1000 links to H2-PV-Wind

1000 links to H2-PV-Wind
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
Here's about 1,100 links, more or less, that will download about 1.5 gigabytes, more or less, of PDF files I downloaded from Government websites.
I read most of them already and am reading through the last 10% already downloaded.
I have another collection of another 100 to add to the list, plus I have another 800 megabytes queued up for downloading in the background.
If you want to argue with me you had better know what you are talking about.
And you better be prepared to back up your arguments with credible citations that don't come from a RICO Organized Crime Corporate Fraud Website.

The sadly mis-named H2-PV wrote:

Here's about 1,100 links, more or less, that will download about 1.5 gigabytes, more or less, of PDF files I downloaded from Government websites.

Good thing that politicians always tell the truth; that bureaucrats are always competent; that academic researchers never plagarize or publish unsupportable assertions.
Government is the answer! Just look at how successful the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is today. Think how badly people in Communist China have fared since their Government stopped trying to run everything.
The sadly mis-named H2-PV continued:

I read most of them already and am reading through the last 10% already downloaded.

OK. But how many of those 1,100 links & documents have you THOUGHT about?

H2-PV NOW wrote:

1000 links to H2-PV-Wind
http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
Here's about 1,100 links, more or less, that will download about 1.5 gigabytes, more or less, of PDF files I downloaded from Government websites.
I read most of them already and am reading through the last 10% already downloaded.
I have another collection of another 100 to add to the list, plus I have another 800 megabytes queued up for downloading in the background.
If you want to argue with me you had better know what you are talking about.
And you better be prepared to back up your arguments with credible citations that don't come from a RICO Organized Crime Corporate Fraud Website.

What happened to the link to a picture of your hydrogen-powered flying car?

LongmuirG wrote:

The sadly mis-named H2-PV wrote: Here's about 1,100 links, more or less, that will download about 1.5 gigabytes, more or less, of PDF files I downloaded from Government websites.
Good thing that politicians always tell the truth; that bureaucrats are always competent; that academic researchers never plagarize or publish unsupportable assertions.

You are bad-mouthing American Science, traitor, just so you can keep your tongue well inserted tickling up the Shieks of Arabique nether end, and suck on that stiff oil pipeline until they own all of America's ports, right, traitor?

Government is the answer! Just look at how successful the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is today. Think how badly people in Communist China have fared since their Government stopped trying to run everything.

In America the govt is owned by me and does whjat I tell them to do, and I told them to work on H2-PV NOW! They are doing what I told them to do, and you ought to show a bit more respect to a guy who can make the only superpower do what he says.

The sadly mis-named H2-PV continued: I read most of them already and am reading through the last 10% already downloaded.
OK. But how many of those 1,100 links & documents have you THOUGHT about?

I understood them well enough to pull out of 64-megabytes CDROM this informative slide:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely similar result to my own computations. 7% of the State of Arizona can replace all the USA daily oil consumption, powering 200,000,000 cars and light trucks, all heavy transportation, 18-wheeler over-the-highway trucks, trains, and planes. The Red box on their map is centered for convenience and does not imply that the PV farms would all be in the State of Colorado. It is there for comparison to an actual sunny section of Nevada which does have the solar hours to power the entire nation's electricity grid, maked in Yellow box
And these informative slides out of another 130 megabytes of blah-blah-blah you wouldn't understand.
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html Slides taken from Government PDF downloads
Slides originated from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586.pdf NCPV and Solar Program Review Meeting Proceedings (CDROM) http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586CD.zip(ZIP 130 MB)NREL/CD-520-33586June 2003
* 33586006.pdf, 1,771KB Solar Energy Technologies-Contributing to a Robust Energy Infrastructure * 33586009.pdf, 1,450KB The DOE Solar Program: Photovoltaics * 33586033.pdf, 699KB Solar Electric Future: Linking Science, Engineering, Invention, and Manufacturing * 33586034.pdf, 1,232KB R&D on Shell Solar's CZ Silicon Product Manufacturing

