Future Energy Sources 1.8 Totally Distributed Multi Technology Co-Generation

Masu

Sydney wind 'roses' are at www.bom.gov.au.

Any ideas re AC -> AC syncronisation?

Hi Tamu,

I searched the Australian Bureau of Meteorology originally but somehow missed the wind data. I have it now so when I get a chance I will plug the figures into the formula and see what it comes up with.

Any ideas re AC -> AC syncronisation?

Yes it was what I explained in post #30. If you have a wind turbine that is generating AC, on the sort of scale you would in a domestic environment, then you rectify the AC to make DC and then use the DC to drive an inverter. The inverter is exactly the same as the one that you would use for the solar cells except instead of running it from the solar cells you run it from the rectified power from the AC wind turbine.

If you do it this way you do not need to worry about synchronizing the two AC systems as the inverter dose all the synchronizing for you. This isn't the most efficient way of doing it but on a small scale it is easier than installing expensive control systems that keep the generators synchronized with the mains.

Masu

The AC -> AC forum I just found is http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5605/Linking-Two-or-More-Electrical-Power-Generator-Together?frmtrk=CR4digest

And the BOM windroses are at http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/windrose_selector.cgi

After playing around with the equation in post #33 I came up with this modified equation that can be used to calculate the diameter of a wind turbine given a series of wind velocities and durations like those that can be deduced from a wind rose.

So using the data for Sydney for the wind data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the power requirement with an overall efficiency of 50% give a wind turbine with an area of around 18 m². This is quiet achievable as well and would probably be cheaper than solar.

I don't know what the planning regulations are like in Sydney, but in Scotland this 5m diameter turbine - at a height to avoid disturbances from the surrounding buildings would not be likely to gain the neccessary permission (unless sited in an acre of garden!).

This would still leave the position where payment for electricity into the house during periods of low wind would not be offset by the production at other times.

I just realized that I forgot the ½ in the energy calculation so the equation for the diameter of the wind turbine becomes

and the area required for Sydney is 36 m² and while this is twice the size it is a turbine 6.77 m in diameter which is not an impossibility. .

I agree that maximum distribution of energy systems is ideal, even if it costs a little more . Of course carbon output and other pollution must be acceptable.

I am a biomass fan, but must say that thin film photovoltaic seems like the end winner.It requires no work after installation, until it is worn out. What could be cheaper in the long run!. Also it creates very little pollution. All of the various myriad technologies should fight it out, and get us energy independence ASAP.

What we need is a large, neutral body of economists, to help us figure out what is really best for humanity in the long run. Would love to hear your opinions. Somone should try to direct all this effort in the best directions. Am I wrong? Are market forces the only way to find out what is best?

Ron Wagner

The best system is that where the energy generated is the closest to the energy we need.

If you need hot water, you are not going to generate electricity, transform it into AC and feed this to your boiler. What you need is a direct heat collector.

When you would look into the need for AC 240V you would be surprised how much of the needed energy could be direct generated. The efficacy of the whole system would go up.

Companies who do the exercise of installing a Combined Heat Power system usually do a decent check on the needed heat to. Surprisingly they can reduce the needed heat just by asking every production division to list the needs. (It opens the eyes of the managers what is lost through leaking steam, missing insulation,... they fix it as they want to score at higher management)

Neither which power production system will be used, a decent control mechanism is needed to prevent catastrophic power failures.

GHP guys, Geothermal Heat Pump, ...ground temperature abt. 30 feet is always constant throughout the world, and it has been in use for years. GHP can be used to heat AND cool! Other conventional cooling or heating systems could always 'top-up' should final condition from GHP isn't enough.

Yes, rmg21. And the mean constant earth temp below frostline is about 53^o F. So, in addition to using the GHP, housing built below the frost line would only have to heat itself 17^o (instead of 70^o) in winter and 7^o (instead of cooling itself 10-30^o) in summer to provide indoors comfort. (Good thing I was raised on ^oF ! I'm so getting used to expressing my thoughts in ^oC now that Canada's metric!) Think about what that style of housing would mean in terms of energy savings!

With light conduit technology at its current level of efficiency, we should really see more housing lots with glassed-in summer/barbeque/greenhouse/solar-power-collection enclosure and trees/gardens on the surface, and everything else below grade...all the way to the lot lines, if desired, since fire prevention would also be enhanced.

Mark

The "Totally Distributed Multi Technology Co-Generation" is a fine concept but if we don't raise the general level of physics and awarness in our citizens it will be very hard to make repairs and maintenance. Also, if everybody doesn't agree to use this system in my community the price will be prohibitive for the few "crazy" who want it. Trust me, I thought about.

if we don't raise the general level of physics and awarness in our citizens it will be very hard to make repairs and maintenance.

A certain increase in the level of awareness of the operation of such a system would indeed be required but it is no more necessary for everybody to understand it to a repair level than it is for items like televisions, refrigerators, video recorders etc. Just about every house that consumes electricity will have a host or items that people use and operate every day yet havn't the slightest inkling of how they actually work. If they malfunction you get appropriately qualified personnel to come and repair them and the concept of co-generation is no different.

Also, if everybody doesn't agree to use this system in my community the price will be prohibitive for the few "crazy" who want it. Trust me, I thought about.

If it is financially beneficial to own and operate such systems then wouldn't it be the few that didn't install them be the crazy ones. The concept behind such system involve you being credited for the surplus electricity that you send back down the power distribution system to offsets the cost of the power you draw.

You ask us to trust you and say you have though about it but offer no definitive proof or justification for your statements. If you wish to be taken seriously then you will need to back up you statements with hard facts and observations and statements like "I thought about" are, by any stretch of the imagination, not sufficient.

Hi masu,

I agree with all you have said, but wonder if consideration has been given to when people will tell if their system has malfunctioned - most people will get such a system fitted and leave it to its own devices until they get the huge utility bill they did not expect 3 months after the fault develops. An easily understood, easily seen, but not obtrusive interface will be required so that the untrained can make an instant decision on when to call the repair person out.

Fault and failure monitoring is something that could easily be built into a system so that you would know at least within a reasonable amount of time that a fault had occurred. The inverter needs to monitor a whole host of parameters in order for it to be able to synchronize the frequency and phase with the mains and the easiest way to do this is with a microcontroller. It would not be a difficult task to include a fault annunciating system into the system.

Yes this could be a problem but it is a technical problem that can easily be solved.

Sure, the monitoring is easy, but will the majority who have invested in these systems then continue to maintain them as they should?

There are now laws here which force landlords to have their gas appliances serviced regularly, as there is such a high risk of poisoning - if the government sees that the power system is so far distributed that difficulties will ensue when too many sources are down simultaneously, then I can foresee a time when personal systems are subject to annual maintenance regimes, much like car MOTs.

