Wind power is dismissed as "a European phenomenon". Unlike solar power, wind power is a cheap proven technology. For example electricity generated using wind power is actually cheaper than electricity made using pollution causing sources such as coal.
I think research into solar power is great. If solar cells and be cheaply integrated into all new roofing tiles that would be fantastic and I also think we should be using the best available proven renewable technologies such as wind power NOW.
Many Western countries are going to be facing an energy crisis within years and at most decades. We need a removal of subsidies for non-renewable polluting energy sources such as oil and coal and a massive investment in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Hydrogen is incorrectly listed along side other energy sources. Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy just like electricity. If we were to power all of today's cars using hydrogen made with electricity we would need to generate 4 times more electricity. Even without switching from oil as a source of power for our cars ExxonMobil's website reports that we will need 40% more energy worldwide by 2020.
As oil and gas are running out (in terms of economically and energy positive recoverable reserves) as pointed out in the article (see www.peakoil.net) we need a modern space race as mentioned by Intel's Chief Executive.
Apollo2 should be a race to replace oil&gas with renewable energy sources.
I'm glad you pointed that out - most articles do list hydrogen as a fuel source, or at least imply it is a fuel source, but it isn't. I believe the only 3 sustainable fuel sources are 1.the sun which includes photovoltics, anything that grows (like trees) and hydroelectric (without the sun the water wouldn't make it back up to the top of the dams where it gains its potential energy) 2. nuclear - i'm not even sure this is sustainable. Fission probably isn't as there is a finite amount of nuclear fuel but fusion (if we can develop it) should never run out of fuel. 3. gravity - specifically wave motion.
I too take issue with the statement that wind power will remain a European phonmenon. The wind farm in Minn. near Lake Benton is producing electricy at a cost of less than four ( $ 0.04 ) / kilowatt. They project that the cost will fall below ( $ 0.03 )/kilowatt. Their goal is 2.8 cents/kilo generated. That price surly does incould the 1.8 cent energy tax credit, but so what? I think a large part of the optimism is from the fact that the generaters are turning out to be more reliable and take less maintenance than originally projected. The major reason the wind farms buildt in Cal in the 80's failed was because of the costs associated with the unreliable nature of the generators. Today's wind generators are rated for 90% reliabity and have a thirty year life span. The generators at the Lake Benton Minn. facility are pushing 97% reliabilty. Yes, I realize that winds are intermittent. We will always need coal fired/natural gas power plants. That however is not the thrust of my argument. I'm in the camp of 'get started now'. Use the wind generated electricity to produce Hydrogen. Then we can do anything we want with it. I would like to see it used to be burned in ICE's to replace , in part, gasoline. Sure fuel cells will be better, when they get here. But we can use hydrogen in ICE's NOW, we don't have to wait. And we don't have to reinvent the wheel. ALL the needed tech is here NOW. Why wait? Yes, there are regulatory and logistic hurdles to overcome. But I beleive that they are a lessor problem than those associated with fuel cells. (manufacturing and cost) Certainly wind farms are less objectionable than those associated with oil. (pollution, dwindling supply, terrorist funding, middle east unrest, soldiers dying in the oil patch where we are not wanted anyway.) To those who object to a windmill "spoiling" the view, I say, Which is worse? A windmill? Or a flag draped coffin? To lessen the impact of the windmills upon the 'senery' put the windmills where the people aren't. The Dakota's alone could produce 50+ % of the energy needed. And there is wide acceptance of the technology (windmills) by the people who do live there.
As you well state, Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a form of energy itself. It is not "mined" naturally, but must be produced and stored, requiring energy. At present, the undeveloped infrastructure and technology necessary to adequately and efficiently achieve the creation and storage of Hydrogen are a stumbling block, but not a fatal one.
At some point, the storage issue can be rectified. At that point, Hydrogen can become the sleeper fuel we have been waiting for.
Though both solar and wind power are becoming increasing efficient, they still are both useless on cloudy calm days. Their strength is in their ability to create 120%+ of my necessary energy so that the extra can be stored for cloudy calm days. Present technology stores the energy in lead-acid battery banks complete with inverter systems and monitors which are expensive and require electrical genius (more than the average Joe)to properly and intelligently maintain. Then, the environmental impact of the lead which will eventually have to be disposed of (I would that batteries were 100% properly recycled!). We need a BETTER ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THAN LEAD- ACID! Hence, Hydrogen!
Instead of the wind and solar power charging toxic, expensive battery packs which have to be replaced regularly (every 7-15 years) or which can be destroyed by overcharging if the inversion equipment fails, store the energy by creating and storing Hydrogen! If the Hydrogen storage system is full, the electricity generation could simply be switched off, or the excess hydrogen could be piped to a communal system that others could draw from (such as the neighbor whose turbine is being repaired,low income people, elderly, public schools, hospitals, etc).
The stored energy could then be used in serveral forms. It could be used to make electricity, burned for heat, and used in a future automobile. Just think, the gas station could produce its own fuel to sell!
The drawbacks to this TODAY include a lack of adequate and efficient Hydrogen creation and storage sysems. This I understand. It also adds an extra step between power creation and usage, thus makes the system inherently less efficient. However it seems to me that the necessary infrastructure to convert the DC electricity to AC use and the battery banks necessary are already an inefficient (and potentially toxic) layer which really should be replaced anyway.
But as the necessary technologies emerge (namely, Hydrogen storage), it seems to me that hydrogen can be the ideal "battery" to store energy long term and safely.
As we all know, true self sufficiency requires the overlap of different technologies. Wind, photovotaic, passive solar, wise construction, renewable (wood, corn, ethenol etc) fuels and some good old fashioned common sense all can work together to achieve a less gridded society. I believe proper use of Hydrogen can be the ideal energy storage medium when we can efficiently create and store it.
When these technologies all work together, we could see the replacement of "the" grid with smaller grids which only power small towns, single cities, or single states. Though it would cause some redundancy, it would prevent the multi-national blackouts we have seen recently. It would also cause each area to accept more responsibility for the power it uses.
Sure, there are some problems to overcome and some logical holes in my theories. Real inventors will work them out. But for the long term, we have to look not only to efficient enery generation, but also efficient energy storage. For this, I believe Hydrogen presents the greatest potential.
Thank you for reading. Jerry Palmer jaqcp@mail.com
Content of Corn Combustion - Hydrogen/Carbon, Sugars/Starches
Corn stove free American enterprise rises to solve the energy crisis. Early 1990 experiences perfected over time make heating home an affordable, safe, healthy, comfortable, exercise intensive option. Not for the lazy, corn stoves are for hardy survivors.
For biomass energy sources, the ignition temperature varies with pressure, available oxygen, size of fuel particle, moisture content, catalyst, etc. Without further knowledge of your project or the intented use perhaps the following information will be useful.
At ambient pressure of 14.696 psia the minimum explosible concentration of dried biosolids from Hyperion with 0% moisture is 150 - 320 gm/m(3). Corn starch and coal dust ignite at approximately 50 gm/m(3). The minimum ignition temperature for Hyperion dried biosolids is 355 degrees C or 671 deg F and the minimum oxygen concentration for combustion of a dust cloud varies from 15 to 16% by volume.
Corn content is 34% Hydrogen producing a blue flame and over 60% carbon producing a yellow flame. Correct fuel air mixture produces a virtually invisible flame. Corn combustion is chemically described as Cn + H 2n+2
Welcome to amaizablaze corn stoves. Also please visit: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift" target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift</a> www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves www.msnusers.com/cornstoves www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace www.msnusers.com/clift www.cornstoves.info
Wind power is dismissed as "a European phenomenon". Unlike solar power, wind power is a cheap proven technology. For example electricity generated using wind power is actually cheaper than electricity made using pollution causing sources such as coal.
I think research into solar power is great. If solar cells and be cheaply integrated into all new roofing tiles that would be fantastic and I also think we should be using the best available proven renewable technologies such as wind power NOW.
Many Western countries are going to be facing an energy crisis within years and at most decades. We need a removal of subsidies for non-renewable polluting energy sources such as oil and coal and a massive investment in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Hydrogen is incorrectly listed along side other energy sources. Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy just like electricity. If we were to power all of today's cars using hydrogen made with electricity we would need to generate 4 times more electricity. Even without switching from oil as a source of power for our cars ExxonMobil's website reports that we will need 40% more energy worldwide by 2020.