CDROM National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap-- A National Hydrogen Vision 33162.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33162.pdf
CDROM Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual Program 32405.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32405.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 57 MB Compressed Natural Gas-- A Collection of Resources 33945.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33945.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 585 MB Compressed Natural Gas-- A Suite of Tutorials 37146.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/37146.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 47.8 MB High-Performance PV Project-- Exploring and Accelerating Ultimate Pathways 35267.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35267.pdf
CD-ROM ZIP 64 MB International Solar Concentrator Conference for the Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen 2004 35349.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35349CD.zip
Solar America-- A Solar Energy Tour of the United States (CD-ROM ZIP 344.8 MB) 28494.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/28494CD.zip
*** Renewable Energy Atlas of the West atlas_final.pdf 50,775 KB *** Evaluation of Natural Gas Pipeline Materials for Hydrogen Service 2005 04_adams_nat_gas.pdf 10,211 KB *** Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy 2003 hydrogen.pdf 7418 KB *** Center of Excellence for Chemical Hydrogen Storage-- LANL Tasks and Collaborations 116058.pdf 8081 KB *** DOE Carbon-based Materials Center of Excellence heben_st18_stp30.pdf 5265 KB *** Fuel Cells Program Mission-Goals 2003 williams_fe_fuel_cells.pdf 7140 KB *** Hydrogen Embrittlement Of Pipeline Steels-- Causes And Remediation 2005 09_sofronis_pipe_steels.pdf 6646 KB *** Hydrogen permeability and Integrity of hydrogen transfer pipelines 2005 03_babu_transfer.pdf 5733 KB *** Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Program 2005 02_parks_dtt.pdf 9416 KB *** NREL H2 Electrolysis - Utility Integration Workshop 2004 euiw_4_h2tp_nrel.pdf 7604 KB *** Overview of DOE Metal Hydride Center of Excellence (MHCoE) stp15_wang.pdf 5425 KB *** Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Hydrogen Analysis Capabilities 2004 13_pnnl_placet.pdf 6171 KB *** Pennsylvania Regional 2005 11_wang_infra.pdf 9951 KB *** Small Wind Systems Tutorial wind_turbine_towers.pdf 8820 KB *** Transportation Energy Data Book Edition24_Full_Doc.pdf 9525 KB *** Validation of An Integrated System for a Hydrogen-Fueled Power Park tv5_keenan.pdf 5277 KB *** Workshop_hydrogen_storage.pdf 8601 KB

H2-PV NOW wrote:

http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely similar result to my own computations. 7% of the State of Arizona can replace all the USA daily oil consumption, powering 200,000,000 cars and light trucks...

Let's see. 5.5^12 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
And I thought coal liquefaction at $60 billion/mbd/d was pretty expensive.
But dream on....
-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

H2-PV NOW wrote:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely similar result to my own computations. 7% of the State of Arizona can replace all the USA daily oil consumption, powering 200,000,000 cars and light trucks...
Let's see. 5.5^12 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
And I thought coal liquefaction at $60 billion/mbd/d was pretty expensive.
But dream on....

None of your Creation Science 'rithmatic is valid.
Since 1979, without ever altering due to changes of politics, recessions, world crisis, the fall of the USSR, or anything else, every time the installed base of PV doubles the price has gone down 19%. That's 37 years now and counting. So every time we add more PV for the H2-PV economy, the price of the pV comes down and the cost of the H2 made from pV will come down.
The refund value on a beer bottle is 5 cents in some states. Mayonayse jars don't even get a nickle for the wasted bottle. Every atom of Silicon in that beer bottle is identical to the Silicon that goes into PV cells. If the energy of production of PV costed ten times what the cost of the energy for mayonaise jars costs (and there's not ten times the energy in PV cells as in beer bottles), the cost of PV cells ought to be no more than 50 cents.
That's why people in the PV business (and you are not) know that the cost of PV will keep going down below $1/watt. In fact, some manufacturer's are claiming they have reached that figure now, already, but that cost savings is not being passed on to the consumer because the demand is higher than the supply -- fleece the SHEEPLE.
33586034.pdf, 1,232KB R&D on Shell Solar's CZ Silicon Product Manufacturing Here's Shell bragging to a DOE audience that they are making PV for under $2/watt back in 2003. See slide #20 of 23. (1.2 MB dload)
You can download the PDF separtely from this link, or download the whole collection as a CDROM. file:///C:/WINDOWS/Desktop/H2-PV%20Website/PV/DOE_Slides/33586034.pdf
Slides originated from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586.pdf NCPV and Solar Program Review Meeting Proceedings (CDROM) http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33586CD.zip(ZIP 130 MB)NREL/CD-520-33586June 2003
Every time the installed base doubles the price goes down 19%. At 30% increase annually (compounded interest), there has been a 19% decrease since this slide was shown at that DOE conference.
So you inflexible numbers based on obsolete prices do not represent a dynamically changing economic reality.
You are ignorant and uninformed.
Here's help, 1100 useful govt links on H2-PV-Wind, paid for by a billion dollars of R&D over the decades: http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html