In most countries I believe that the generation of electricity is already controlled to a great extent by legislation and you need to be a licensed electrician to play around with power cabling and connections.

Small systems can be over engineer far more readily and cost effectively than large scale power plants. If you wanted to design a large power station that it only eve ran at on third of one quarter load the cost would be astronomical. On a small scale however building in a 300-400% safety factor dose not have the same effect on the cost of the installation. By building in this sort of safety factor you can make systems extremely reliable.

For a large part these systems use solid state electronics and so do not suffer from being used. The only part that requires regular maintenance is if a mechanical generator is employed and proper design can minimize the amount of on going maintenance.

Another technique is to connect the systems to a data network and control and monitor them from a central location. By doing this trends in demand and generating capacity can be monitored and short falls predicted. Shortfalls can then be made up by bringing hydro electric systems on line or in the event of a serious large area problem firing up an existing fossil fueled power station that has been kept specifically for such emergencies.

In 1957 mankind left the confines of the earth for the very first time and by 1970 had wailed on the Moon. Every single bit of the technology required to achieve this needed to be not only designed and built from scratch but needed to be conceived first. We didn't even know how to do it let alone what sort of equipment would be needed.

The concept of wide spread co-generation of electricity uses technology that already exists over a power distribution system that already exists and in may places is already being done and subsidized by governments. When you compare it with putting a man on the Moon it's a stroll in the park on a sunny day and we should be able to do it with one hand tied behind or back.

If we can't do it then we are saying that the human race has gone backwards and that we have passes our ultimate achievements and are now in a state of decline. I for one do not subscribe to this concept so since we managed to put a man on the Moon in less than 13 years then a 100% self sufficient co-generation system by 2020 is easily attainable.

Do we need a politician to stand up and tell us to do it or can we as engineers define our own goals and achieve them without being led by the hand?

I am 100% with masu. How and why has the technologist tribe bent on spreading artificial helpless by handing over the technical soul to politician?

It all comes down to politics: There are people who are remembered as being the reading teacher of his nation, someone has put the first man in space, on the moon, another learned his people to drive. But who explained the world that changes in our behavior need to happen, the sooner the better?

A Belgian politician responsible for the environment recently made a remark: I need to do something that will save the environment, solutions are there to be implemented but how am I going to survive the next election? (We are heading for federal elections in June)

Al Gore is trying, but as it becomes more and more difficult to counterfeit the statements he has, the man himself is attacked. Something it happens on CR4.

After all you must admit that the technique to do it different is available, but instead of implementing it we put the developments in a drawer and go for the next application.

Somehow it should be prohibited to use some forms of energy for some applications were an environmental neutral alternative exists. (Solar heat driven air conditioning is perfectly possible, the installation costs more than a conventional so it will never be implemented as the standard way to go for. Resulting in engineered, expensive solutions. Why not prohibiting the use of the grid for room cooling applications.)

In Switzerland it is prohibited to heat non insulated buildings. The use of heating equipment is also limited to indoor. Only hospitals and fire stations can have their driveway heated to melt snow and avoid ice. Each application need to be granted by the local or regional government.

Hi Masu, we certainly need more engineers who believe in such statements!!!

Let's engineer something that has no direct link to nut and bolts. let's do some social/economic engineering.

..with current oil prices, Law of Unintended Consequences seem to be acting everywhere - good and bad. to appease certain lobby groups, Bush took a jolly ride on the alternative fuel/energy bandwagon(I seriously doubt him hugging a tree!!), so, we have 'let's go ethanol!', (farmers get fat-and porkers go to bed without dinner!).

,and in Europe, tussle for malt is pushing beer prices higher --not good, not good at all!!

However, alternative energy source implementaion does have a better prospect, though.

How can you generate commercial incentive(s), say between real estate agents/building contractors/project owners, potential homeowners, NGOs(some of these are well funded), or even the government?

Until fully implemented(say to critical mass equivalent in coverage), such alternative energy solutions and its concept broadcast, should(ideally) be maintained in very low profile mode- publicity may not be good - you don't want to alert Mr. AC.

Consumer groups can be a powerful consumption style/policy modifying lot - how do we trigger them along our lines?

Human beings seem to like to live in blissful ignorance and would much prefer to ignore a problem than to get up and tackle it head on. If you look through history there are numerous examples of engineers and scientists trying to preempt disasters only to be ignored by the politicians, bureaucrats and general public. Until they actually impact the brick wall, the engineers and scientists were warning about, people seem to prefer to do nothing and in blissful ignorance hope the problem will go away. It never dose and they always get caught. Even then within a decade people return to their original self destructive ways and repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Just look at what happens in earthquake zones. There is a huge earthquake and thousands are killed, hundreds of thousands left homeless and millions of dollars damage caused by bad location and shoddy or inferior building standards. The people that are effected need to be rescued and bailed out with the good will of others and dose anybody ever learn? No the build exactly the same buildings on exactly the same site with exactly the same shoddy and inadequate workmanship and material and it happens again.

Just about everybody with any sort of education knows that Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by Mt Vesuvius in the first century AD. Now it sounds logical that building a city near an active volcano, particularly one that has already destroyed two Cities is a bad idea, but has the lesson been learnt? No, as usual nobody learns and we now have a city hundreds of times the size of Pompeii built not only near the volcano but actually up the sides of the darn thing. It's guaranteed that Mt Vesuvius is going to erupt again but can you convince people that it's a really dumb idea to build on the side of an active volcano? No, instead of being proactive they prefer to play Russian roulette with pyroclastic flow, volcanic ash, lava and massive explosions

I fear that it is going to take a catastrophic level event to convince people that the path we are on is headed towards a precipice and that we are traveling at a recklessly dangerous speed. Even then, unless it is repeated every decade or so, people will forget and return to their destructive, wasteful ways.

Maybe I am a pessimist but I can't see human beings changing their behavior unless they are confronted with an actual disaster. I just hope that the disaster it takes to get us moving isn't too catastrophic and that it leaves us enough time to do something.

One of the historical reasons for people building on the slopes of volcanos is that the ground is very fertile. Modern tourism also helps continue this phenomenon - we also see buildings in flood basins being done up after floods, as there is now the assumption that the government will bail out those affected.

Trying to find other accommodation is not so easy, and a few weeks' disruption every few years is seen as being worthwhile - tourists pay gaad money for beachside accommodation, so if the hotel is built half a mile from the shore the value will decrease substantially.

"a few weeks' disruption every few years is seen as being worthwhile"

That sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing and accountant or economist would say.

I'd be careful sounding like an accountant in a forum like this. I think you will find that as far as the majority of engineers are concerned bean counters reside in the same category as politicians and lawyers. I'm under the impression that they all come under the same phyla as amoebic pond gunk.