As oil and gas are running out (in terms of economically and energy positive recoverable reserves) as pointed out in the article (see www.peakoil.net) we need a modern space race as mentioned by Intel's Chief Executive.
Apollo2 should be a race to replace oil&gas with renewable energy sources.
I'm glad you pointed that out - most articles do list hydrogen as a fuel source, or at least imply it is a fuel source, but it isn't. I believe the only 3 sustainable fuel sources are 1.the sun which includes photovoltics, anything that grows (like trees) and hydroelectric (without the sun the water wouldn't make it back up to the top of the dams where it gains its potential energy) 2. nuclear - i'm not even sure this is sustainable. Fission probably isn't as there is a finite amount of nuclear fuel but fusion (if we can develop it) should never run out of fuel. 3. gravity - specifically wave motion.
I too take issue with the statement that wind power will remain a European phonmenon. The wind farm in Minn. near Lake Benton is producing electricy at a cost of less than four ( $ 0.04 ) / kilowatt. They project that the cost will fall below ( $ 0.03 )/kilowatt. Their goal is 2.8 cents/kilo generated. That price surly does incould the 1.8 cent energy tax credit, but so what? I think a large part of the optimism is from the fact that the generaters are turning out to be more reliable and take less maintenance than originally projected. The major reason the wind farms buildt in Cal in the 80's failed was because of the costs associated with the unreliable nature of the generators. Today's wind generators are rated for 90% reliabity and have a thirty year life span. The generators at the Lake Benton Minn. facility are pushing 97% reliabilty. Yes, I realize that winds are intermittent. We will always need coal fired/natural gas power plants. That however is not the thrust of my argument. I'm in the camp of 'get started now'. Use the wind generated electricity to produce Hydrogen. Then we can do anything we want with it. I would like to see it used to be burned in ICE's to replace , in part, gasoline. Sure fuel cells will be better, when they get here. But we can use hydrogen in ICE's NOW, we don't have to wait. And we don't have to reinvent the wheel. ALL the needed tech is here NOW. Why wait? Yes, there are regulatory and logistic hurdles to overcome. But I beleive that they are a lessor problem than those associated with fuel cells. (manufacturing and cost) Certainly wind farms are less objectionable than those associated with oil. (pollution, dwindling supply, terrorist funding, middle east unrest, soldiers dying in the oil patch where we are not wanted anyway.) To those who object to a windmill "spoiling" the view, I say, Which is worse? A windmill? Or a flag draped coffin? To lessen the impact of the windmills upon the 'senery' put the windmills where the people aren't. The Dakota's alone could produce 50+ % of the energy needed. And there is wide acceptance of the technology (windmills) by the people who do live there.
As you well state, Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a form of energy itself. It is not "mined" naturally, but must be produced and stored, requiring energy. At present, the undeveloped infrastructure and technology necessary to adequately and efficiently achieve the creation and storage of Hydrogen are a stumbling block, but not a fatal one.
At some point, the storage issue can be rectified. At that point, Hydrogen can become the sleeper fuel we have been waiting for.
Though both solar and wind power are becoming increasing efficient, they still are both useless on cloudy calm days. Their strength is in their ability to create 120%+ of my necessary energy so that the extra can be stored for cloudy calm days. Present technology stores the energy in lead-acid battery banks complete with inverter systems and monitors which are expensive and require electrical genius (more than the average Joe)to properly and intelligently maintain. Then, the environmental impact of the lead which will eventually have to be disposed of (I would that batteries were 100% properly recycled!). We need a BETTER ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THAN LEAD- ACID! Hence, Hydrogen!
Instead of the wind and solar power charging toxic, expensive battery packs which have to be replaced regularly (every 7-15 years) or which can be destroyed by overcharging if the inversion equipment fails, store the energy by creating and storing Hydrogen! If the Hydrogen storage system is full, the electricity generation could simply be switched off, or the excess hydrogen could be piped to a communal system that others could draw from (such as the neighbor whose turbine is being repaired,low income people, elderly, public schools, hospitals, etc).
The stored energy could then be used in serveral forms. It could be used to make electricity, burned for heat, and used in a future automobile. Just think, the gas station could produce its own fuel to sell!
The drawbacks to this TODAY include a lack of adequate and efficient Hydrogen creation and storage sysems. This I understand. It also adds an extra step between power creation and usage, thus makes the system inherently less efficient. However it seems to me that the necessary infrastructure to convert the DC electricity to AC use and the battery banks necessary are already an inefficient (and potentially toxic) layer which really should be replaced anyway.
But as the necessary technologies emerge (namely, Hydrogen storage), it seems to me that hydrogen can be the ideal "battery" to store energy long term and safely.
As we all know, true self sufficiency requires the overlap of different technologies. Wind, photovotaic, passive solar, wise construction, renewable (wood, corn, ethenol etc) fuels and some good old fashioned common sense all can work together to achieve a less gridded society. I believe proper use of Hydrogen can be the ideal energy storage medium when we can efficiently create and store it.
When these technologies all work together, we could see the replacement of "the" grid with smaller grids which only power small towns, single cities, or single states. Though it would cause some redundancy, it would prevent the multi-national blackouts we have seen recently. It would also cause each area to accept more responsibility for the power it uses.
Sure, there are some problems to overcome and some logical holes in my theories. Real inventors will work them out. But for the long term, we have to look not only to efficient enery generation, but also efficient energy storage. For this, I believe Hydrogen presents the greatest potential.
Thank you for reading. Jerry Palmer jaqcp@mail.com
Content of Corn Combustion - Hydrogen/Carbon, Sugars/Starches
Corn stove free American enterprise rises to solve the energy crisis. Early 1990 experiences perfected over time make heating home an affordable, safe, healthy, comfortable, exercise intensive option. Not for the lazy, corn stoves are for hardy survivors.
For biomass energy sources, the ignition temperature varies with pressure, available oxygen, size of fuel particle, moisture content, catalyst, etc. Without further knowledge of your project or the intented use perhaps the following information will be useful.
At ambient pressure of 14.696 psia the minimum explosible concentration of dried biosolids from Hyperion with 0% moisture is 150 - 320 gm/m(3). Corn starch and coal dust ignite at approximately 50 gm/m(3). The minimum ignition temperature for Hyperion dried biosolids is 355 degrees C or 671 deg F and the minimum oxygen concentration for combustion of a dust cloud varies from 15 to 16% by volume.
Corn content is 34% Hydrogen producing a blue flame and over 60% carbon producing a yellow flame. Correct fuel air mixture produces a virtually invisible flame. Corn combustion is chemically described as Cn + H 2n+2
Welcome to amaizablaze corn stoves. Also please visit: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift" target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift</a> www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves www.msnusers.com/cornstoves www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace www.msnusers.com/clift www.cornstoves.info
I would first like to compliment the magazine for publicizing the energy issue. I, for one, think that that we (country and world) needs to be devoted to finding new forms of energy and energy production. Just as important is finding new ways to reduce energy consumption and the polution caused by energy production and usage. This is a critical issue in my view. I do believe that the scarcity of some forms of energy, like petroleum, and the shortage of electricity production will drive the ecconomic engine to develop clean, ecconomical alternatives.
I do have one issue with tha article relating to the usage of the hole. The hole (short form of electron hole) is not a particle as the article implies. It is a term and analysis tool to describe the valence band of an atom with one or more missing electrons which would normally be present. The hole concept is used in describing the movement of electrons in semiconductors and some chemical processes.
With semiconductors, like photovotaic cells, different semi-conductive materials are doped to produce one with extra electrons and a second with an absence of some of the normally present electrons. This difference makes it possible for the electron to jump the physical barrier (junction) between the two materials, producing an electrial current. To make the jump, the electron needs to be encouraged by the application of energy. In photovotaic cells this energy is light or (photons). Other forms of energy can produce the same effect like electricity or temperature.
