# YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis

Topher925
That are not many economic investments available like that.

Thats true. Large scale turbines have become very reliable and the MTBM keeps increasing with each generation. I would imagine the biggest risk would be a sudden shift in wind patterns but I don't think that ever happens for long periods of time.

Gold Member
Thats true. Large scale turbines have become very reliable and the MTBM keeps increasing with each generation. I would imagine the biggest risk would be a sudden shift in wind patterns but I don't think that ever happens for long periods of time.
If one get's the thing cheap enough even long time wind lulls are no concern. There's no ongoing fuel costs or other overhead to support. And unlike a coal/gas plant, there's no clean up/shut down costs if one decides to sell out.

ticeans
Great discussion Russ, thank you for having it.

My solution is everyone creating electricity at their homes, point of use generation. There are currently huge energy and maintenance drains with transmission of electricity over long distances.

My solution:

Why is it that turbines are things only airlines and power companies can use? Small turbine systems should be commercially available. If we can drive cars, we can use turbines safely.

You buy it in a store and bring it home, hook your propane line or bottle to it, and you get masses of electricity through steam and a turbine. Water has one of the highest coefficients of expansions, let's use it! The condensed hot water would be your water for showers, or brought back into the system to reheat. Could be mass produced inexpensively (if a car can be made for 10K, this thing could be made for much less- in the 1000 range.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/02/b...hopes-its-small-unit-will-dominate-power.html

Small turbines for everyone now!

supersheen
Mentor
Chrysler did make a turbinen powered car in the '60s, but it never reached commercial viability. There are some inherrent issues, not the least of which is scaleability: turbines are so power dense that to make them small requires them to be physically tiny and I'm not sure that's all that easy to do. The Capstone turbine you linked - the system is the size of a large refrigerator and the output is 65 kW, more than 10x the peak need of most houses. Also, efficiency isn't really helped by being in a house. A good gas furnace already gets 96% efficiency for heating and a home turbine wouldn't be combined-cycle and so wouldn't get as good of efficiency as a power plant for your electricity. Lastly, maintentance would be an issue.

However there are some applications where turbines like the Capstone turbine really need to be used more. It should be a requirement that sewage treatment plants and landfills recover their methane instead of flaring (burning it into the atmosphere) it, for example. I did a study of a sewage treatment plant in Delaware a couple of years ago and it is a real head scratcher as to why they didn't consider this when it was built. Perhaps "microturbines" have only really become viable in the past decade or so.

... hook your propane line or bottle to it, and you get masses of electricity ...

Where do you think the propane will be coming from?

Gold Member
Also, efficiency isn't really helped by being in a house. A good gas furnace already gets 96% efficiency for heating...

A friend of mine this summer mentioned something he'd heard where they were using gas powered engines to heat homes. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. Then he mentioned that they were also hooked to electric generators, so not only was all the waste heat being used to warm the house and water, it was generating electricity. I thought about it for about 12.3 seconds, and decided it was a good idea.

It appears Honda has such a device:
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx" [Broken]

In a typical freewatt installation, the MCHP module has provided as much as 75 percent of a home's heating demand, plus enough electricity to power lights, small appliances and security systems.

In those areas where “net metering” is in place, excess electricity can be sold back to the local power company, reducing your utility costs even more.

The Honda MCHP has been used in Japan for over 5 years with over 80,000 installations.

Definitely something for us northerners to think about.

And no whiny 150,000 rpm turbines and reduction gears to worry about. Even the smallest turbines scare me, and I've only seen them on youtube.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
Where do you think the propane will be coming from?
Exactly, on two counts: 1) the propane has to still be pulled out of the ground, and 2) its transportation, storage, and pumping energy overhead are greater than the overhead electricity incurs over transmission lines.