Hi masu,

Just talking about the general population, who will choose the path of least resistance - ie, will take the cheapest and easiest way to return to their "normal". When it comes to our own money, we are all accountants & economists - choosing what we spend, where we spend it and on what.

It's the same with power - each person will decide when the balance of affordability has been reached, unless legislation forces their hand. I do not reccommend legislation (yet) as all the renewables - except hydro - are still in their development stage, and legislation now will lead to mass production of inferior systems. Maybe with the next generation of equipment?

I would not say that renewables are under development: solar heaters are clear developed and fine stable apparatuses.

But as always we engineers can't stop evolving: we will continue to improve forever.

And then an accountant is nice: he need to pull the plug from development and force us to go into mass production. (which is also a nice process to steer)

A real design for manufacturing is missing in almost all the renewable alternatives.

Gwen

"A real design for manufacturing is missing in almost all the renewable alternatives." - so true!

Production methods used so far are time-consuming, but to mass produce in the "developmental models" on sale today would not provide enough cost savings for the accountants to be happy - the bottom line can be too important at times.

There is a need for new building developments to be fitted with "plug & play" type systems, so that connection to the mains is easy, and new renewables can be plugged in as required. If that means fitting the inverter et al during construction, so be it, as this would make the owner's decisions easier.

This is all very true and is where engineers come into it. Accountants on the other hand look at problems form a purely economic or monetary viewpoint. When I started as a cadet engineer engineering companies were run by engineers that had come up through the system. Over the years accountant managers have crept in and cause enormous damage to companies reputation and skull base.

A classic example is the retrenchment of staff during low periods. It takes about 6 years to train an engineer from scratch and retrenching an engineer because you don't have enough work for them for a year or so is absolute stupidity. You might save a few months worth of salary but end up having to spend years getting a new engineer up to speed when you need them later.

Not only do you destroy your skills base but you staff looses all confidence in management and your customers think seriously about using you because they can't be guaranteed the company will stay in business.

I have seen I numerous times and a company that lays off staff is nearly always doomed.

HI ALL !

I've done some research on a new fuel and found that fructose biofuel would be 40 percent more energy than ethanol with no pollution and this fits the title precisely.

see http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21942342-5005961,00.html

the story said chemists have restructured fructose to become a biofuel that's just like regular gas and nonpolluting. What a break through for all peoples of the world.

take a look you may be surprised.

goldrushnugget999

I think the co gen concept should be modified by two minor points.

1. Forget about feeding cogen power back to the grid.

2. Design future homes with cogen in mind. Allowing for a more efficient and fail safe operating mode-switching to grid seamlessly as needed. Existing homes (at least in US) could easily be modified to use cogen systems to deliver power to their 220VAC devices, since this wiring is virtually 'isolated' throughout the home.

On point #1 Cogen homes should always be able to draw from the grid. However, Instead of feeding their excess power back to the grid, it should be stored on the property of the generator, for use during times of shortfall. The idea allows for a wide use of cogen devices, and failures have limited impact. Also if suitable storage devices are developed they could draw from the grid during off peak hours, if desired. The best point though is if I neglect my system, then I pay more by drawing from the grid. If I keep my system at peak operating, then I benefit by reduced power bills, and I am not wasting my efforts maintaining a system for those who neglect theirs.

Hi Mevel123,

Storing electrical energy is a tricky and difficult thing to do. While there are numerous technologies that can be used the only technology that can do it in anything like a realistic and economic way is lead acid batteries with inverters. Even so this is expensive and the capacity is severely limited. It is also very polluting as the batteries have a finite life which means regular replacement with the associated cost an pollution.

Since storing electrical energy is not yet viable the only way a co-generation system can work is to use surplus generating capacity at one location to supply the shortfall in another. This means sending power back down the distribution system.

This is nothing new, the technology already exists and is available in several places already. Co-generation can be achieved using existing technology right now and we need to do something now not in a couple of decades.

Masu:

Before I add the following news article to the discussion, my prologue must include, as well you and others in here know, that I am totally in favour of revamping the electricity distribution networks, both in style and organization, to better serve the environment and end-users. When I sound pessimistic about how government may handle individual attempts to conserve and produce, I am reflecting my ironic take on the subject. Having said that, take a gander at the following, and weep. BTW, how about importing your solar company DownUnder to Canada, Masu?

Mark

Toronto Hydro seeks rate hike as consumers cut usage

Last Updated: Thursday, March 22, 2007 | 3:49 PM ET CBC News

The popularity of energy conservation programs is hurting Toronto Hydro's bottom line and the utility is now seeking to raise electricity rates as a result.

However, the company is urging people to continue to conserve, because otherwise there might be even larger expenses to pass on to customers. To meet extra demand, for example, it would cost more to upgrade aging infrastructure.

"It's important to the electrical grid and certainly to the province, air quality and all of that that we push this aggressively," Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd. spokesman Blair Peberdy said Thursday.

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd. has applied for a rate increase of 6.3 per cent on May 1 to recover a $10.4-million drop in revenue.

If approved, customers using about 1,000 kilowatt hours per month would see an increase of $2.07 on their bills, the utility says.

That's about equal to the amount an average household saved thanks to conservation efforts. Peberdy says the average home cut their electricity bills by $25 a year by using less hydro.

The popularity of energy conservation programs is hurting Toronto Hydro's bottom line and the utility is now seeking to raise electricity rates as a result.

However, the company is urging people to continue to conserve, because otherwise there might be even larger expenses to pass on to customers. To meet extra demand, for example, it would cost more to upgrade aging infrastructure.

"It's important to the electrical grid and certainly to the province, air quality and all of that that we push this aggressively," Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd. spokesman Blair Peberdy said Thursday.

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd. has applied for a rate increase of 6.3 per cent on May 1 to recover a $10.4-million drop in revenue.

If approved, customers using about 1,000 kilowatt hours per month would see an increase of $2.07 on their bills, the utility says.

That's about equal to the amount an average household saved thanks to conservation efforts. Peberdy says the average home cut their electricity bills by $25 a year by using less hydro.

The utility blames the revenue loss on the success of conservation programs over the past two years and the cost of buying and installing thousands of smart meters.

Peberdy said the province and regulators recognize the dilemma facing utilities: conservation is "needed desperately" but "eroding" the revenues of utilities, leaving them struggling to provide reliable electricity.

The utility says electricity loads in the city fell by 178.5 million kilowatt hours — enough to power 178,000 homes for a month — between spring 2005 and the end of 2006.

