb@urusei.net> wrote in message
#news:2smdndHfzbeX-9rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
#> In article <1178731433.061923.236850@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
#> nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
#> #2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
#> #more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
#> Yes. That means you need a super-cheap source of electricity.
#> While solar panels are expensive, they are cheap to run (mostly
#> free--some soap and water to keep it clean and a regular going
#> over by the owner).
#>
#> /herb
#
#
#
#--
#Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#
#372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
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
In article <4647d44f$0$10114$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote:
# What kind of energy do you think made the solar energy panels? And like
#the panels we see powering the cell emergency phone along our free ways,
#"just pencils out" building poles to each one.
# God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
#mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#
#
#"Herb Leong" <herb@urusei.net> wrote in message
#news:2smdndHfzbeX-9rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
#> In article <1178731433.061923.236850@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
#> nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
#> #2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
#> #more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
#> Yes. That means you need a super-cheap source of electricity.
#> While solar panels are expensive, they are cheap to run (mostly
#> free--some soap and water to keep it clean and a regular going
#> over by the owner).
#>
#> /herb
#
#
#
#--
#Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#
#373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
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
In article <4647d44f$0$10114$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote:
# What kind of energy do you think made the solar energy panels? And like
#the panels we see powering the cell emergency phone along our free ways,
#"just pencils out" building poles to each one.
# God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
#mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
#
#
#"Herb Leong" <herb@urusei.net> wrote in message
#news:2smdndHfzbeX-9rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
#> In article <1178731433.061923.236850@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
#> nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
#> #2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
#> #more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
#> Yes. That means you need a super-cheap source of electricity.
#> While solar panels are expensive, they are cheap to run (mostly
#> free--some soap and water to keep it clean and a regular going
#> over by the owner).
#>
#> /herb
#
#
#
#--
#Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#
#374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
#375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
#376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
#377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>>
>>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>>> just made up for reference.)
>>>
>>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>>
>>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>>
>> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
>> of the energy used to produce it
>
>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.
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.
>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.
This is not 100% true. while market prices are consumer driven, OPEC
amounts to a trade group which manipulated the prices artificially.
>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.
Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x... it is
a one time cost.
>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.
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.
--
Ak'toh'di
#378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> 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...
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> 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...
#379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> 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...
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> 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...
#380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> 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...
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> 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...