Gold Member
... Perhaps "microturbines" have only really become viable in the past decade or so.
MIT Prof Alan Epstein has been the leading advocate/expert on microturbines. For awhile Epstein wanted a turbine in every garage. I looked briefly at his work for a customer who wanted a longer lasting man packable energy source than batteries would currently provide. That is for life out to 72 hours and beyond (10-30W continuous) fuel cells, microturbines, and disposable primary batteries are under consideration.
http://thefutureofthings.com/articles/49/engine-on-a-chip.html [Broken]
Epstein interview said:
Q: What sort of performance should we expect from the engine?
A: The best metric is energy per unit weight, about 120-150 w-hr/kg for current commercial Li-ion rechargeable batteries. We expect that 500-700 whr/kg can be accomplished in the near term [from microturbines], rising to 1200-1500 whr/kg in the longer term (for the engine and its fuel supply).
...

Q: What were the major problems you faced on this project? What problems you still face?
A: There have been few easy challenges but the two most difficult problems have been (1) understanding the interaction between manufacturing precision and rotor-bearing performance, and (2) managing the tradeoff between the design requirements (of the thermodynamics, combustion, stress, fluid flow, and electromechanics) with complexity of the manufacturing process. In other words, how to achieve the functionality needed in something simple enough to build. This remains our largest challenge.
This device similar to this one has dimensions 4x21x21mm.

Last edited by a moderator:
Topher925
I don't see how a micro-turbine would provide any advantages over current technologies like fuel cells. Fuel cells are more efficient, have few or no moving parts, can achieve similar or higher power densities, and will probably always be cheaper.

Gold Member
I don't see how a micro-turbine would provide any advantages over current technologies like fuel cells. Fuel cells are more efficient,
A turbine can obtain 40% efficiency, and in the context of this discussion, using one at home, the waste heat can be reused warm the home. I've not seen a suggestion that the waste heat from a fuel cell be so used.
Topher925 said:
have few or no moving parts,
Fuel pumps (which fuel cells also require) and bearings aside, a simple turbine need only have one moving part.
Topher925 said:
can achieve similar or higher power densities,
No, at ~2 kilowatts per kg for PEM fuel cells, they do not. No current technology approaches turbines for power density at ~8 kilowatts per kg, except for super conducting electric motors (10 kilowatts per kg), and they're mostly still in the lab.
Topher925 said:
and will probably always be cheaper.
Based on what?

Mentor
MIT Prof Alan Epstein has been the leading advocate/expert on microturbines. For awhile Epstein wanted a turbine in every garage. I looked briefly at his work for a customer who wanted a longer lasting man packable energy source than batteries would currently provide.
Well that's one cool invention he's got there. What we can do with it, though, I don't know (perhaps a gas-turbine/electric car?).

There is no need to compare a GTE against a fuel cell as Topher did - we need to back up and compare a GTE to what we have now and ask "why?" Ie:
OmCheeto said:
A friend of mine this summer mentioned something he'd heard where they were using gas powered engines to heat homes. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. Then he mentioned that they were also hooked to electric generators, so not only was all the waste heat being used to warm the house and water, it was generating electricity. I thought about it for about 12.3 seconds, and decided it was a good idea.
It sounds good until you really get into what it can really do for you and what it requires.

I worked on a 760 unit condo building in Philly a few years ago that put in a cogen plant in the early '80s. It had the following components:

-Diesel/Methane reciprocating engine and generator
-Exhaust heat recovery boiler
-Absorption chiller
-Standard diesel/methane boiler(s)
-Standard chiller(s)
-Normal grid power

Operation and maintenance required a full time staff of skilled engineers and mechanics. More importantly, though, it required full time monitoring to decide what components to run when. A few scenarios:

-At night, in deep winter, commercial electricity is cheap, so they typically ran the standard boilers and powered the building from the grid.
-During the day, in winter, they ran the generator and used some of the waste heat to heat the building. It couldn't provide full heat, so they also used the standard boilers.
-In summer, during the day, they used the generator to provide all the power, the absorption chiller to provide some chilled water and the regular chillers to provide the rest.

This is, of course, an oversimplification: varying gas/oil rates and requirements of your plant meant you actually had to continuously monitor and calculate which components of the plant to run when.