........An additional note to say that in a television interview, the utility added that they intend to raise rates a further $25.00 or so per year within the next few years to cover the costs of installing new (atomic and natural gas!!!!! Aaaaauuuuuggghhhhh!) facilities in the near future. And my naturalist girlfriend has informed me that she has decided to NOT use the fluorescent bulbs option because they contain mercury. Anybody care to comment on this? -M

Thanks for your reply Masu. Yes improvements need to be made in energy storage. I prefer a mechanical storage system over chemical. My guess would be that an inverter will work fed from a generator, the same as fed from batteries.

I do see cases where co-gen can (and should) feed back into the grid. My point was to make each 'home' more responsible for it's own energy consumption. Keeping each homeowner closer to the cause. It would help to have efficient energy storage systems to compliment co-gen systems, since natural supply is so variable.

Thanks for your efforts, the topics are important.

HI !

I've Read the groups comments & sum up the talk from all & it looks like the consensus is the large power producers are trying to protect there hold they have on the consumers at all costs. I've come to this comclusion by your comments & project into it your sumations & watch the loss of power users in canida & project it here in the U.S. What's Happening is the large producers are getting to gether & changing the rules so to protect there hold on the users. Here is where WE the small producers be it though Millions should ban together and form a united stand to combat this forced rule to a true minopoly & the large producers will prevail until we organize a groupe to equal or better their powers by getting together in a national co-op.

this would stop the big producers from making the rules just for them alone & forgetting about us small producers. this should be started as soon as possible so we small producers get a price for our excess power & not halfto give away, like some states demand us to. democratic principles should allow us to recieve a fair price for our excess power on a national & regional average of prices & allow us to expand at a moderat rate to cover taxes, costs, expences, ETC.

maby your conclutions will come to a simular area. Thanks.

Hi, MarkTheHandyman, Mevel123 & GOLDRUSHNUGGET999

"my naturalist girlfriend has informed me that she has decided to NOT use the fluorescent bulbs option because they contain mercury. Anybody care to comment on this?"

I havn't done the calculations but there is a good chance by not using the high efficiency fluorescent lights she has increased the amount of mercury that is released into the atmosphere. Coal contains trace amounts of mercury and when burnt this is released into the atmosphere. If you compare the mercury in the globe to the amount in the coal that needs to be burnt if you don't use the globes then I am almost certain that using the globes is the better option. Somebody may like to do the calculation and post it here, it would be interesting to see.

It's a classic example of needing to look at the picture as a whole and looking at the overall effect. You can't just look at it at a micro level.

Another classic stuff up that the greens make is opposing the use of hydroelectric power because of the area that is flooded and the damage this dose to the environment. Compare the few square kilometers covered by a reservoir to the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers that will be inundated if the sea level rises by as little as a meter. When you look at it as a whole the damage that the dams and reservoirs cause pales into insignificance. Yet another example of a good idea being stuffed up by scare tactics that are based on flawed logic and pseudo science.

Origin energy are one of the major energy suppliers in Australia and instead of being threatened by the loss of income due to the reduced demand, they have grabbed the problem by the neck and come up with imaginative solutions. The have developed a considerable amount of the energy saving technology themselves and are now reaping the benefits of the sale and use of this technology.

An Australian research group has come up with a new design for solar cells called sliver technology. The result is a massive improvement in both production efficiency and the power generated by the cells. Origin have now set up a pilot plant to manufacture these cells and are offering the at highly subsidized prices, to people that wish to develop technologies that use these cells. Their plan is obviously to corner the market and continue to be a driving force in the generation and distribution of electricity regardless of where or how it is generated.

Many companies tell us that we live in a time of change and try and justify an increase in the cost of their products and services with these changes. In reality they are trying to use outdated management and accounting practices and rather than change would prefer to try and drag everybody, customers included, down with them.

I believe this is called a free market economy, so if the US companies cant play the game that have been touting as the best system in the world, then it is time for them to go and be replaced by companies that understand the system and can compete.

One of my pet hates is the way so many good engineering companies, products and ideas have been scuttled by management that is solely intent on short term profits. When I started as a cadet engineer, engineering companies were run at every level by engineers. The scourge of the accountant manager has been slowly infiltrating the system and I have watched as their flawed management concepts have ground many companies into the ground. A classic example is the just in time delivery system they tout as saving money, in reality it is a never in time system that results in very pissed off customers.

Well, enough is enough, it is time these short term profit driven bean counting managers are run out of town and the engineering decisions are passed back to the engineers who understand the problem and see the solution staring them in the face. The world may not be in the pickle it is if the engineers were left to make the engineering decisions in the first place. It certainly couldn't be any worse.

Just my opinion.

Masu:

A lot of folks think that hydro electric is a fairly harmless form of electrical energy provision. You stated:

"Another classic stuff up that the greens make is opposing the use of hydroelectric power because of the area that is flooded and the damage this dose to the environment. Compare the few square kilometers covered by a reservoir to the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers that will be inundated if the sea level rises by as little as a meter. When you look at it as a whole the damage that the dams and reservoirs cause pales into insignificance. Yet another example of a good idea being stuffed up by scare tactics that are based on flawed logic and pseudo science."

Well, I believe that the good feelings about hydro power production are mainly generated () from two ideas: a backlash against potentially plentiful atomic fission electrical production in favour of the very plentiful and non-polluting hydro power sources; and the mistaken idea that hydro is an innocuous form of electricity production.

Unfortunately, hydro power production has been revealed to be no longer as innocuous as it seemed against the (easily criticized) atomic fission background. And one doesn't have to be of a particular political stripe to discover its weaknesses in the environmental arena. The given references (assuming they're still around; as you can see, I've had them archived for some time) will provide scholarly works to defend the following slightly more critical analysis of hydro power, which I composed in 2002. Although I am generally in favour of generating electricity from naturally-occurring waterfalls, this is not the one-and-only method of hydro production. The moral of the story is that a closer look and more thought via careful preliminary studies should always be undertaken before choosing which generation form to use for a particular application:

Hydro dams^9,10 rely upon a firm land anchorage at each end, which has to be resistant enough to hold back a considerable lake of potential energy. Normally, they are not easily extended if damaged by shift or seismic disturbance. Naturally occurring excess precipitation can considerably increase the strain on them, while the lack thereof can considerably diminish the dam's ability to provide electricity.

As well as being a resource-intensive project in terms of human resettlement and consumption of construction materials, the building of hydro dams often requires the loss of precious territory for other human interests⁹, such as established homes, farmland, and archeological artifact; while persons settling downstream within a considerable distance of the flood plain originally occupied by the dammed water body are in jeopardy in case of a dam break.

The dam's intakes and spillways physically damage fish and other marine populations, although arguably no more than at naturally occurring waterfall generation landforms. But where the dam has been installed in a gradual stream gradient, the life-cycle process of upstream spawning through the gradient has been replaced by a climb through fish ladder emplacements. These have now been shown to be stressful to the spawning migration⁴ as well as to the maintenance of a healthy biodiversity of fish stocks. They have necessitated the establishment of hatcheries to replace the lack of breeding pairs and eventual hatchlings in upstream rivers and creeks.