The sadly-misnamed H2-PV scribbled:

Here's Shell bragging to a DOE audience that they are making PV for under $2/watt back in 2003. See slide #20 of 23. (1.2 MB dload)

And then Shell went & sold their photovoltaic business. Strange. Of course, they would not have been the first investor to talk it up and sell it out.

LongmuirG wrote:

The sadly-misnamed H2-PV scribbled:
Here's Shell bragging to a DOE audience that they are making PV for under $2/watt back in 2003. See slide #20 of 23. (1.2 MB dload)
And then Shell went & sold their photovoltaic business. Strange. Of course, they would not have been the first investor to talk it up and sell it out.

The whole problem with PV today is that it is predicated on an OUTRIGHT LIE.
There is NO pv available anywhere at any price today that is even remotely renewable or sustainable. Nor will there EVER be renewability or sustainability using conventional silicon technology.
ALL systems to date are net destroyers of gasoline and similar conventional energy sources. When properly and honestly full burden accounted over total and full lifetime costs.
All pv systems shipped to date should have a large label on them: WARNING: This device is a net destroyer of conventional energy sources and contributes significantly to global warming and other environmental destruction!!!
There, of course, is NO renewability or sustainability at the magic fifty cents per peak watt grid parity, as all you have is a fancy smoke and mirrors transfer scheme where conventional energy becomes solar in disguise.
It is only when you get significantly UNDER fifty cents per watt that the small DIFFERENTIAL fraction can in fact become renewable or sustainable.
The reason Shell sold out is that they realized the utter futility and fundamental dishonesty of Si panels. Combined with the fact that ALL AVAILABLE SILICON HAS BEEN SOLD THROUGH 2006.
The latest technology (which may actually get us as much as ONE THIRD OF THE WAY towards renewability and sustainability, possibly in less than a decade) is called CIGS. An intro is found at http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

"Don Lancaster" wrote> LongmuirG wrote:

The whole problem with PV today is that it is predicated on an OUTRIGHT LIE.
There is NO pv available anywhere at any price today that is even remotely renewable or sustainable. Nor will there EVER be renewability or sustainability using conventional silicon technology.
ALL systems to date are net destroyers of gasoline and similar conventional energy sources. When properly and honestly full burden accounted over total and full lifetime costs.
All pv systems shipped to date should have a large label on them: WARNING: This device is a net destroyer of conventional energy sources and contributes significantly to global warming and other environmental destruction!!!

Think solar not nuclear for the energy of the future, say scientists
See also... -Department of Physics External Sites: -Nature Materials
(Imperial College is not responsible for the content of these external internet sites)Under embargo for 12.00 GMT
Wednesday 1 March 2006
Solar rather than nuclear energy should be the UK government's priority in planning future energy production, according to scientists writing today in the journal Nature Materials.
Challenging advocates of the nuclear option, researchers from Imperial College London argue in their Commentary article that photovoltaics, the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity, could match and exceed the nuclear industry's current output before any new reactor could begin operating. The UK currently generates 12 gigawatts of electricity from nuclear power stations, around one sixth of the country's total electricity output. This is the same amount of electricity that it is predicted Germany will generate through photovoltaics by 2012 if it continues to expand its solar energy programme at its present rate.
The researchers write that the UK, which has a similar sunshine profile to Germany, could produce 12 gigawatts of solar electricity by 2023 if production is expanded by 40% per year, less than the world increase of 57% in 2004. However, in contrast to other developed countries, the UK has recently halted its programme of solar panel installation on 3,500 rooftops halfway through. This compares to the completed installation of 70,000 installations in Japan and 100,000 in Germany. Lead author Professor Keith Barnham of Imperial College London says:
"The UK is clearly taking a very different decision to its industrial competitors and, I believe, a less sensible one. The sun is our largest sustainable energy source and the technology needed to tap into it is very simple. As research continues, this will become an increasingly cheap and efficient way of meeting our energy needs."
One obstacle to the development of a competitive solar energy industry in the UK, according to the article, is a pro-nuclear bias within its scientific and government establishments. Pointing out that the UK Research Councils spent seven times more in 2004-2005 on nuclear fusion research and development than it did on photovoltaic research, Professor Barnham says:
"Fusion is still perhaps 40 years away from being effectively developed and in any case is likely to produce electricity at one quarter the electrical power density which the solar cells that we are working on are already producing in London. It's absurd that these funding bodies are putting huge amounts of money into something that may not deliver rather than supporting something that already does."
The next generation of photovoltaic cells, known as quantum well cells, now under development convert direct sunlight and can track the sun to keep light focussed on the cell. Early testing suggests that these concentrated systems could produce twice as much electricity per unit area as the conventional systems now in use. Professor Barnham adds:
"These new cells are highly efficient and are based on technologies similar to those used for the amplifiers in mobile phones, so the ability to manufacture them on a large scale is already in place. This is the kind of technology the UK should be investing in if we are serious about producing pollution-free energy."
For further information contact: Abigail Smith Imperial College London Press Office Tel: 020 7594 6701
Email: abigail.smith@imperial.ac.uk
�2006 Imperial College London