The use of hole in the article is not wholly incorrect but I think its use here is misleading. The only thing worse than total ignorance is the incorrect use of terms. While the author may have understood most of the dynamics, I hate to see terms like hole (which is reasonably complicated) get picked up and misused by others who will not understand its true meaning and application. Barring a more complete explanation of 'hole', the process of photons producing current in semiconductor materials could have been explained more simply.
I would first like to compliment the magazine for publicizing the energy issue. I, for one, think that that we (country and world) needs to be devoted to finding new forms of energy and energy production. Just as important is finding new ways to reduce energy consumption and the polution caused by energy production and usage. This is a critical issue in my view. I do believe that the scarcity of some forms of energy, like petroleum, and the shortage of electricity production will drive the ecconomic engine to develop clean, ecconomical alternatives.
I do have one issue with tha article relating to the usage of the hole. The hole (short form of electron hole) is not a particle as the article implies. It is a term and analysis tool to describe the valence band of an atom with one or more missing electrons which would normally be present. The hole concept is used in describing the movement of electrons in semiconductors and some chemical processes.
With semiconductors, like photovotaic cells, different semi-conductive materials are doped to produce one with extra electrons and a second with an absence of some of the normally present electrons. This difference makes it possible for the electron to jump the physical barrier (junction) between the two materials, producing an electrial current. To make the jump, the electron needs to be encouraged by the application of energy. In photovotaic cells this energy is light or (photons). Other forms of energy can produce the same effect like electricity or temperature.
The use of hole in the article is not wholly incorrect but I think its use here is misleading. The only thing worse than total ignorance is the incorrect use of terms. While the author may have understood most of the dynamics, I hate to see terms like hole (which is reasonably complicated) get picked up and misused by others who will not understand its true meaning and application. Barring a more complete explanation of 'hole', the process of photons producing current in semiconductor materials could have been explained more simply.
GEET technology, 50%gas50%water engine modification
www.geet.com
Paul Pantone has developed a system that Cracks the fuel down no matter the fuel or additives gasoline diesel old oil or even crude oil.. His invention called A GEET Global Environmental Energies Technology He was awarded a Patent last Aug 19 1998 5,794,601 but could not get any in of the major media to tell the world
The GEET Fuel Processor is a self-inducing Plasma generator.
The first working prototype was developed long before the technical analysis was attempted. Plasma research is a fairly new field of acceptable science. At this time most printed text is from foreign Countries, and a majority from Russia.
The technology used in the GEET Fuel Processor is a combination of the most basic scientific principles, most of which falls within the normal rules and of thermodynamics. But some of the 70 simultaneous phenomenon are not found in those books, since it is the combination of events, which is the body of this discovery. Put quite simply, the exhaust heat is transferred to the incoming fuel vapor, which must be maintained in a vacuum, and the overall configuration provides a molecular breakdown within the vacuum of all of the heavier elements. Therefore, intensifying the vacuum, the speed of molecular breakdown or reaction is magnified, and less heat is required.
The GEET Plasma unit generates several "electrical" fields at the same time while operating, some of which are in opposite direction and all are affected by the direction of mass movement as well as by the gravitational field of our planet. During lectures from coast to coast Paul and Molley have explained that it is frequency and vibration that determines the amount of plasma or energy being developed. Reseach in private laboratories in Europe is helping to isolate some of the basic field replication of the plasma generator that the Pantones need for visible demonstrations.
Many attempts to use the external electrical mechanical devices to enhance the production of Plasma in the GEET Fuel Processor have all failed to show any promise, such as the Plasmatron. This has occurred because the outside interference has opposed the "natural" order of the energy, which must be self generated to maximize the results, as well as will increase the charge-discharge at specific needs of demand of the Plasma - or GEET GAS. It should also be noted that using outside non-natural heating diminishes the fields which are normally self generated.
The specific movement of vapor within the GEET Fuel Processor is "focused" to exact flow direction and velocity being self created thereby maximizing and intensifying the "field and enhancing the molecular, or atomic disassociation. Without all other natural elements increasing to equal proportions, one cannot expect that merely increasing the Arc-Field will be the main reason for specific success of any given substance to be broken down to it's base elements. When the ideal Plasma has been created is the time to begin increasing or decreasing all parameters involved at their respective equal or balanced increments to satisfy an increase or decrease in the Plasma flow. In doing so one can increase the Plasma flow to a viable delivery state for all commercial use demands. During tests the over-reving to engines has startled engineers and scientists from around the world, as engines are sped up to over twice the normal rpm, and slowed down to a fraction of their normal idle speed, with no noticeable vibration. Have you ever seen a 350 Chevrolet idle at 80 rpm? We have.
All of the currently studied Plasma generators, basically share a design and operational feature in that they attempt to Push the Fuel, under pressure, into a reaction, whereby a need for outside energy to force the device to function. The most unique feature of the GEET Plasma Fuel System is that by supplying the fuel into the Plasma chamber in a vacuum and through a longitudinal, natural release, causes a Radial reaction which is self induced, which creates energy as electrons are pulled into the reactin of plasma, instead of consuming energy. Thus the Plasma becomes more "homogenized" with atmospheric air, causing a well-blended fuel for final delivery.
An additional stabilizing feature within our system is the natural circulation of opposing masses as a vorticular motion within the Plasma Field, a condition as described by Molley Pantone as Thermal momentum-or Inertia. Such field is caused in part by the chamber beginning before and after the Field zone. The size of the Field zone must coincide with the fuel and parameters with specific limitations, dependent on the fuel demand. Now we should also explaain that a small unit, such as a 10 hp engine can be used as a "servant" to produce fuel to be used by an un-modified larger engine or furnace, by adapting pumps and only modifiying the air intake only. Thus a 10 hp engine could make the fuel for a locomotive.
The exact length of the Plasma chamber need be adjustable to fully accommodate rapid change of fuels when different blends are being used. This is quite simple but requires some very expensive equipment for analysis of the final exhaust for the average mechanic.
The "balance " point of a perfectly adjusted GEET Plasma reaction chamber, will give the same temperature coming out of the exhaust pipe as the ambient air, as well as the air quality should be the same or a slight increase of oxygen coming out of the tailpipe. So far the inventor has accomplished a 2% increase in oxygen coming out of an internal combustion using crude oil as fuel and a 3.5% increase using Battery acid mixed with 80% saltwater. At the higher than ambient oxygen levels you normally find ice forming on the exhaust pipes as a normal function of this phenomenon.
When the Plasma field chamber is too short or too long for the density of the fuel being used, it overheats the South end and Chills the North end of the reactor, this also causes the field to consume oxygen, instead of creating it. The direction and configuration of the heat source is critical to the proper balance of the reaction to create a Plasma. We have now learned that down is the same as South in relationship to using a compass, and therefore North is up.
Other Plasma generators, such as the copy cat from MIT, which they call the Plasmatron, uses outside applied power to create heat to run the units, but have extremely limited use and output, when compared to the GEET system. Since the power output of Plasma is constant and generates power we can only assume that it is of a DC nature and is a constant output which we have not yet attempted to harness. ( hopefully coming soon.)
There will be a large number of reports dating back to 1984 that the inventor was not ready to release until he felt the timing was right. He feels the timing is now right and these will be posted as soon as possible. If you would like to share some of your experience with the inventor contact him at info@geet.com.
He's changed addresses in Utah about 10 times in the last 5 years too. I used to live in Utah - great people but incredibly gullible - a sweet spot for scammers like this schlep to feed on:
GEET technology, 50%gas50%water engine modification
www.geet.com
Paul Pantone has developed a system that Cracks the fuel down no matter the fuel or additives gasoline diesel old oil or even crude oil.. His invention called A GEET Global Environmental Energies Technology He was awarded a Patent last Aug 19 1998 5,794,601 but could not get any in of the major media to tell the world
The GEET Fuel Processor is a self-inducing Plasma generator.
The first working prototype was developed long before the technical analysis was attempted. Plasma research is a fairly new field of acceptable science. At this time most printed text is from foreign Countries, and a majority from Russia.