The stream, pond, wetland, meadow, and woodland ecology of those breeding areas has had to undergo far-reaching changes¹² due to a severe diminishment of hatchling-fed predation and the inability of fishing creatures, scavengers, and detritus consumers to find dead or dying breeding pairs.

4. Preserving Salmon Biodiversity. Cole, M. American Scientist (Sigma Xi) May-June 2001

9. Press Release: Ogden Corp Quits India Dam. International Rivers Network December 14, 2000

10. Aswan Dam Model Verified by Vibration Tests. Anconews Vol. 2 no. 4. Anco Engineers Inc. Undated

12. Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners, File 3, Ch. 3, Box 3.3 . Ramer Conservation Bureau, Gland Switzerland. Barbier, Edward, et al.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I agree that the building of dams and the creation or reservoirs is not completely risk or environmental damage free. Yes the flooding of the land dose cause damage to the ecosystem and there is a risk of failure.

However look at what would happen if they were not used. If the sea level rises the amount of land that is inundated and ecosystem damage would be thousands if not millions of time worse.

It's a matter of looking at the picture as a whole and developing a mix of solutions that minimizes the total and global damage to the environment. A 1 m rise in sea levels would cause considerable damage to Australia but we could live with it and would survive. However, a 1 m rise in sea level for a country that has a mean elevation of only 1 m is catastrophic and would result in the complete destruction of that country.

Not constructing a certain number of dams in suitable locations could result in the loss of more land and greater environmental impact than their construction and use. They also offer a method of storing energy that is generated from renewable resources during periods of high generation for use during periods when demand outstrips supply.

This is a global problem and the repercussions of our actions have global consequences. We cant just look at the local effects and say we can't use hydroelectric power because it causes a limited amount of localized damage.

HI MARK !

Why don't you try l.E.D. lights, i have a flashlight that i had for 2 years & no new batteries needed yet! what a great light, home l.e.d. lights are a drastic reduction in power consumption with a high light availability & no mercury, you should investigate it. I am trying to keep this blog going because there are a lot of good info here for later reference. BY the way have you looked at the new fructose biofuel blog above ?

SEE YOU LATER

goldrushnugget999

GRN999

Read it.

Thx.

Mark

Cogen is indeed intended to feed the grid.

It should go way deeper into the market: No central point of production but a production zone that covers the area of usage.

Experiments to do this are being conducted/ set-up at this moment.

The main IDEA is that everyone needs a certain amount of heat throughout the year (at least where I live togheter with 200 million)

We all need electricity but if you make the calculation: we need more heat than electricity.

If you produce electricity in fact you are making heat, and converting 32% of it into electricity. the rest is trown away (air and rivers)

The cogen system makes you heat and electricity for the grid. When you need electricity you can buy it from the grid. Depending on the use more or less generators are started, and over time you will learn how much usage there will be depending on time of day and local conditions.

Check the websites of www.cogen.org

Gwen

I happen to know that France is very well fed on it's own need for fission-made electricity (80% is it?) and export some to neighbouring countries.

What is dubious in this lovely story is their handling of waste: they bury it in poor countries in Africa for a token fee, or dump it to the middle of the sea, be it anywhere they do (Pacific?)

Germany on the other hand, wouldn't hear of it: both the feed off reactors and the need to "export" waste of any kind

Given the current technology, I would welcome nuclear made electricity, provided a comprehensive care is given to waste.

...We all need electricity but if you make the calculation: we need more heat than electricity...

Heat for human dwelling is the cheapest when created by electricity: not through resistor-coils, or IR rods, but through heat-transfer, i.e, through air-conditioning.

Is this the heating you referred to ?

Hi Yuval,

Here you come to a point where the world is so different where I live and where you live.

I'm living 100 km North of France.

We don't have Air-Conditioners here, at least in fact we don't need them, except for 10 day's in a year. So for us air-conditioning is a form of pollution. Only lazy people have it.

This means that we don't have this waste air conditioner heat. We have to generate heat to keep our house warm. This winter was warm, it reduced the fuel consumption with 25%,

Can you imagine: a winter which is only 2K warmer than the average reduces the fuel consumption with 25%.

My heating bill is 2/3 of the total energy bill. And I have a modern house with under floor heating and a condensing gas fired boiler.

France has always been a bad pupil in the class: they are so full of themselves that they want to prove the world they don't need anybody else.

eg: They don't need American music: enforced by law 80% of the music airplay needs to be French. Nice: call someone in France and try to talk to them, you will have to know French as they don't know other languages.

Indeed they make 80% of their electricity based on fission, and the first fusion plant is also being build in France. We make up to 60% of our electricity with fission. Check it out, French and Belgian electricity companies somehow rule the world and are very strongly linked to each other. The EU commission is looking to this but is not able to make a stand as they can simply put Europe in the dark.

France has been throwing everything in the depth of the sea, everyone did this.

Where does Israel putt's the waste of the atomic program? I'm sure that they also drop it somewhere, Israel even don't has the luxury to think on a good solution: they have to have this weapons to be sure that they will survive next night. I hope that education is high enough to prevent the usage, as what happens in the Sahara desert falls out over my car in the night.

About a year ago the decision on the long term storage of high active stuff has been made here: we will bury it in clay layers about 1000m deep. Clay is impermeable and we know that it is a stable layer. The question on where was open and approx 3 communities were openly asked to grant the permission as they already are linked to our atomic programs. One was very clever: they said OK, come on with the stuff but at our conditions. This brought them in the decision chain ensuring that everything was carried out as it should be. They know why, in Brussels (our capital) they just want to do more with less money.

Sometimes you have to make a choice between the bad things in life, but you also have to make sure that you know how you ended up with this choice and correct your way of acting.

Gwen

...We don't have Air-Conditioners here...we don't have this waste air conditioner heat...

Air condition here, is used as much in winter as it is used in summer. We use it here all year long, a few hours a day.

Comparative researches done, show that heating by air-condition is the least electricity consuming (Watts per Calories) technology, which prompted most Israelies to have it installed.

Today's advanced air-conditioners, imported from Taiwan, South Korea, and those locally made, are so advanced, they actually purify the circulating air, while introducing fresh quantities from the outside in programmed intervals. The purification is by means of anti-bacterial treatment and ionisation. The active-gas for compression is environmentally-safe, since the local regulation outlawed Freon and it's similars since 2001.

...Where does Israel putt's the waste of the atomic program?...

Unfortunately, Israel doesn't use nuclear power plants, because it's actually quite advanced in it's so-called nuclear "research" (right...).