They stopped using it because the energy savings wasn't worth paying the plant engineers to operate and maintain it, plus the expertise to decide what components to run when was hard to come by (the original chief engineer retired and the replacement was nowhere near as good). And you guys want a plant like this in your house?

Best case, what can it do for you?
-In the dead of winter, you run the generator and provide all of your power, plus sell some back to the grid at a price that barely pays for the fuel it takes to generate that power. The waste heat won't be enough to keep your house warm, so you'll either need an additional furnace/boiler or electric backup. Since you're still buying the fuel and your overall system efficiency hasn't changed much from what I currently have now (grid power and a 96% efficient furnace) and you're buying your gas for retail prices, you gain little or nothing financially by doing this. But you can rightly claim to have a small impact on greenhouse gas generation if you live in an area where coal power is prevalent.
-In summer, you can run the generator and use it to power your air conditioning. The waste heat is almost entirely wasted unless you have an absorption chiller, which vastly increases the complexity of the system. You'll need electrical energy storage to limit the size of the generator, since your air conditioning uses a lot of power, but is only on 25% of the time.
-In spring and fall, having almost no need for waste heat, you'll run on grid power.

Overall, you save very little on your energy bills for a huge (perhaps $100k) investment in equipment. You can, however, feel good about lowering your carbon footprint by a couple of percent, maybe. Over the next decade or so, some of this might change. Utilities might go to hourly billing and the prices might go way up. There might be some formula for this which could provide energy savings as the operating costs go up and the equipment costs don't. First, though, someone has to actually commercialize a residential cogen plant! Last edited: supersheen Gold Member ... First, though, someone has to actually commercialize a residential cogen plant! Doesn't the Honda unit OC pointed to qualify? http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx Also, I'd say residential can already be somewhat complex (appears so to me?). I have up and down furnaces, down heat pump/air conditioner, up air conditioner. All of that controlled by two thermostats w/ night/day cycles. Gold Member Well that's one cool invention he's got there. What we can do with it, though, I don't know (perhaps a gas-turbine/electric car?). ... The intent of that design is man portable electric power to replace / extend rechargeable batteries, e.g. run a PDA/laptop and radio continuously in the field for 4-5 days (24/day). The US Army funds him and is quite serious about micro-turbines Topher925 A turbine can obtain 40% efficiency, and in the context of this discussion, using one at home, the waste heat can be reused warm the home. I've not seen a suggestion that the waste heat from a fuel cell be so used. Fuel pumps (which fuel cells also require) and bearings aside, a simple turbine need only have one moving part. No, at ~2 kilowatts per kg for PEM fuel cells, they do not. No current technology approaches turbines for power density at ~8 kilowatts per kg, except for super conducting electric motors (10 kilowatts per kg), and they're mostly still in the lab. Based on what? Cogeneration fuel cell plants don't need to be suggested because they have already been implemented. http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/principle-behind-technology/operation-principle/ [Broken] Portable fuel cells (methanol, biological, etc) typically do not use fuel pumps and have absolutely no moving parts. You are correct about the large ones needing fuel pumps (and blowers) which is why a threw in the word "few". A turbine will need some kind of throttle mechanism for control as well as the turbine itself. It also needs some method to prime itself and an electrical generator. I was referring the system as a whole. Turbines don't produce electricity, they produce mechanical work so a generator + invert/converter + control system is required. Unless the electric load is constant voltage and current, the electrical components can get quite complex and heavy. Last edited by a moderator: Topher925 There is no need to compare a GTE against a fuel cell as Topher did - we need to back up and compare a GTE to what we have now and ask "why?" Oh, but we do need to. Fuel cells and these micro-turbines share the same market, which is powering small devices. Fuel cell tech is already on the market. http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=26153 And of course they also share the same market for larger scales as well which I cited above. Gold Member Cogeneration fuel cell plants don't need to be suggested because they have already been implemented. http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/principle-behind-technology/operation-principle/ [Broken] Ah, thanks for that. I was thinking PEM, but SOFC makes more sense for cogen because of the high operation temperature. Still, Seimens says that design is precommercial. Remains to be seen if if will pay off. Portable fuel cells (methanol, biological, etc) typically do not use fuel