The technology used in the GEET Fuel Processor is a combination of the most basic scientific principles, most of which falls within the normal rules and of thermodynamics. But some of the 70 simultaneous phenomenon are not found in those books, since it is the combination of events, which is the body of this discovery. Put quite simply, the exhaust heat is transferred to the incoming fuel vapor, which must be maintained in a vacuum, and the overall configuration provides a molecular breakdown within the vacuum of all of the heavier elements. Therefore, intensifying the vacuum, the speed of molecular breakdown or reaction is magnified, and less heat is required.
The GEET Plasma unit generates several "electrical" fields at the same time while operating, some of which are in opposite direction and all are affected by the direction of mass movement as well as by the gravitational field of our planet. During lectures from coast to coast Paul and Molley have explained that it is frequency and vibration that determines the amount of plasma or energy being developed. Reseach in private laboratories in Europe is helping to isolate some of the basic field replication of the plasma generator that the Pantones need for visible demonstrations.
Many attempts to use the external electrical mechanical devices to enhance the production of Plasma in the GEET Fuel Processor have all failed to show any promise, such as the Plasmatron. This has occurred because the outside interference has opposed the "natural" order of the energy, which must be self generated to maximize the results, as well as will increase the charge-discharge at specific needs of demand of the Plasma - or GEET GAS. It should also be noted that using outside non-natural heating diminishes the fields which are normally self generated.
The specific movement of vapor within the GEET Fuel Processor is "focused" to exact flow direction and velocity being self created thereby maximizing and intensifying the "field and enhancing the molecular, or atomic disassociation. Without all other natural elements increasing to equal proportions, one cannot expect that merely increasing the Arc-Field will be the main reason for specific success of any given substance to be broken down to it's base elements. When the ideal Plasma has been created is the time to begin increasing or decreasing all parameters involved at their respective equal or balanced increments to satisfy an increase or decrease in the Plasma flow. In doing so one can increase the Plasma flow to a viable delivery state for all commercial use demands. During tests the over-reving to engines has startled engineers and scientists from around the world, as engines are sped up to over twice the normal rpm, and slowed down to a fraction of their normal idle speed, with no noticeable vibration. Have you ever seen a 350 Chevrolet idle at 80 rpm? We have.
All of the currently studied Plasma generators, basically share a design and operational feature in that they attempt to Push the Fuel, under pressure, into a reaction, whereby a need for outside energy to force the device to function. The most unique feature of the GEET Plasma Fuel System is that by supplying the fuel into the Plasma chamber in a vacuum and through a longitudinal, natural release, causes a Radial reaction which is self induced, which creates energy as electrons are pulled into the reactin of plasma, instead of consuming energy. Thus the Plasma becomes more "homogenized" with atmospheric air, causing a well-blended fuel for final delivery.
An additional stabilizing feature within our system is the natural circulation of opposing masses as a vorticular motion within the Plasma Field, a condition as described by Molley Pantone as Thermal momentum-or Inertia. Such field is caused in part by the chamber beginning before and after the Field zone. The size of the Field zone must coincide with the fuel and parameters with specific limitations, dependent on the fuel demand. Now we should also explaain that a small unit, such as a 10 hp engine can be used as a "servant" to produce fuel to be used by an un-modified larger engine or furnace, by adapting pumps and only modifiying the air intake only. Thus a 10 hp engine could make the fuel for a locomotive.
The exact length of the Plasma chamber need be adjustable to fully accommodate rapid change of fuels when different blends are being used. This is quite simple but requires some very expensive equipment for analysis of the final exhaust for the average mechanic.
The "balance " point of a perfectly adjusted GEET Plasma reaction chamber, will give the same temperature coming out of the exhaust pipe as the ambient air, as well as the air quality should be the same or a slight increase of oxygen coming out of the tailpipe. So far the inventor has accomplished a 2% increase in oxygen coming out of an internal combustion using crude oil as fuel and a 3.5% increase using Battery acid mixed with 80% saltwater. At the higher than ambient oxygen levels you normally find ice forming on the exhaust pipes as a normal function of this phenomenon.
When the Plasma field chamber is too short or too long for the density of the fuel being used, it overheats the South end and Chills the North end of the reactor, this also causes the field to consume oxygen, instead of creating it. The direction and configuration of the heat source is critical to the proper balance of the reaction to create a Plasma. We have now learned that down is the same as South in relationship to using a compass, and therefore North is up.
Other Plasma generators, such as the copy cat from MIT, which they call the Plasmatron, uses outside applied power to create heat to run the units, but have extremely limited use and output, when compared to the GEET system. Since the power output of Plasma is constant and generates power we can only assume that it is of a DC nature and is a constant output which we have not yet attempted to harness. ( hopefully coming soon.)
There will be a large number of reports dating back to 1984 that the inventor was not ready to release until he felt the timing was right. He feels the timing is now right and these will be posted as soon as possible. If you would like to share some of your experience with the inventor contact him at info@geet.com.
He's changed addresses in Utah about 10 times in the last 5 years too. I used to live in Utah - great people but incredibly gullible - a sweet spot for scammers like this schlep to feed on:
"With a subsidy, the overall cost of solar-generated electricity can drop to 25 cents per kilowatt hour or less."
Wow. No, actually, even with the subsidy, the overall cost does not change. The cost is simply redistributed broadly to taxpayers, etc. In fact, the subsidy will likely increase activity due to a perceived decrease in cost to the end-consumer (and certainly to the author), resulting in greater overall costs than before the subsidy, had the market been allowed to work freely.
Whether subsidies are a proper way to generate consumer interest in alternative energy sources is up for debate, and a good one could be had. The belief that overall somehow costs magically decrease in the face of a subsidy is erroneous and sadly typical of many of the articles that describe alternative energy.
Global subsidies for fossil fuels amount to over $235bn dollars per year. And this doesn't even taken into account the cost of the military (security cost to secure supplies of oil/gas)
Imagine if this was spent on alternative energy production & research instead.
"With a subsidy, the overall cost of solar-generated electricity can drop to 25 cents per kilowatt hour or less."
Wow. No, actually, even with the subsidy, the overall cost does not change. The cost is simply redistributed broadly to taxpayers, etc. In fact, the subsidy will likely increase activity due to a perceived decrease in cost to the end-consumer (and certainly to the author), resulting in greater overall costs than before the subsidy, had the market been allowed to work freely.
Whether subsidies are a proper way to generate consumer interest in alternative energy sources is up for debate, and a good one could be had. The belief that overall somehow costs magically decrease in the face of a subsidy is erroneous and sadly typical of many of the articles that describe alternative energy.
Global subsidies for fossil fuels amount to over $235bn dollars per year. And this doesn't even taken into account the cost of the military (security cost to secure supplies of oil/gas)
Imagine if this was spent on alternative energy production & research instead.