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:05:49 -0500, "Scott Nudds" writes:

The UK currently generates 12 gigawatts of electricity from nuclear power stations, around one sixth of the country's total electricity output. This is the same amount of electricity that it is predicted Germany will generate through photovoltaics by 2012 if it continues to expand its solar energy programme at its present rate.

http://esd.mit.edu/esd_reports/summer2005/solar_power.html
Finally, most analysts do not recognize the magnitude of government support for solar power in many OECD countries. In Germany, for example, if you put solar panels on your house, a government program requires your utility to pay you 70�/kWh for your PV-generated power---well above the estimated 40-50�/kWh cost of producing it. Indeed, if you take out a low-interest loan to install the panels, the check you receive each month is larger than the payment due on your loan.
This *might* create the mass market that gets solar, finally, cheap enough to be widespread..... then again, this might be yet again, another government boondoggle.

The next generation of photovoltaic cells, known as quantum well cells, now under development convert direct sunlight and can track the sun to keep light focussed on the cell. Early testing suggests that these concentrated systems could produce twice as much electricity per unit area as the conventional systems now in use. Professor Barnham adds:
"These new cells are highly efficient and are based on technologies similar to those used for the amplifiers in mobile phones, so the ability to manufacture them on a large scale is already in place. This is the kind of technology the UK should be investing in if we are serious about producing pollution-free energy."

It might be possible to cheaply use the same process used for semiconductor chip manufactoring for PV fabrication, but the ''large scale'' comparision is silly.
Worldwide silicon wafer production [1]: 4300000 square meters.
Approximate electricity generated (assuming 30% efficiency): 1.3GW. Accounting for earth's rotation, but not cloud cover: 400MW.
400MW, worldwide, isn't what I'd call "large scale"
And, AFAICT, yearly PV is already at this level of installing capacity.
Scott
[1] http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180202155

LongmuirG wrote:

The sadly-misnamed H2-PV scribbled: Here's Shell bragging to a DOE audience that they are making PV for under $2/watt back in 2003. See slide #20 of 23. (1.2 MB dload)
And then Shell went & sold their photovoltaic business. Strange. Of course, they would not have been the first investor to talk it up and sell it out.