pumps and have absolutely no moving parts. No doubt, but a it is likely a microturbine on that scale can also gravity or bladder feed. You are correct about the large ones needing fuel pumps (and blowers) which is why a threw in the word "few". A turbine will need some kind of throttle mechanism for control as well as the turbine itself. It also needs some method to prime itself and an electrical generator. Fair enough. I was referring the system as a whole. Turbines don't produce electricity, they produce mechanical work so a generator + invert/converter + control system is required. Unless the electric load is constant voltage and current, the electrical components can get quite complex and heavy. A fuel cell is also likely to need electrical load conditioning of some kind - at least an inverter for vehicle or residence. Last edited by a moderator: Mentor Doesn't the Honda unit OC pointed to qualify? http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx Oh, sorry, I hadn't even looked at the link! The specs of that aren't real impressive (they advertise a peak thermodynamic efficiency of 85%, though the numbers don't compute), but in any case, any idea what it costs? Also, I'd say residential can already be somewhat complex (appears so to me?). I have up and down furnaces, down heat pump/air conditioner, up air conditioner. All of that controlled by two thermostats w/ night/day cycles. You have two because you have two zones, but each is a single HVAC unit with a single thermostat. It might be three pieces each, but they are a matched set. That's nowhere close to the complexity of what would be needed for even this winter only cogen system. First, a cogen based hvac system needs to be hydronic based and it needs to be integrated. That means you need: -A secondary boiler -A pump -HVAC units with an add-on hot water coil in addition to the AC coil. -An integrated control system that can balance the two heat sources and select power sources -A UPS and autotransfer switch to seamlessly switch between grid power and cogen power (you won't want to run this if you have no use for the waste heat). One has to go into this with the understanding that it is an expensive and complicated system that is only really useful in the winter and in all likelyhood provides no financial or environmental advantage. So as I asked above...why? Last edited: Mentor The intent of that design is man portable electric power to replace / extend rechargeable batteries, e.g. run a PDA/laptop and radio continuously in the field for 4-5 days (24/day). The US Army funds him and is quite serious about micro-turbines Ok, these are two separate conversations then. Science Advisor -During the day, in winter, they ran the generator and used some of the waste heat to heat the building. It couldn't provide full heat, so they also used the standard boilers. ... The waste heat won't be enough to keep your house warm, so you'll either need an additional furnace/boiler or electric backup. I think this is a key point. Say your house uses 2 kW. If you are producing that power yourself (in order to take advantage of the waste heat) how much waste heat is there? If your electrical generation is at 40% efficiency, the answer is, about 10,000 Btu/hr. Is that alot? I don't think so. Most houses of a size to be using 2 kW electric probably have a 60 or 70,000 Btu/hr furnace. So, while I agree that the idea of using the waste heat from generating electricity for home heating has a nice efficient elegance, in the end you have to install a furnace anyway. So you're paying more for equipment, without gaining much. Gold Member I think this is a key point. Say your house uses 2 kW. If you are producing that power yourself (in order to take advantage of the waste heat) how much waste heat is there? If your electrical generation is at 40% efficiency, the answer is, about 10,000 Btu/hr. Is that alot? I don't think so. Most houses of a size to be using 2 kW electric probably have a 60 or 70,000 Btu/hr furnace. We wouldn't expect the waste heat to replace the primary furnace, just supplement it. In most parts of the US, the average home heating load will almost always far exceed the electrical load, except in the South. Perhaps there a residential cogen system could entirely replace a furnace. So, while I agree that the idea of using the waste heat from generating electricity for home heating has a nice efficient elegance, in the end you have to install a furnace anyway. So you're paying more for equipment, without gaining much. Is it? A MMbtu of natural gas is about$3 for me at present, that's 29.3 kWh/MMbtu, or $3/29.3 = ~$0.10 per kWh of energy delivered by the gas pipe. Perhaps only 40% of that is converted to electrical energy by something like that Honda cogen, but the rest of the 'waste' heat would also be used for heat in the Winter, in the Summer it is truly discarded. I pay about $0.07 / kWh for electric (thanks partly to old nuclear) so no wins there, especially after paying the capital cost for adding the cogen. I would get electrical backup as a by product of the cogen, but that doubtless could be done more cheaply by directly buying a battery or simple ICE-generator backup system. Last edited: Bob S A MMbtu of natural gas is about$3 for me at present, that's 29.3 kWh/MMbtu, or $3/29.3 = ~$0.10 per kWh of energy delivered by the gas pipe...