It is unfortunate, because it could thus, export electricity way beyond it's relatively tiny capacity, to Egypt and Jordan, maybe also to Turkey (from which it imports water).

So generally speaking it doesn't have nuclear waste, to speak of. Materials for research are of negligible quantities.

You are right on the conversion factors: An heat pump can deliver up to 4 times the heat compared with the used electricity.

You can easly heat up the domestic hot water with it, but it will take down the efficacy as the condensation pressure will go up as the temperature in your tank goes up.

I doubt that an air conditioner is better than direct fired condensing natural Gas when you compaire the amount of CO₂ generated / liter of hot domestic water. Especially here where it can go as deep as -20°C outside air temperature.

there are several houses equipped with heat pumps: none of them achieved to be cheaper than traditional methods. In France where electricity is remarkably cheaper the heat pump system is widely used.

How does Israel make the material for its nuclear weapons? It must be in a breeding reactor, do a lot of reprocessing and generate a decent amount of higly active waste. The only problem is: this is national secret information, in case of Israel it is also quite understandable that they don't show on a map where all the stuff is being done.

It makes it even worse: the military can do what they want as nobody knows how its really happening. It is also better for you not to know.

Gwen

...it will take down the efficacy as the condensation pressure will go up as the temperature in your tank goes up...

Not ideally adiabatic but that's what air condition R&D aims for

...an air conditioner is better than direct fired condensing natural Gas...

Right, only fossil has a better turn-out when used for chemical synthesis instead of heat-making, as it is an ever dwindling source, not to mention, it's air pollution outside, the introduction of carbon monoxide, and the sucking of oxygen inside closed quarters.

This, not even IR rods do.

Adiabatic or not, when dT goes up, the power need to pump 1 J from one side of the machine to the other will also go up.

As the R&D is mostly working on making the machines smaller, quiter and cheaper. The dT will be higher anyway (you want 20°C in your room and the evaporatior will be at 5°C, outside is 35°C and the condensor will be at 45 - 50°C, then it can be smaller)

It is quite smart to bring the heat up to 65 - 70°C to heat up your domestic water, the total sum is always better. IF you have the need for an air conditioner.

...heat up to 65 - 70°C to heat up your domestic water...

If you mean by solar, here, it's not that efficient during winter (As my pictures above in #82 would suggest), but it's free nevertheless. It's usually used to heat-up for running water facilities, i.e, baths, dish-washing, etc.

Immediate, constant, on-demand heating of water in winter, is done here, the same as in Europe: gas or electric.

Did you know that direct solar heat is even used in Sweden to heat up domestic water. Even in winter the sun has sufficient power to heat on a bright moment.

What you call winter: how cold does if go, for which period.

You know it is all relative and things function without our understanding, the same is applicable for direct solar heat: it functions even in wintertime.

The only problem is that it is to costly to install everything, so we just don't do it.

...Even in winter the sun has sufficient power to heat on a bright moment...

Right, and it has an accumulative effect during the day, to use the output during the night (provided the thermal insulation is done properly).

Our winter here lasts between December and April, with variable temperature between plus twenty to plus five centigrade, with exception of high mountain or desert areas down to minus five to ten.

...it is to costly to install everything, so we just don't do it...

A typical solar for home installation is about 800 to 1100 $ depending on source, but it's a lifetime investment, paying for itself in a year's worth of electrical bills.

Single family homes would be better served if they co-gen as much of their own power needs as possible. The reason I prefer storing the excess energy, rather than feeding it back to grid is the following:

Chances are whatever tech is being used to cogen my power from nature, will be the same tech my neighbor is using. Thus our power supply will fluctuate together. This would lead to my entire neighborhood drawing from the grid at the same time. We would also feed the grid at the same time. This results in the power gen system always being far away from the power user regardless of the direction of flow there will be max losses in transmission.

Cogen from a single famy home should be an effort to reduce the individual home's total draw from the grid. Ideally we will find a reliable supply that has minimal cylce, then the energy storage times will also be minimal.

Here you missed my interpellations in the beginning of the blog: PV is not cogen, it only is spread production.

Cogen is making to forms of energy together (eg: Heat and electricity)

You don't control the proces, you only use it.

There will be a measurement system that decides the need for heat to feed your reservoir. based on this info the system will decide wheter you can start up your generator and start filling the reservoir. The energy which is non storable (electricity) goes directly on the grid. To cope with overpower others will be shut down, depending on the storage level in their reservoir.

So it might well be that your reservoir is filled during 4 and 6 in the morning, when you don't use electricity or heat at all. But your generator is the only one running in the neighborhood.

Don't take the word generator to direct: it could be a stirling engine, a TPV, ... During day the PV cells might keep the system running. Depending on the local situation of heat necessity the mixture of PV and cogen needs to be adapted. Wind and certainly tidal should be added. You can fill the heat reservoir through

You are right: if you let the mass decide which form of generation they use, big risk that everyone goes for the cheapest (might even not serve their needs)

The masses and politicians have had the chance to decide in the past: it might be necessary to let the sientists decide this time.

"Chances are whatever tech is being used to cogen my power from nature, will be the same tech my neighbor is using."

You're not thinking wide scale enough. Yes you neighbors may and more than likely will use the same technology to generate electricity because that is what suits that area. But people that are further away would use a different technology that was better suited to their area. The whole concept is not meant for just a neighborhood to be self sufficient it is meant to be a continental wide system. Most developed countries already have continent wide electricity distribution grids and these can distribute power regardless of where and how it is generated. It doesn't matter it the power comes from a handful or power stations or millions of smaller generators that are distributed over the entire grid.

The larger the area and the more diverse the technologies the more reliable and stable the system becomes.

The important thing is that all the technology is already available and the grid already exists. In Australia you can buy a system from Origin Energy that generates the power using solar cells. They will then purchase any surplus capacity and distribute it on the existing grid to other users. There is no reason the same system could not use wind, water, geothermal, hamsters on treadmill or whatever works best at your location to generate the electricity.

The whole concept can be built using existing off the shelf technology and use the existing grid to distribute the power. Implementation has already commenced in Australia and there is no technical reason it could not start tomorrow in the rest of the developed world.

Anybody interested in developing a 3kva generator for max 500$ in six months?

I am certain many of you outside the USA are not aware that California is proposing a plan to encourage the implementation of 1 Million solar homes. I don't recall the details. I think it includes solar electric is in the plan ... including retrofits.

How is that for a distributed system?

I am certain many of you outside the USA are not aware that California is proposing a plan to encourage the implementation of 1 Million solar homes.

I certainly was unaware that they were doing this and it is definitely a step in the right direction. As we have seen the technology is already available all that is required is for mass production to reduce the cost so that it becomes more financially viable.