Michael, Our company and installers are putting Photovoltaic Systems in for $6.00/Watt or less. Without any State subsidies this amounts to $0.18 to $0.12 per generated kWh! Most costs are lower depending on additional State or Utility subsidies. You are invited to contact me for current information, I've been in the renewables business since 1975. Lane S. Garrett, P.E., C.E.M. Lane@ETAEngineering.com WWW.ETAEngineering,com
Michael, Our company and installers are putting Photovoltaic Systems in for $6.00/Watt or less. Without any State subsidies this amounts to $0.18 to $0.12 per generated kWh! Most costs are lower depending on additional State or Utility subsidies. You are invited to contact me for current information, I've been in the renewables business since 1975. Lane S. Garrett, P.E., C.E.M. Lane@ETAEngineering.com WWW.ETAEngineering,com
Electricity prize in the Netherlands $0.225 For every production doubling gives a prize reduction of 20%, so after two doublings it is cheaper to have a private PV installation, this means that with 4 GW production the marked goes crazy because 4 GW production can supply the energy of 200.000 homes the Netherlands counts 6.000.000 houses so the market is very big. Dont forget that the energy prize will rise every year by aprox 5%
Production Module Year capacity Prize / W KWh prize 2004 1 GW $6.25 $0.344 &. 2 GW $5.00 $0.275 &. 4 GW $4.00 $0.220
With $0.15 kWh electricity prize in the USA it is a long way to have a PV installation. But for the Netherlands and Europe and Japan it is very attractive to have a PV installation. To reach this point it takes about $2 billion of subsidies, for Europe, USA and Japan it is nothing, a give a way!!. To have stable energy prizes
Electricity prize in the Netherlands $0.225 For every production doubling gives a prize reduction of 20%, so after two doublings it is cheaper to have a private PV installation, this means that with 4 GW production the marked goes crazy because 4 GW production can supply the energy of 200.000 homes the Netherlands counts 6.000.000 houses so the market is very big. Dont forget that the energy prize will rise every year by aprox 5%
Production Module Year capacity Prize / W KWh prize 2004 1 GW $6.25 $0.344 &. 2 GW $5.00 $0.275 &. 4 GW $4.00 $0.220
With $0.15 kWh electricity prize in the USA it is a long way to have a PV installation. But for the Netherlands and Europe and Japan it is very attractive to have a PV installation. To reach this point it takes about $2 billion of subsidies, for Europe, USA and Japan it is nothing, a give a way!!. To have stable energy prizes
When the energy crisis hit Calif not long ago a friend of mine said it was just market forces at work. When I told him it was really criminals at work he told me to calm down. (I was not foaming at the mouth but I was upset a little) I knew from long experance how this kind of rigging was done and most people were unsuspecting. Much has been revieled since then but still most people are unsuspecting. This subject is way too important for so many people to be in the dark about. It only looks like market forces are at work on the surface. The only technology that will go forward on a significant scale will involve hydorcarbons and the OIL INDUSTRY period, end of story
When the energy crisis hit Calif not long ago a friend of mine said it was just market forces at work. When I told him it was really criminals at work he told me to calm down. (I was not foaming at the mouth but I was upset a little) I knew from long experance how this kind of rigging was done and most people were unsuspecting. Much has been revieled since then but still most people are unsuspecting. This subject is way too important for so many people to be in the dark about. It only looks like market forces are at work on the surface. The only technology that will go forward on a significant scale will involve hydorcarbons and the OIL INDUSTRY period, end of story
While I am as excited about the promise of inexpensive thin-film PV technology, the reality of the situation is that until their efficiency goes beyond 10% (most are under 8% and some only at 4%) they will not be economically viable for reasons that we discuss in an interview that I did with one of America's pioneering PV manufacturers, Bill Yerkes.
Bill's view is the economic threshold of PV cells is 10%, which takes into account the cost of the necessary protective surface and mounting structures. There is also the question of the durability of thin-film surfaces. Silicon cells will have lifetime durability of 30 years or much longer, he contends.
The interview, which is available at this time only to our paid subscribers can be found at:
While I am as excited about the promise of inexpensive thin-film PV technology, the reality of the situation is that until their efficiency goes beyond 10% (most are under 8% and some only at 4%) they will not be economically viable for reasons that we discuss in an interview that I did with one of America's pioneering PV manufacturers, Bill Yerkes.
Bill's view is the economic threshold of PV cells is 10%, which takes into account the cost of the necessary protective surface and mounting structures. There is also the question of the durability of thin-film surfaces. Silicon cells will have lifetime durability of 30 years or much longer, he contends.
The interview, which is available at this time only to our paid subscribers can be found at:
We are developed a new line of wind turbines, that harness 5 times the power for the same diameter such a cutting edge company. please visit <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a> What you see there is the tip of the iceberg. We are funded by the California Energy Commission. This is the future of wind energy. -Doug Selsam <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a>
We are developed a new line of wind turbines, that harness 5 times the power for the same diameter such a cutting edge company. please visit <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a> What you see there is the tip of the iceberg. We are funded by the California Energy Commission. This is the future of wind energy. -Doug Selsam <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a>
400watt generator needed for corn stove. Solar/wind/renewable reliable continuous power heats largest homes with whole kernel shelled corn. Annual fuel cost equals present monthly cost. SOURCE FOR A COST EFFECTIVE 400 WATT ELECTRIC GENERATOR POWERED BY SOLAR, WIND, RENEWABLE, OR HYDRO IS NEEDED to power the corn stoves. See www.msnusers.com/clift or www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves or contact haclift@yahoo.com. TIA
400watt generator needed for corn stove. Solar/wind/renewable reliable continuous power heats largest homes with whole kernel shelled corn. Annual fuel cost equals present monthly cost. SOURCE FOR A COST EFFECTIVE 400 WATT ELECTRIC GENERATOR POWERED BY SOLAR, WIND, RENEWABLE, OR HYDRO IS NEEDED to power the corn stoves. See www.msnusers.com/clift or www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves or contact haclift@yahoo.com. TIA
Local corn fuel for Amaizablaze corn stoves cost less than in 1817. Whole kernel shelled Corn fuel energy cost less than any conventional fuel, needs no processing, and can be convenient as other fuels. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift" target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift</a> graphs energy cost comparison for 200 years. Corn cost less. Corn ethanol 90/10 for gasoline engines and soy bean methanol 80/20 for diesel engines is clean, environmental friendly, reduces global warming. Local grown corn and soy beans helps local farmers. Run the corn stove on the car battery with a 400 watt inverter. Expect about 100 watts continuous to power the Amaizablaze corn stove fans and auger. www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace
Local corn fuel for Amaizablaze corn stoves cost less than in 1817. Whole kernel shelled Corn fuel energy cost less than any conventional fuel, needs no processing, and can be convenient as other fuels. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift" target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift</a> graphs energy cost comparison for 200 years. Corn cost less. Corn ethanol 90/10 for gasoline engines and soy bean methanol 80/20 for diesel engines is clean, environmental friendly, reduces global warming. Local grown corn and soy beans helps local farmers. Run the corn stove on the car battery with a 400 watt inverter. Expect about 100 watts continuous to power the Amaizablaze corn stove fans and auger. www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace
Local renewable corn ethanol runs just fine in a gasoline engine. Local grown soybean methanol runs better than diesel in a diesel engine. Local renewable whole kernel shelled corn heats homes for less than two months electric bill and runs on less than 100 watts. Auto alternators generate up to 4800 watts and will run a corn stove 24 hours on a 30 minute battery charge. With a good battery run the auto 5 minutes four times a day to keep the corn stove running 24/7 during a blackout or off grid. Solar panels, tractor generators, or a 5 hp generator run off the lawn mower can run the corn stove 24/7 at less cost with the power off. A heat pump cost more to run off the local utility than corn heat supplied by the local corn farm. Every community in America is home to one or more of the 1.9 million local farmers. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift," target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift,</a> www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves, www.cornstoves.info, www.amaizablaze.com
Local renewable corn ethanol runs just fine in a gasoline engine. Local grown soybean methanol runs better than diesel in a diesel engine. Local renewable whole kernel shelled corn heats homes for less than two months electric bill and runs on less than 100 watts. Auto alternators generate up to 4800 watts and will run a corn stove 24 hours on a 30 minute battery charge. With a good battery run the auto 5 minutes four times a day to keep the corn stove running 24/7 during a blackout or off grid. Solar panels, tractor generators, or a 5 hp generator run off the lawn mower can run the corn stove 24/7 at less cost with the power off. A heat pump cost more to run off the local utility than corn heat supplied by the local corn farm. Every community in America is home to one or more of the 1.9 million local farmers. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift," target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift,</a> www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves, www.cornstoves.info, www.amaizablaze.com
The previous comment is not correct. Use of biomass means all cellulose based plant matter, and not corn starch. You canot use starch/sugar/yeast based ethanol to run the economy. As you know about 15% of corn biomass is starch. 85% is cellulose. Bark, leaves, straw, stems, wood chips etc are all biomass suitable for conversion to sugars and to alcohols. The driving force for this is the fact that oil is running out and we must do it or walk. It also means no use of yeast, the cellulose it split into sugars by tethered enzymes that have been tailored for high efficiency as well as high temperature. The sugar is then oxidize to alcohols via similar tethered enzymes.
Manage updates with the Download App
Wind power is dismissed as "a European phenomenon". Unlike solar power, wind power is a cheap proven technology. For example electricity generated using wind power is actually cheaper than electricity made using pollution causing sources such as coal.
I think research into solar power is great. If solar cells and be cheaply integrated into all new roofing tiles that would be fantastic and I also think we should be using the best available proven renewable technologies such as wind power NOW.