I hope it's closer to 293.08 kWh per MMbtu. So $3/293.08 =$0.0102
per kWh.

Bob S

Bob S
The intent of that design is man portable electric power to replace / extend rechargeable batteries, e.g. run a PDA/laptop and radio continuously in the field for 4-5 days (24/day). The US Army funds him and is quite serious about micro-turbines
The military has special interest in high power density back packs:

Bob S

Last edited by a moderator:
A MMbtu of natural gas is about $3 for me at present, that's 29.3 kWh/MMbtu, or$3/29.3 = ~$0.10 per kWh of energy delivered by the gas pipe. Are these units right? If 1 MMBtu is 1,000,000 Btu that would be 293 kW hr, right? Using 3413 Btu per kW hr. I'm not a nat gas customer (no pipes around here!) so I always get confused on the units. I think 1 MMBtu is approximately 1,000 cubic feet. So you're paying$3 per 1,000 cu feet?

edit: I see Bob S beat me to this point. That's what happens when I look at this site at work, the pesky work keeps on interfering...

Gold Member
I hope it's closer to 293.08 kWh per MMbtu. So $3/293.08 =$0.0102
per kWh.

Bob S

Are these units right? If 1 MMBtu is 1,000,000 Btu that would be 293 kW hr, right? Using 3413 Btu per kW hr. I'm not a nat gas customer (no pipes around here!) so I always get confused on the units. I think 1 MMBtu is approximately 1,000 cubic feet. So you're paying $3 per 1,000 cu feet? edit: I see Bob S beat me to this point. That's what happens when I look at this site at work, the pesky work keeps on interfering... Arg, yes, apologies all around. That changes things a little. I'm paying ~30 cents per therm, or$3/MMBtu. That's then \$0.01 per kWh of gas at the pipe. Maybe the Honda cogen does pay.

parkland
Hello everyone, this is my 2nd post here.
Having worked in the oilfield for years, and now running my own solar business, I have a few thoughts and opinions I'd like to share.

1. Oil is likely to become a secondary fuel, but never run out. Right now, we are on the brink of oil becoming so expensive that other ideas and technologies are starting to become a cost effective reality. Even after new fuel sources move in, oil will still be around for decades. IMHO, if new technologies take the market enough, you can expect the price of oil to go down and make it hard for new technologies in terms of acceptance, as well as financial backing.

2. I believe most people think of solar power as expensive panels that stop working when it's cloudy or night time - think again. I believe that the biggest breakthrough will be algae oil farming, which uses sunlight to grow algae to harvest the oil, which could be stored and burned in cars, trucks, generators, etc. While this technology is new and not yet widely profitable, eventually it will be, and it will be a huge punch in the face to oil companies that currently own the entire market.

3. It should be up to utility companies to implement alternative energy. Our houses are already wired electrically, it makes no difference if the electricity is from coal, nuclear, biomass, or sun. The company can harvest alternative energy much cheaper than people putting solar panels on their house or running a lister engine from cooking oil. They also have buying power, which a household does not when they put up panels or a wind turbine. It is stupid for the government to hand out grant money for home owners to buy equipment that could have provided 3x the free energy if the cash had gone to a utility company instead.

...maybe more coming, once my thought train boards at the station...

supersheen
Gold Member
Hello everyone, this is my 2nd post here.
Having worked in the oilfield for years, and now running my own solar business, I have a few thoughts and opinions I'd like to share.