It would be helpful if you weren't hypnotized by corporate masks. What Shell Solar bragged about in 2003 was not pumping up for a salle in 2006.
The history of Satandard Oil starts with John D. Rockefeller, who knew the value of concealing corporate ownership into seeming competitors. When the S.O. Trust was busted a century ago, 28 companies were formed all owned by the exact same inner core stockholders group as held it all-in-one as S.O. As the years went by they were never poor and they never needed to sell of their controlling stocks, so they passed down generation by generation, now to the fourth generation of heirs.
Exxon-Mobil-Conoco-Chevron are just four brand labels on the stocks held by the core group of controlling owners. Arco was another, but it went to BP, in echange BP stocks came back into the core group hands. Shell is the only apparant outsider, but the veil of corporate secrecy does not fully conceal decades of collaboration with the cartel heirs of Rocky. Take a look at the transfers of this PV corporation from this summary:
http://blog.monkeysign.net/2006/02/shell-solar-sold-to-solarworld/ "... Shell Solar sold to Solarworld Friday, Feb 3 2006 1:02 pm
According to the Associated Press, Shell Solar has been purchased by German PV manufacturer SolarWorld AG. The deal, which requires regulatory approval, includes Shell's PV facilities in the United States, Germany, and elsewhere. For some of the facilities and employees included in the deal, I think this will be the fourth corporate parent in about 15 years.
SolarWorld is a relatively new company, and Shell Solar has an excellent research and development team. This deal seems to make a lot of sense for SolarWorld, which will acquire this experienced research team, increase its manufacturing capacity, and expand into North America all in a single move. When Shell first purchased its solar business from Siemens (who, in turn, had purchased it from Arco), they talked big about alternative energy and seemed to be putting a lot of muscle behind their newly acquired PV operation. In recent years, however, it seems their commitment has flagged a bit (though they have continued to produce excellent research). SolarWorld, being focused entirely on PV, will likely change that.
It's a move I'm happy to see. And with SolarWorld's single focus on PV, hopefully the folks who work at the facilities included in the sale can stop playing musical employers for awhile. ..."
So you see, a big block of Arco shares went to BP, and back camew BP shares, then went to Shell, and back came Shell shares, and now to SolarWorld, and back came SolarWorld shares.
So SolarWorld has just been acquired by the Satandard Oil heirs in the global monopoly and stranglehold over every form of important energy. Shell PV did not sell to SolarWorld -- SolarWorld just gor eaten alive by the cartel.

Don Lancaster wrote:

LongmuirG wrote: The sadly-misnamed H2-PV scribbled:
Here's Shell bragging to a DOE audience that they are making PV for under $2/watt back in 2003. See slide #20 of 23. (1.2 MB dload)
And then Shell went & sold their photovoltaic business. Strange. Of course, they would not have been the first investor to talk it up and sell it out.

The whole problem with PV today is that it is predicated on an OUTRIGHT LIE.
There is NO pv available anywhere at any price today that is even remotely renewable or sustainable. Nor will there EVER be renewability or sustainability using conventional silicon technology.
ALL systems to date are net destroyers of gasoline and similar conventional energy sources. When properly and honestly full burden accounted over total and full lifetime costs.
All pv systems shipped to date should have a large label on them: WARNING: This device is a net destroyer of conventional energy sources and contributes significantly to global warming and other environmental destruction!!!
There, of course, is NO renewability or sustainability at the magic fifty cents per peak watt grid parity, as all you have is a fancy smoke and mirrors transfer scheme where conventional energy becomes solar in disguise.
It is only when you get significantly UNDER fifty cents per watt that the small DIFFERENTIAL fraction can in fact become renewable or sustainable.
The reason Shell sold out is that they realized the utter futility and fundamental dishonesty of Si panels. Combined with the fact that ALL AVAILABLE SILICON HAS BEEN SOLD THROUGH 2006.
The latest technology (which may actually get us as much as ONE THIRD OF THE WAY towards renewability and sustainability, possibly in less than a decade) is called CIGS. An intro is found at

Sadly, supply of indium is very tight and may be past 'peak'. http://www.compoundsemiconductor.net/articles/magazine/11/5/5/

http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.

H2-PV NOW wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
H2-PV NOW wrote:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely similar result to my own computations. 7% of the State of Arizona can replace all the USA daily oil consumption, powering 200,000,000 cars and light trucks...
Let's see. 5.5^12 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the PV to the tank. And 30% utilization of the panels. Start with a base price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for all the rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.
$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
And I thought coal liquefaction at $60 billion/mbd/d was pretty expensive.
But dream on....
None of your Creation Science 'rithmatic is valid.

Sure it is. You won't address cost. Who can afford it...?
6 billion folks on the planet and they all have to eat. It isn't about your first world ability to drive on long vacations or commute. It is about eating and having water. In China, the good paying jobs are $5/day. You don't understand that we are here because of cheap abundant fossil fuels. You don't want to do the math...
Nuff said?
-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

The slimy creature from the Republican Organized Crime Toilet Dan Bloomquist wrote:

H2-PV NOW wrote:
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html This map produced by the US Department of Energy comes to a closely similar result to my own computations. 7% of the State of Arizona can replace all the USA daily oil consumption, powering 200,000,000 cars and light trucks...
Let's see. 5.5^12 btu/day to replace just 1mdb/d. Let's say you can get 70% of the PV to the tank.