Many Western countries are going to be facing an energy crisis within years and at most decades. We need a removal of subsidies for non-renewable polluting energy sources such as oil and coal and a massive investment in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Hydrogen is incorrectly listed along side other energy sources. Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy just like electricity. If we were to power all of today's cars using hydrogen made with electricity we would need to generate 4 times more electricity. Even without switching from oil as a source of power for our cars ExxonMobil's website reports that we will need 40% more energy worldwide by 2020.
As oil and gas are running out (in terms of economically and energy positive recoverable reserves) as pointed out in the article (see www.peakoil.net) we need a modern space race as
mentioned by Intel's Chief Executive.
Apollo2 should be a race to replace oil&gas with renewable energy sources.
The major reason the wind farms buildt in Cal in the 80's failed was because of the costs associated with the unreliable nature of the generators. Today's wind generators are rated for 90% reliabity and have a thirty year life span. The generators at the Lake Benton Minn. facility are pushing 97% reliabilty.
Yes, I realize that winds are intermittent. We will always need coal fired/natural gas power plants. That however is not the thrust of my argument. I'm in the camp of 'get started now'. Use the wind generated electricity to produce Hydrogen. Then we can do anything we want with it. I would like to see it used to be burned in ICE's to replace , in part, gasoline. Sure fuel cells will be better, when they get here. But we can use hydrogen in ICE's NOW, we don't have to wait. And we don't have to reinvent the wheel. ALL the needed tech is here NOW. Why wait? Yes, there are regulatory and logistic hurdles to overcome. But I beleive that they are a lessor problem than those associated with fuel cells. (manufacturing and cost) Certainly wind farms are less objectionable than those associated with oil. (pollution, dwindling supply, terrorist funding, middle east unrest, soldiers dying in the oil patch where we are not wanted anyway.)
To those who object to a windmill "spoiling" the view, I say, Which is worse? A windmill? Or a flag draped coffin? To lessen the impact of the windmills upon the 'senery' put the windmills where the people aren't. The Dakota's alone could produce 50+ % of the energy needed. And there is wide acceptance of the technology (windmills) by the people who do live there.
At some point, the storage issue can be rectified. At that point, Hydrogen can become the sleeper fuel we have been waiting for.
Though both solar and wind power are becoming increasing efficient, they still are both useless on cloudy calm days. Their strength is in their ability to create 120%+ of my necessary energy so that the extra can be stored for cloudy calm days. Present technology stores the energy in lead-acid battery banks complete with inverter systems and monitors which are expensive and require electrical genius (more than the average Joe)to properly and intelligently maintain. Then, the environmental impact of the lead which will eventually have to be disposed of (I would that batteries were 100% properly recycled!). We need a BETTER ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THAN LEAD- ACID! Hence, Hydrogen!
Instead of the wind and solar power charging toxic, expensive battery packs which have to be replaced regularly (every 7-15 years) or which can be destroyed by overcharging if the inversion equipment fails, store the energy by creating and storing Hydrogen! If the Hydrogen storage system is full, the electricity generation could simply be switched off, or the excess hydrogen could be piped to a communal system that others could draw from (such as the neighbor whose turbine is being repaired,low income people, elderly, public schools, hospitals, etc).
The stored energy could then be used in serveral forms. It could be used to make electricity, burned for heat, and used in a future automobile. Just think, the gas station could produce its own fuel to sell!
The drawbacks to this TODAY include a lack of adequate and efficient Hydrogen creation and storage sysems. This I understand. It also adds an extra step between power creation and usage, thus makes the system inherently less efficient. However it seems to me that the necessary infrastructure to convert the DC electricity to AC use and the battery banks necessary are already an inefficient (and potentially toxic) layer which really should be replaced anyway.
But as the necessary technologies emerge (namely, Hydrogen storage), it seems to me that hydrogen can be the ideal "battery" to store energy long term and safely.
As we all know, true self sufficiency requires the overlap of different technologies. Wind, photovotaic, passive solar, wise construction, renewable (wood, corn, ethenol etc) fuels and some good old fashioned common sense all can work together to achieve a less gridded society. I believe proper use of Hydrogen can be the ideal energy storage medium when we can efficiently create and store it.
When these technologies all work together, we could see the replacement of "the" grid with smaller grids which only power small towns, single cities, or single states. Though it would cause some redundancy, it would prevent the multi-national blackouts we have seen recently. It would also cause each area to accept more responsibility for the power it uses.
Sure, there are some problems to overcome and some logical holes in my theories. Real inventors will work them out. But for the long term, we have to look not only to efficient enery generation, but also efficient energy storage. For this, I believe Hydrogen presents the greatest potential.
Thank you for reading.
Jerry Palmer
jaqcp@mail.com
For biomass energy sources, the ignition temperature varies with pressure, available oxygen, size of fuel particle, moisture content, catalyst, etc. Without further knowledge of your project or the intented use perhaps the following information will be useful.
At ambient pressure of 14.696 psia the minimum explosible concentration of dried biosolids from Hyperion with 0% moisture is 150 - 320 gm/m(3). Corn starch and coal dust ignite at approximately 50 gm/m(3). The minimum ignition temperature for Hyperion dried biosolids is 355 degrees C or 671 deg F and the minimum oxygen concentration for combustion of a dust cloud varies from 15 to 16% by volume.
Corn content is 34% Hydrogen producing a blue flame and over 60% carbon producing a yellow flame. Correct fuel air mixture produces a virtually invisible flame. Corn combustion is chemically described as Cn + H 2n+2
Welcome to amaizablaze corn stoves. Also please visit:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift" target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift</a>
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves
www.msnusers.com/cornstoves
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace
www.msnusers.com/clift
www.cornstoves.info
Wind power is dismissed as "a European phenomenon". Unlike solar power, wind power is a cheap proven technology. For example electricity generated using wind power is actually cheaper than electricity made using pollution causing sources such as coal.
I think research into solar power is great. If solar cells and be cheaply integrated into all new roofing tiles that would be fantastic and I also think we should be using the best available proven renewable technologies such as wind power NOW.
Many Western countries are going to be facing an energy crisis within years and at most decades. We need a removal of subsidies for non-renewable polluting energy sources such as oil and coal and a massive investment in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Hydrogen is incorrectly listed along side other energy sources. Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy just like electricity. If we were to power all of today's cars using hydrogen made with electricity we would need to generate 4 times more electricity. Even without switching from oil as a source of power for our cars ExxonMobil's website reports that we will need 40% more energy worldwide by 2020.
As oil and gas are running out (in terms of economically and energy positive recoverable reserves) as pointed out in the article (see www.peakoil.net) we need a modern space race as
mentioned by Intel's Chief Executive.
Apollo2 should be a race to replace oil&gas with renewable energy sources.
The major reason the wind farms buildt in Cal in the 80's failed was because of the costs associated with the unreliable nature of the generators. Today's wind generators are rated for 90% reliabity and have a thirty year life span. The generators at the Lake Benton Minn. facility are pushing 97% reliabilty.
Yes, I realize that winds are intermittent. We will always need coal fired/natural gas power plants. That however is not the thrust of my argument. I'm in the camp of 'get started now'. Use the wind generated electricity to produce Hydrogen. Then we can do anything we want with it. I would like to see it used to be burned in ICE's to replace , in part, gasoline. Sure fuel cells will be better, when they get here. But we can use hydrogen in ICE's NOW, we don't have to wait. And we don't have to reinvent the wheel. ALL the needed tech is here NOW. Why wait? Yes, there are regulatory and logistic hurdles to overcome. But I beleive that they are a lessor problem than those associated with fuel cells. (manufacturing and cost) Certainly wind farms are less objectionable than those associated with oil. (pollution, dwindling supply, terrorist funding, middle east unrest, soldiers dying in the oil patch where we are not wanted anyway.)
To those who object to a windmill "spoiling" the view, I say, Which is worse? A windmill? Or a flag draped coffin? To lessen the impact of the windmills upon the 'senery' put the windmills where the people aren't. The Dakota's alone could produce 50+ % of the energy needed. And there is wide acceptance of the technology (windmills) by the people who do live there.