1. Oil is likely to become a secondary fuel, but never run out. Right now, we are on the brink of oil becoming so expensive that other ideas and technologies are starting to become a cost effective reality. Even after new fuel sources move in, oil will still be around for decades. IMHO, if new technologies take the market enough, you can expect the price of oil to go down and make it hard for new technologies in terms of acceptance, as well as financial backing.

2. I believe most people think of solar power as expensive panels that stop working when it's cloudy or night time - think again. I believe that the biggest breakthrough will be algae oil farming, which uses sunlight to grow algae to harvest the oil, which could be stored and burned in cars, trucks, generators, etc. While this technology is new and not yet widely profitable, eventually it will be, and it will be a huge punch in the face to oil companies that currently own the entire market.

3. It should be up to utility companies to implement alternative energy. Our houses are already wired electrically, it makes no difference if the electricity is from coal, nuclear, biomass, or sun. The company can harvest alternative energy much cheaper than people putting solar panels on their house or running a lister engine from cooking oil. They also have buying power, which a household does not when they put up panels or a wind turbine. It is stupid for the government to hand out grant money for home owners to buy equipment that could have provided 3x the free energy if the cash had gone to a utility company instead.

...maybe more coming, once my thought train boards at the station...

Welcome to PF parkland. You have many good points. Though I would not be so quick to point fingers, as all governments, utilities, corporations, and individuals have a roll in energy conservation, production, and distribution. Everyone does what they think is best, and opinions are very diverse as to what exactly "best" is.

But if I were to point a finger, it would have to be at myself. Knowing full well the thermal conductivity differences between air and glass, I knew long ago(20 years!) that my single pane windows were losing as much energy as the entire rest of my house even though they only accounted for 5% of the total surface area. It wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that I finally insulated the last 36 ft2.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't get pissy when people experiment with different methods(political, economic, etc.) of energy conservation, we should get pissy when they do nothing at all.

BenchTop
I read that Germany proposes to install small, gas powered electric generators in individual homes. These will feed the grid on demand and the homeowners will make direct use of the exhaust heat for water and winter heating.
The justification given was that it was far cheaper than adding a nuclear power plant.

Mentor
I read that Germany proposes to install small, gas powered electric generators in individual homes. These will feed the grid on demand and the homeowners will make direct use of the exhaust heat for water and winter heating.
The justification given was that it was far cheaper than adding a nuclear power plant.
That sounds like something the Germans might say, but where did you read that?

parkland
I want to poke my thought process into your last comment, I mean this in a positive way :)

Welcome to PF parkland. You have many good points. Though I would not be so quick to point fingers, as all governments, utilities, corporations, and individuals have a roll in energy conservation, production, and distribution. Everyone does what they think is best, and opinions are very diverse as to what exactly "best" is.

-True, but the reason I think more responsibility should lie within the government and major utility companies and corporations is that they can make more efficient use of money compared to individual households. Acts such as you replacing your windows, or me adding extra insulation in my attic are instances that are more "good will" than anything else, and not enough people think like this.

But if I were to point a finger, it would have to be at myself. Knowing full well the thermal conductivity differences between air and glass, I knew long ago(20 years!) that my single pane windows were losing as much energy as the entire rest of my house even though they only accounted for 5% of the total surface area. It wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that I finally insulated the last 36 ft2.

-This is also true, we are all responsible for our actions, in sort of a "lie in the hole you dig" sort of way, but for your average person, they simply get the hydo bill, and pay it. When the car is out of gas, they fill it up. If they happen to stumble on a great deal on dual pane windows when theirs need to be replaced, or if the garage fills the air in their tires during a routine inspection, unfortunately is more likely than them taking incentive on their own to improve something without seeing immediate benefits.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't get pissy when people experiment with different methods(political, economic, etc.) of energy conservation, we should get pissy when they do nothing at

Whos pissy? LOL, just kidding... I'm all for experimenting, heck, that's pretty near what I do. I just think that when it comes down to spending, the method could be improved.