No let's stay with Real Science, not your Creation Science.
PV doesn't go in tanks.

And 30% utilization of the panels.

The panels have "nameplate" ratings issued by the mfgr, and measured ratings of output at the [anel depending on how and where they are installed.

Start with a base price of $4/watt which may be rather low without accounting for

No need to assume $4/watt. The price varies greatly, depending on local subsidies, volume discounts for large purchases and how good a bargain negotiator you are.

all the rest of the infrastructure. So $20/a continues watt, in a low round numbers. $830/kwh/day. 3400 Btu/kWh so $.25/btu/day.

This number is pulled wet and steaming out of a horse's azz. I hope you wash your hands before eating after shoving your arm in up to your shoulder to find this stinker.

$1.4 trillion per mdb/d.
And I thought coal liquefaction at $60 billion/mbd/d was pretty expensive.

Liar. You have thought once in this newsgroup, ever.

"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

The Iraqi forces are conducting the Mother of all Retreats. -- Dick Cheney
We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. -- Dick Cheney
Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Cheney 01/22/04: "There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government."
March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says
"Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." -- Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff, 1976.
"A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues." -- Dick Cheney quotes
Cheney To Raise $$$ For Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay...
CNN | Posted November 21, 2005 11:48 PM READ MORE: Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Halliburton
The White House is not distancing itself from embattled former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is facing charges of breaking state campaign finance law.
Vice President Cheney is scheduled to appear at a December 5, Houston fundraiser on DeLay's behalf. Donors are being asked to contribute at least $500, according to an e-mail sent by the Fort Bend (Texas) Republican Party. Shannon Flaherty, DeLay's spokeswoman.

Don Lancaster wrote:

LongmuirG wrote: The sadly-misnamed H2-PV scribbled:
Here's Shell bragging to a DOE audience that they are making PV for under $2/watt back in 2003. See slide #20 of 23. (1.2 MB dload)
And then Shell went & sold their photovoltaic business. Strange. Of course, they would not have been the first investor to talk it up and sell it out.

The whole problem with PV today is that it is predicated on an OUTRIGHT LIE.

The whole problem of Don Lancaster in any PV or H2 discussion is everything he says is predicated on lies.
Google records 21,800 messages from Lancaster: http://snipurl.com/n9lu Results 1 - 100 of 21,800 for author:d...@tinaja.com
Here's 35 times Lancaster repeats NOT REMOTELY RENEWABLE since 2003. http://snipurl.com/n9lz
Here's 31 times sine 2000 he used the phrase PV net destroyers of gasoline http://snipurl.com/n9m2
Twenty times and places he used the terms PV net destroyer of energy http://snipurl.com/n9ma

There is NO pv available anywhere at any price today that is even remotely renewable or sustainable. Nor will there EVER be renewability or sustainability using conventional silicon technology.

Silicon is purified by electricity. First to Metal-Grade Si using electric arc furnaces. At this point it is called "Metal-Grade" because it is sold to be added to metal alloys, and only a small fraction goes to electronics and PV use. It's pretty cheap, comes in the form of nuggets or granule., and sells fopr about $25 per ton. The price reflect the energy in it, plus all other costs like labor, capital, interest, blah blah, yada yada. You can see from the price that there is not any exhorbitant anount of energy in this.
The next stage is the Seimens process. This is expensive, but that has to do with environmental cleanup equipment, caustic chemicals, safety precautions. Since the Si is melted again, just like it was in the first case, the energy cost is roughly the same as it was the last time the Si was melted. Most of this product goes to the electronics industry, and the PV industry cannot outbid on that.
Cheap Si ICs cost pennies, and Lancaster has published books on how to use this dirt cheap Silicon in worthless hobby projects. The PV industry has never been able to outbid the electronics industry for the stuff and get the bulk discount prices the electronics guys get.
PV buys the scrap, off-spec and waste from the electronics SI. While this is cheap, it has limits based on how much Electronics-Grade Si is made in the first place. In a depression for the electronics industry, the scrap and waste supply is low because the industry is down 50% from their hay-day.
That puts a squeeze on the prices. A Solar-Grade Si supply chain has never been created due to low demand, in part because of nattering nabobs of negativity like Don Lancaster.
The scrap El-grade Si is melted down a third time, in any one of a dozen different PV wafer or cell processes. The energy used here varies by a facter of tenfold between the most efficient and least efficient. The trolls always seek out the least efficient processes to hold up to demonstrate some point of naysayism.
After this step almost all the later steps converge into identical finishing processes which use 10% to 25% of the total energy.
Since the product has been melted three times, it has three melt energies involved, and they represent the bulk of all energy consumed in making the PV.
Solar PV creates electricity from sunlight, and it creates enough energy from sunlight that it can create enough new PV to reproduce itself, watt for watt replication or breeding, every 35 days. The energy produced from every acre of Si cells can create a new acre of PV 10.5 times per year. That is a net gain of 1,050%, and over the 25 year lifetime (modern PV now comes with 25 year guarantees), that is a net gain of 26,250%.
These computations are based on the traditional triple melting of Si, but those three stages occurring at three seperated locations can be combined into two stages at one location, or one stage at one location. In short, the first melt can be the final melt, and 2/3rds of the power consumption can be eliminated. Many people have tried over five decades to succeed and have failed -- it remains to be seen if the proprietary know-how will emerge without warning to suddenly drop the barriers to PV Si supply.
Of course naysayers who hate PV will not be informed of cutting edge techniques because they can't stand stufying the idea at all. Lancaster will be one of the last on the planet to become informed when the new processes come online.