At some point, the storage issue can be rectified. At that point, Hydrogen can become the sleeper fuel we have been waiting for.
Though both solar and wind power are becoming increasing efficient, they still are both useless on cloudy calm days. Their strength is in their ability to create 120%+ of my necessary energy so that the extra can be stored for cloudy calm days. Present technology stores the energy in lead-acid battery banks complete with inverter systems and monitors which are expensive and require electrical genius (more than the average Joe)to properly and intelligently maintain. Then, the environmental impact of the lead which will eventually have to be disposed of (I would that batteries were 100% properly recycled!). We need a BETTER ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THAN LEAD- ACID! Hence, Hydrogen!
Instead of the wind and solar power charging toxic, expensive battery packs which have to be replaced regularly (every 7-15 years) or which can be destroyed by overcharging if the inversion equipment fails, store the energy by creating and storing Hydrogen! If the Hydrogen storage system is full, the electricity generation could simply be switched off, or the excess hydrogen could be piped to a communal system that others could draw from (such as the neighbor whose turbine is being repaired,low income people, elderly, public schools, hospitals, etc).
The stored energy could then be used in serveral forms. It could be used to make electricity, burned for heat, and used in a future automobile. Just think, the gas station could produce its own fuel to sell!
The drawbacks to this TODAY include a lack of adequate and efficient Hydrogen creation and storage sysems. This I understand. It also adds an extra step between power creation and usage, thus makes the system inherently less efficient. However it seems to me that the necessary infrastructure to convert the DC electricity to AC use and the battery banks necessary are already an inefficient (and potentially toxic) layer which really should be replaced anyway.
But as the necessary technologies emerge (namely, Hydrogen storage), it seems to me that hydrogen can be the ideal "battery" to store energy long term and safely.
As we all know, true self sufficiency requires the overlap of different technologies. Wind, photovotaic, passive solar, wise construction, renewable (wood, corn, ethenol etc) fuels and some good old fashioned common sense all can work together to achieve a less gridded society. I believe proper use of Hydrogen can be the ideal energy storage medium when we can efficiently create and store it.
When these technologies all work together, we could see the replacement of "the" grid with smaller grids which only power small towns, single cities, or single states. Though it would cause some redundancy, it would prevent the multi-national blackouts we have seen recently. It would also cause each area to accept more responsibility for the power it uses.
Sure, there are some problems to overcome and some logical holes in my theories. Real inventors will work them out. But for the long term, we have to look not only to efficient enery generation, but also efficient energy storage. For this, I believe Hydrogen presents the greatest potential.
Thank you for reading.
Jerry Palmer
jaqcp@mail.com
For biomass energy sources, the ignition temperature varies with pressure, available oxygen, size of fuel particle, moisture content, catalyst, etc. Without further knowledge of your project or the intented use perhaps the following information will be useful.
At ambient pressure of 14.696 psia the minimum explosible concentration of dried biosolids from Hyperion with 0% moisture is 150 - 320 gm/m(3). Corn starch and coal dust ignite at approximately 50 gm/m(3). The minimum ignition temperature for Hyperion dried biosolids is 355 degrees C or 671 deg F and the minimum oxygen concentration for combustion of a dust cloud varies from 15 to 16% by volume.
Corn content is 34% Hydrogen producing a blue flame and over 60% carbon producing a yellow flame. Correct fuel air mixture produces a virtually invisible flame. Corn combustion is chemically described as Cn + H 2n+2
Welcome to amaizablaze corn stoves. Also please visit:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://webpages.charter.net/clift" target="_newWindow">http://webpages.charter.net/clift</a>
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves
www.msnusers.com/cornstoves
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace
www.msnusers.com/clift
www.cornstoves.info
I do have one issue with tha article relating to the usage of the hole. The hole (short form of electron hole) is not a particle as the article implies. It is a term and analysis tool to describe the valence band of an atom with one or more missing electrons which would normally be present. The hole concept is used in describing the movement of electrons in semiconductors and some chemical processes.
With semiconductors, like photovotaic cells, different semi-conductive materials are doped to produce one with extra electrons and a second with an absence of some of the normally present electrons. This difference makes it possible for the electron to jump the physical barrier (junction) between the two materials, producing an electrial current. To make the jump, the electron needs to be encouraged by the application of energy. In photovotaic cells this energy is light or (photons). Other forms of energy can produce the same effect like electricity or temperature.
The use of hole in the article is not wholly incorrect but I think its use here is misleading. The only thing worse than total ignorance is the incorrect use of terms. While the author may have understood most of the dynamics, I hate to see terms like hole (which is reasonably complicated) get picked up and misused by others who will not understand its true meaning and application. Barring a more complete explanation of 'hole', the process of photons producing current in semiconductor materials could have been explained more simply.
I do have one issue with tha article relating to the usage of the hole. The hole (short form of electron hole) is not a particle as the article implies. It is a term and analysis tool to describe the valence band of an atom with one or more missing electrons which would normally be present. The hole concept is used in describing the movement of electrons in semiconductors and some chemical processes.
With semiconductors, like photovotaic cells, different semi-conductive materials are doped to produce one with extra electrons and a second with an absence of some of the normally present electrons. This difference makes it possible for the electron to jump the physical barrier (junction) between the two materials, producing an electrial current. To make the jump, the electron needs to be encouraged by the application of energy. In photovotaic cells this energy is light or (photons). Other forms of energy can produce the same effect like electricity or temperature.
The use of hole in the article is not wholly incorrect but I think its use here is misleading. The only thing worse than total ignorance is the incorrect use of terms. While the author may have understood most of the dynamics, I hate to see terms like hole (which is reasonably complicated) get picked up and misused by others who will not understand its true meaning and application. Barring a more complete explanation of 'hole', the process of photons producing current in semiconductor materials could have been explained more simply.
Paul Pantone has developed a system that Cracks the fuel down no matter the fuel or additives gasoline diesel old oil or even crude oil.. His invention called A GEET Global Environmental Energies Technology
He was awarded a Patent last Aug 19 1998 5,794,601 but could not get any in of the major media to tell the world
The GEET Fuel Processor is a self-inducing Plasma generator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first working prototype was developed long before the technical analysis was attempted. Plasma research is a fairly new field of acceptable science. At this time most printed text is from foreign Countries, and a majority from Russia.
The technology used in the GEET Fuel Processor is a combination of the most basic scientific principles, most of which falls within the normal rules and of thermodynamics. But some of the 70 simultaneous phenomenon are not found in those books, since it is the combination of events, which is the body of this discovery. Put quite simply, the exhaust heat is transferred to the incoming fuel vapor, which must be maintained in a vacuum, and the overall configuration provides a molecular breakdown within the vacuum of all of the heavier elements. Therefore, intensifying the vacuum, the speed of molecular breakdown or reaction is magnified, and less heat is required.
The GEET Plasma unit generates several "electrical" fields at the same time while operating, some of which are in opposite direction and all are affected by the direction of mass movement as well as by the gravitational field of our planet. During lectures from coast to coast Paul and Molley have explained that it is frequency and vibration that determines the amount of plasma or energy being developed. Reseach in private laboratories in Europe is helping to isolate some of the basic field replication of the plasma generator that the Pantones need for visible demonstrations.
Many attempts to use the external electrical mechanical devices to enhance the production of Plasma in the GEET Fuel Processor have all failed to show any promise, such as the Plasmatron. This has occurred because the outside interference has opposed the "natural" order of the energy, which must be self generated to maximize the results, as well as will increase the charge-discharge at specific needs of demand of the Plasma - or GEET GAS. It should also be noted that using outside non-natural heating diminishes the fields which are normally self generated.
The specific movement of vapor within the GEET Fuel Processor is "focused" to exact flow direction and velocity being self created thereby maximizing and intensifying the "field and enhancing the molecular, or atomic disassociation. Without all other natural elements increasing to equal proportions, one cannot expect that merely increasing the Arc-Field will be the main reason for specific success of any given substance to be broken down to it's base elements. When the ideal Plasma has been created is the time to begin increasing or decreasing all parameters involved at their respective equal or balanced increments to satisfy an increase or decrease in the Plasma flow. In doing so one can increase the Plasma flow to a viable delivery state for all commercial use demands. During tests the over-reving to engines has startled engineers and scientists from around the world, as engines are sped up to over twice the normal rpm, and slowed down to a fraction of their normal idle speed, with no noticeable vibration. Have you ever seen a 350 Chevrolet idle at 80 rpm? We have.