For an example, we have grants now for solar. The government and hydro company has tested and guaranteed that certain solar equipment will not only pay for itself, but save money in the long run.
Instead of handing out grants to home owners to have "loosely" trained installers set up relatively complicated equipment for 1 SINGLE HOUSE, imagine how far that money could have gone if a central location was set up and utilised not only the buying power, but also the installation expertise of the power company. I'm sorry, but almost every installation I've seen is either loosing 5 hours of light per day because of a tree the owner will not cut down, or some other cosmetic reason. While this generates local business for trades people, like myself, I believe it is a huge waste of money intended to make a difference.

This is like hiring someone to come over and cook supper for a family, instead of just going to the restaurant.

OK, I'm done. Please take no offence, this is only my opinion. There is a good chance I might be wrong. I just like to yell right up to the second I get shot down LOL. :)

BenchTop
That sounds like something the Germans might say, but where did you read that?

http://www.danielk.ca/2009/09/cogeneration-goes-residential-in-germany.html"

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/579/2006-136-en.pdf" [Broken]
The operation of micro cogeneration plants is promoted by legislation in Germany. The most important
effects are
 the exemption from the electricity tax for power plants with an electric capacity below 2 MW,
 the exemption from the natural gas tax for CHP plants with an average energy efficiency above 70%, and
 the payment of an bonus of 5,11 Cent per kilowatt hour for electricity fed into the grid from small CHP
plants that are commissioned before 2006.

This shows how great is the influence of ... um... collateral expenses that have nothing to do with delivering actual power.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member

http://www.danielk.ca/2009/09/cogeneration-goes-residential-in-germany.html"

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/579/2006-136-en.pdf" [Broken]

This shows how great is the influence of ... um... collateral expenses that have nothing to do with delivering actual power.
I suppose then that the residential cogen unit made by Honda (http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx" [Broken]) is targeted at places like Germany.

Last edited by a moderator:
Brian H
Speaking of Germans and windows and physics and CO2 -- http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
Sample excerpt:
"In [the] case of partial differential equations more than the equations themselves the boundary
conditions determine the solutions. There are so many different transfer phenomena--radiative
transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.--and many
types of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc., for which
there does not exist an applicable theory, ... that one even cannot write down the boundary
conditions [176, 177].
In the "approximated" discretized equations artificial unphysical boundary conditions are introduced, in order to prevent running the system into non-physical states. Such a "calculation", which yields an arbitrary result, is no calculation [at all] in the sense of physics, and hence, in the sense of science. There is no reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on ... climates." {Edited slightly to correct Gerglish grammar.}

The paper demonstrates not only that the IR blockage hypothesis is false for atmospheres, but it doesn't even apply to glass greenhouses!
So we should actually maximize CO2 production to boost agriculture. Solving the energy crisis is a totally separate issue.

Last edited:
supersheen
BenchTop
Speaking of Germans and windows and physics and CO2 -- http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
Sample excerpt:
"In [the] case of partial differential equations more than the equations themselves the boundary
conditions determine the solutions. There are so many different transfer phenomena--radiative
transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.--and many
types of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc., for which
there does not exist an applicable theory, ... that one even cannot write down the boundary
conditions [176, 177].
In the "approximated" discretized equations artificial unphysical boundary conditions are introduced, in order to prevent running the system into non-physical states. Such a "calculation", which yields an arbitrary result, is no calculation [at all] in the sense of physics, and hence, in the sense of science. There is no reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on ... climates." {Edited slightly to correct Gerglish grammar.}

The paper demonstrates not only that the IR blockage hypothesis is false for atmospheres, but it doesn't even apply to glass greenhouses!
So we should actually maximize CO2 production to boost agriculture. Solving the energy crisis is a totally separate issue.

By golly... when you start questioning things you find out, eh?
I'm still trying to get over the fact that it took me more than half a century to realize that the sun is not yellow but white. It's not like it was hiding from me all that time - I was guilty of believing without properly looking, much less thinking.

Gold Member
Hopefully we can stick to ENERGY topics in this thread.