I also saw a program last night about a new technique for manufacturing solar cells. Rather than having the large cells that we commonly see they were cutting the silicon wafers into tiny slivers, several hundred per wafer and then connecting these slivers as individual cells.

The result is greatly improved efficiency, especially during periods of reduced light intensity and reduced manufacturing costs. There is a pilot production unit coming on line now and if they don't hit any serious problem they hope to be in large scale production within two years.

The more the concept of co-generation is implemented the more practical and economic it will become so any pilot project is definitely a good thing.

You are right on. It is a lack of political awareness, will and leadership. I am talking about the distributed power aspect, not alternative power itself. We need to use the best available technology for the area. Solar for bright areas. Wood for Heavily forested, lightly populated areas. Wind for windy areas. Tidal for Coastal areas etc.

How can we best educate the politicians and bureaucrats, and overcome the conventional utilities that oppose us? I think that educating them, and the voters, and consumers is the way. The Sierra Club recently forced Springfield Illinois to use alternative energy as part of the new power supply, or they would obstruct a new conventional power plant. Last week, the Illinois IRS harassed a Decatur citizen who makes his own diesel from fryer fat. Let's talk to our friends, and everyone about the new technologies we need to use. Talk jobs, and keeping wealth at home.

Ron Wagner

Gentlemen,

Quite a spirited discussion going on here. Always good to see.

If I may digress back to generation methodology, seems to me we're missing out on the use of alternative oils in diesel gensets as viable methods of generation and grid tie.

The problem is synchronization (AC – AC) and the answer is the units from Woodward. Have a look at http://www.woodward.com/power/easygen-3000.cfm? for example. Their excellent website explains 'droop' and 'isochronous' methods.

How many spare engines have we lying around which could be rigged up with alternators and grid tied?

http://www.greasecar.com/kit_detail.cfm?prodID=24 is a turnkey way to run diesel motors on used vegetable oil available (thrown away) by restaurants, food processors and so forth.

And of course we can harvest the heat generated by the engine for alternate applications (hot water, heating etc).

Okay, hands up. Who's doing it?

Trivia: Grid may also collapse due to intense solar activity, totally unrelated to consumer load issues

Not really likely to occur in Indonesia.

But up north it happens every few years,

Gwen

"Not really likely to occur in Indonesia."

Mate, anything can and will happen in Indonesia.

I rang the power station a few weeks ago to find out why we were having an outage.

"We're having dinner" was the reply. [they went out for dinner, genset ran out of fuel, 2 million people in darkness].

Up here for dancing in Indo.

That is what I call: Blame it on the Sun.

Yes Gwen but I made the call at 8 pm so perhaps the Moon also influences these things.

Just when you think things get easier they don't. Has anyone had any success with any modern John Deere engine (eg 6125A) in gaining control of the governor circuit from the ECU Engine Control Unit?

I'm beginning to think they should have stuck to lawn mowers.

Did you ask John deere?

Try to explain that it is necessary for your firm that they give the info, or you never buy an engine from them anymore.

I once worked with a caterpillar for me.

Gwen

Sorry, are we talking animals or engines here?

I think John Deere is a dog, if that is what you mean. Stand alone operation only...

I was referring to a Caterpillar diesel engine, fitted on a fire water pump.

Gwen

Yes I did talk to the JD agents in Singapore and asked them to talk to the Woodward boy, Peter. [Woodward (www.woodward.com) does the Genset Sync gear with the mains so you can bring a unit online, sync it then make before break, which is in everyone's best interests]

Absolutely no luck. The JD guys are out to lunch. ie talking absolute b***s*** and covering their butts with makeshift solutions which make not a bit of sense. Woodward has solutions to couple up to 14 gensets, JD is hell bent on their own controls, as yet unspecified, for just 2.

I have given them until close of business Friday to make it happen or I'll happily toss a 400 HP JD 6125A engine into the same 3 km deep hole we buried the rubble from Bomb Bali 1 into that being the straights between Bali and Lombok. Some of the deepest waters in the world. Or sell it to someone hapless.

Having tossed this into the forum, does anyone have a high channel to talk to JD?

Just that I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as to build an engine without governor control.

No wonder JD are famous for lawn mowers.

Okay, hands up. Who's doing it?

At on time (some years back) I saw that Fiat was manufacturing a small internal combustion engine/generator/hot water heater package for residential use. I don't remember if it was "grid ready".

Here in the USA renewable bio diesel is being implemented by a growing number of individuals, "cooperatives", and now the "commercial" industry as well. I suspect in the not too distant future (probably less than 2 years) the demand for raw feed stock will exceed supply ... unless a strategy can be developed to increase base oil (feed stock) yields from present at best yields of 200-800 gallons(US)/acre by at least an order of magnitude (possibly with CO2 enriched algae-culture which is projected to be capable of 15,000 gallons/acre).

Ethanol: Over the last 18 months corn prices have doubled due to demand from the producers of ethanol. This has resulted in increased prices (guess 15%) for most food stuffs, dairy and meat products are very obvious.

Heat pump (bi-directional Air Conditioning): we're using it down to -7^oC equivalent to about 12 kw heating (with 14 kw resistive heat backup). the power required is about 3.5 kw. [As a matter of fact, here on the central east coast of the USA, this morning it got down to 0^oC with -2^oC expected Saturday night.... probably a record.]

Hey, we are going over 25°C first half of April, f* hot here, might also be a record.

Masu,

Sorry, I got way off topic in my last post but I firmly believe TDMTCG relies on our ability to adopt AC - AC conversion as opposed to this notion the world will be powered in the short term by alternative production methods, mostly DC [solar, wind etc] at source.

DC is such a messy thing. Hugely costly, basically misunderstood and an Edison[ian] artifact.

Yes, certainly I hope the future will see our world powered by a variety of naturally occurring potentials however, for the moment we are stocked with legacy machinery so why not make the most of it?

Sure, we can DC - AC but what are the costs?

For example compare the cost of a Sunny Boy DC - AC unit [no offense to Sunny Boy/Windy Boy, just using you as an example (around USD20,000)] to that of a Woodward generator sync unit [AC – AC] (USD1,300) and the front end gear (solar, wind and hydro would all be Capex) instead of fueling the existing engines or otherwise affordable new engines (low Capex) with spent cooking oil from the 10,000,000++ food outlets providing waste oils?

Cummins has just declared they will warranty all their engines running on B20 (20% non deisel) which is a major breakthrough.

Many posts here discuss the pros and cons of cogeneration at community level and realistically you are all correct.

Let's face it, it's very complicated.

It is generation within the timeframe which makes the most sense.

Long run power transmission technologies are the most important factor in our attempts to realize this outcome.

The ability to export/import power across continents is the key and as Masu rightly comments, the billing issues are stuff kids can work out.