ALL systems to date are net destroyers of gasoline and similar conventional energy sources. When properly and honestly full burden accounted over total and full lifetime costs.

NO GASOLINE IS CONSUMED IN MAKING PV.
Lancaster is implying that energy equivilient to the energy in gasoline, and it is wasted, because he don't like PV and thinks it's a big waste. ONe acre of PV can electrolyze water to produce 26,000 kilograms of Hydrogen, equivilient to 26,000 gallons of gasoline every year, and given a 25 year guarantee, one acre of PV can electrolyze water to produce two-thirds of a million gallons of gasoline-equivilent energy.
PV IS A NET PRODUCER OF GASOLINE equivilent energy. And it produces clean-burning fuel from clean pollution-free sunlight.

All pv systems shipped to date should have a large label on them: WARNING: This device is a net destroyer of conventional energy sources

ENERGY IS NEITHER CREATED NOR DESTROYED. Lancaster is sloppy with languange, and you can see he is just as sloppy with his research.

and contributes significantly to global warming and other environmental destruction!!!

PV DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING OR ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.
The entire production chain of PV can be powered by clean pollution-free PV every step of the way. Some mfgrs are using grid electricity to make the three melts required in Si, and THEY are using the same dirty coal-powered electrons that Lancaster uses to spew his pollution. Nothing about PV requires using the pollution choices instead of the clean choices. It's business decisions made by polluting managers, not something required by PV.

There, of course, is NO renewability or sustainability at the magic fifty cents per peak watt grid parity, as all you have is a fancy smoke and mirrors transfer scheme where conventional energy becomes solar in disguise.

Now Lancaster is just sputtering incoherently, probably drunk again.
A 50 cent figure was tossed out as ten times what a cheap beer bottle costs made out of the same sand that PV cells start from. Anybody who knows how much machinery and power is used in a beer bottle plant knows that PV does not use more power than a 5 cent beer bottle. Just to play fair I multiplied the energy value by ten over a 5 cent beer bottle, to come up with an inflated 50 cents a watt. Actually, PV made in the same bulk quantities as much as beer bottles would probably come out to 5 cents a watt.
The nattering nabobs of negativity naysayers like Lancaster is what holds back the production to ever get as much as mayonaise jars

It is only when you get significantly UNDER fifty cents per watt that the small DIFFERENTIAL fraction can in fact become renewable or sustainable.
The reason Shell sold out is that they realized the utter futility and fundamental dishonesty of Si panels. Combined with the fact that ALL AVAILABLE SILICON HAS BEEN SOLD THROUGH 2006.

The reason it has been sold is because smart buyers bought. They have their supply -- it's the marginal operators that will get squeezed to death by this latest war by the oil industry to corner supply and injure their competition.

The latest technology (which may actually get us as much as ONE THIRD OF THE WAY towards renewability and sustainability, possibly in less than a decade) is called CIGS. An intro is found at

Lancaster is not objective and not informed. Going to the TROLL'S LAIR, er, I mean LIAR, will do nothing for you. Go to the public university and government websites to get unbiased and well researched information. Besides, the TROLL'S LIAR is full of obnoxious ads to sell you worthless crap.