Dear Tamu,

...DC is such a messy thing...

True, but more efficient in energy-conversion term, isn't this the urgent issue? Fossil is viable for about 50 years ahead, and I don't see fusion prospect to replace fission electricity production, so pretty much, we're stuck with fission (hopefully careful) mass production of electricity.

Trying to think ahead, it thus may be considered in terms of: "we don't have a conversion source problem, only which "energy currency" to use, electricity being near-ideal currency.

Now the question would be: what's the best way to fashion world standards, given that actual production be limited to less vulnerable locations on earth, and distributed accordingly.

Gidday Tamu,

"Sorry, I got way off topic in my last post but I firmly believe TDMTCG relies on our ability to adopt AC - AC conversion"

Don't worry about it, most CR4 threads end op talking about something that has absolute nothing what so ever to do with the original post. Besides, as you said, it isn't really that much off track anyway.

"DC is such a messy thing. Hugely costly, basically misunderstood and an Edison[ian] artifact."

I agree, at a power distribution level it is a really difficult thing to deal with. Even so there are situations where there is no other real alternative. When sending power through under sea cables the capacitance between the cable,water and earth can be a real problem and you can loose a hell of a lot through leakage. One of the solutions is to use motor generator sets at either end of the cable to convert the AC to DC and vice versa. You need to do it this way to get the bidirectional properties that are required in a transmission line. I was told, in another thread, that this technique was use in an under sea cable between England and France. I have however, been unable to confirm this but it dose make sense.

"Sure, we can DC - AC but what are the costs?"

It depends on the sort of load that you are talking about and the number of system sold. For domestic generation, if the current is below about 15 A, you can build a solid state inverter using a handful of $AU15.00 transistors. If you go over the 10-15 A limit then the price skyrockets and inverting DC to AC becomes very complex and expensive.

The Origin Energy system costs about $AU14,000 but that includes the cost of 1 Kw worth of solar panels. That's about 4-5 m2 worth of cells and that costs big money. I don't have the exact figure but I would estimate that the inverter-synchronizer would be at most 20% of the total price. I don't see any reason the same inverter-synchronizer couldn't be powered from a DC wind, micro hydroelectric or any other sort of generator.

Like any piece of electronic equipment the price inevitably comes down with time and mass production. If they produced one for every house in Australia the cost would more than likely be a couple of hundred dollars. If we got them made in China, then we are more than likely talking abut less than a hundred dollars. The more people that adopt the system the cheaper it becomes.

"Let's face it, it's very complicated."

It is a complex problem but it can be made simple for the end user. The idea would be to use a modular system that worked in multiples of 2.4 Kw. You start of with a 2.4 Kw solid state inverter that is common to every system. Then you have a multitude of 2.4 Kw generator systems that can be used to drive the inverter. Depending on what was most suited to your location you would select the appropriate generation system and connect it to the inverter.

The inverter handles all the synchronizing, energy management, billing, self diagnosis, fault reporting and communication with the central power control center. To the end user it would be no more complex than the existing electricity meters that every house already has. If you to generate more power then you add a second system and because it has its own inverter it doesn't need to use the same generating technology.

The key to the whole system is the solid state inverter. It needs to be standardized and fully automated and autonomous. The Origin Energy system uses something like this so the concept is not new. Using the cost of the existing package the inverter is worth around AU$2,800. If this were mass produced we can expect this to halve every 18 months and that means in 5 years it will be something like AU$280, around 10% of the current price.

Somewhat off topic but important

Here is some new (4/17/2007) news on algaeculture/power plants

http://www.chemicalonline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=3bfecd84-3b6a-49a4-8ceb-e87fba6dc572&atc~c=771+s=773+r=001+l=a&VNETCOOKIE=NO

A 1.48 gigawatt coal fired plant should be able to support about 21,000 acres with a potential yield/acre of 8,000 gallons(US) bio diesel and 5,000 gallons(US) of ethatol.

THAT IS A FAIR SIZE BUCKET OF FUEL!

By the way, H₂ may be a byproduct of the process.

...Somewhat off topic but important...

These links may reveal a beautiful and beneficial recycling alternative, provided output gases are taken care of.

The reasons are:

1. The power companies want monopolies.

2. Politicians want big donations from power companies.

3. The average person is oblivious to the many technologies now available.

4. Politicians are not yet commited to changing the status quo. For example, utilities are rarely required to buy power from individuals or businesses with excess.

5. Oil companies want to be the vendors of power, and generally do not want to diversify until forced to change.

6. Human nature is to avoid change, unless highly motivated by external forces.

7. No one has come up with a cheaper form of power that is highly commercially available, and is easy to use. Better, and cleaner maybe.

8. We are not yet sure that relatively cheap oil is a thing of the past. Present prices are still cheap in the USA compared to Europe.

9. Auto makers in the USA do their best to avoid selling inexpensive vehicles. These are the ones that would get the best mileage. The Chinese imports may soon force them. Chrysler plans to sell vehicles made by Cheri of China.

10. Nuclear power interests are very powerful, especially outside the USA. Russia is promoting a floating nuclear power plant. China is building plants.

11. Very few people know anything about power diversification.

Some factors leading to total diversification:

1. Concern about global warming and environmental degradation.

2. Rising public knowledge of alternatives, and potential savings.

3. Many technologies becoming commercially feasible, and superior to existing ones.

4. Some politicians are leading the way. Especially with ethanol.

5. More and more people want better energy solutions.

6. High gasoline prices are forcing the issue.

What we need are commercially viable, superior alternatives competing with the status quo. Some are:

1. All sorts of insulation and architectural solutions.

2. Compact flourescent bulbs.

3. Energy efficient appliances.

4. Pellet stoves, if pellets are cheap enough, or wood stoves or furnaces.

5. Geothrermal heating and air conditioning.

6. Hybrid vehicles, and small vehicles. Battery powered, for some applications.

7. Solar hot water heaters.

8. Using less power.

All the best,

Ron Wagner

Thanks, Ron.

Well expressed.

If you haven't already, why don't you join CR4?

Mark

Do we have to go as far as each producing our own, or will community projects be as useful in some areas?

HI ALL !

COMMUNITY PROJECTS for power distribution is a fine way to block the power brokers, all in the community will have a chance to get low cost power that is one of the best solutions. now how to get the communities interested in investing in them selves and there community success as a viable power producer. in Connecticut we had several community power producers but the big companies moved in and convinced the city politicians to go private, than the costs rose to outrageous proportions. later i found out the politions were paid off to vote that way by the purchasing company. we were betrayed and didn't know it, and i think most in town still don't know it. HOW DO WE DEFEND AGAINST THIS SITUATION ?

thanks

goldrushnugget999