All of the currently studied Plasma generators, basically share a design and operational feature in that they attempt to Push the Fuel, under pressure, into a reaction, whereby a need for outside energy to force the device to function. The most unique feature of the GEET Plasma Fuel System is that by supplying the fuel into the Plasma chamber in a vacuum and through a longitudinal, natural release, causes a Radial reaction which is self induced, which creates energy as electrons are pulled into the reactin of plasma, instead of consuming energy. Thus the Plasma becomes more "homogenized" with atmospheric air, causing a well-blended fuel for final delivery.
An additional stabilizing feature within our system is the natural circulation of opposing masses as a vorticular motion within the Plasma Field, a condition as described by Molley Pantone as Thermal momentum-or Inertia. Such field is caused in part by the chamber beginning before and after the Field zone. The size of the Field zone must coincide with the fuel and parameters with specific limitations, dependent on the fuel demand. Now we should also explaain that a small unit, such as a 10 hp engine can be used as a "servant" to produce fuel to be used by an un-modified larger engine or furnace, by adapting pumps and only modifiying the air intake only. Thus a 10 hp engine could make the fuel for a locomotive.
The exact length of the Plasma chamber need be adjustable to fully accommodate rapid change of fuels when different blends are being used. This is quite simple but requires some very expensive equipment for analysis of the final exhaust for the average mechanic.
The "balance " point of a perfectly adjusted GEET Plasma reaction chamber, will give the same temperature coming out of the exhaust pipe as the ambient air, as well as the air quality should be the same or a slight increase of oxygen coming out of the tailpipe. So far the inventor has accomplished a 2% increase in oxygen coming out of an internal combustion using crude oil as fuel and a 3.5% increase using Battery acid mixed with 80% saltwater. At the higher than ambient oxygen levels you normally find ice forming on the exhaust pipes as a normal function of this phenomenon.
When the Plasma field chamber is too short or too long for the density of the fuel being used, it overheats the South end and Chills the North end of the reactor, this also causes the field to consume oxygen, instead of creating it. The direction and configuration of the heat source is critical to the proper balance of the reaction to create a Plasma. We have now learned that down is the same as South in relationship to using a compass, and therefore North is up.
Other Plasma generators, such as the copy cat from MIT, which they call the Plasmatron, uses outside applied power to create heat to run the units, but have extremely limited use and output, when compared to the GEET system. Since the power output of Plasma is constant and generates power we can only assume that it is of a DC nature and is a constant output which we have not yet attempted to harness. ( hopefully coming soon.)
There will be a large number of reports dating back to 1984 that the inventor was not ready to release until he felt the timing was right. He feels the timing is now right and these will be posted as soon as possible. If you would like to share some of your experience with the inventor contact him at info@geet.com.
For you,
And the World,
Paul & Molley Pantone
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.phact.org/e/z/geet.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.phact.org/e/z/geet.htm</a>
Paul Pantone has developed a system that Cracks the fuel down no matter the fuel or additives gasoline diesel old oil or even crude oil.. His invention called A GEET Global Environmental Energies Technology
He was awarded a Patent last Aug 19 1998 5,794,601 but could not get any in of the major media to tell the world
The GEET Fuel Processor is a self-inducing Plasma generator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first working prototype was developed long before the technical analysis was attempted. Plasma research is a fairly new field of acceptable science. At this time most printed text is from foreign Countries, and a majority from Russia.
The technology used in the GEET Fuel Processor is a combination of the most basic scientific principles, most of which falls within the normal rules and of thermodynamics. But some of the 70 simultaneous phenomenon are not found in those books, since it is the combination of events, which is the body of this discovery. Put quite simply, the exhaust heat is transferred to the incoming fuel vapor, which must be maintained in a vacuum, and the overall configuration provides a molecular breakdown within the vacuum of all of the heavier elements. Therefore, intensifying the vacuum, the speed of molecular breakdown or reaction is magnified, and less heat is required.
The GEET Plasma unit generates several "electrical" fields at the same time while operating, some of which are in opposite direction and all are affected by the direction of mass movement as well as by the gravitational field of our planet. During lectures from coast to coast Paul and Molley have explained that it is frequency and vibration that determines the amount of plasma or energy being developed. Reseach in private laboratories in Europe is helping to isolate some of the basic field replication of the plasma generator that the Pantones need for visible demonstrations.
Many attempts to use the external electrical mechanical devices to enhance the production of Plasma in the GEET Fuel Processor have all failed to show any promise, such as the Plasmatron. This has occurred because the outside interference has opposed the "natural" order of the energy, which must be self generated to maximize the results, as well as will increase the charge-discharge at specific needs of demand of the Plasma - or GEET GAS. It should also be noted that using outside non-natural heating diminishes the fields which are normally self generated.
The specific movement of vapor within the GEET Fuel Processor is "focused" to exact flow direction and velocity being self created thereby maximizing and intensifying the "field and enhancing the molecular, or atomic disassociation. Without all other natural elements increasing to equal proportions, one cannot expect that merely increasing the Arc-Field will be the main reason for specific success of any given substance to be broken down to it's base elements. When the ideal Plasma has been created is the time to begin increasing or decreasing all parameters involved at their respective equal or balanced increments to satisfy an increase or decrease in the Plasma flow. In doing so one can increase the Plasma flow to a viable delivery state for all commercial use demands. During tests the over-reving to engines has startled engineers and scientists from around the world, as engines are sped up to over twice the normal rpm, and slowed down to a fraction of their normal idle speed, with no noticeable vibration. Have you ever seen a 350 Chevrolet idle at 80 rpm? We have.
All of the currently studied Plasma generators, basically share a design and operational feature in that they attempt to Push the Fuel, under pressure, into a reaction, whereby a need for outside energy to force the device to function. The most unique feature of the GEET Plasma Fuel System is that by supplying the fuel into the Plasma chamber in a vacuum and through a longitudinal, natural release, causes a Radial reaction which is self induced, which creates energy as electrons are pulled into the reactin of plasma, instead of consuming energy. Thus the Plasma becomes more "homogenized" with atmospheric air, causing a well-blended fuel for final delivery.
An additional stabilizing feature within our system is the natural circulation of opposing masses as a vorticular motion within the Plasma Field, a condition as described by Molley Pantone as Thermal momentum-or Inertia. Such field is caused in part by the chamber beginning before and after the Field zone. The size of the Field zone must coincide with the fuel and parameters with specific limitations, dependent on the fuel demand. Now we should also explaain that a small unit, such as a 10 hp engine can be used as a "servant" to produce fuel to be used by an un-modified larger engine or furnace, by adapting pumps and only modifiying the air intake only. Thus a 10 hp engine could make the fuel for a locomotive.
The exact length of the Plasma chamber need be adjustable to fully accommodate rapid change of fuels when different blends are being used. This is quite simple but requires some very expensive equipment for analysis of the final exhaust for the average mechanic.
The "balance " point of a perfectly adjusted GEET Plasma reaction chamber, will give the same temperature coming out of the exhaust pipe as the ambient air, as well as the air quality should be the same or a slight increase of oxygen coming out of the tailpipe. So far the inventor has accomplished a 2% increase in oxygen coming out of an internal combustion using crude oil as fuel and a 3.5% increase using Battery acid mixed with 80% saltwater. At the higher than ambient oxygen levels you normally find ice forming on the exhaust pipes as a normal function of this phenomenon.
When the Plasma field chamber is too short or too long for the density of the fuel being used, it overheats the South end and Chills the North end of the reactor, this also causes the field to consume oxygen, instead of creating it. The direction and configuration of the heat source is critical to the proper balance of the reaction to create a Plasma. We have now learned that down is the same as South in relationship to using a compass, and therefore North is up.
Other Plasma generators, such as the copy cat from MIT, which they call the Plasmatron, uses outside applied power to create heat to run the units, but have extremely limited use and output, when compared to the GEET system. Since the power output of Plasma is constant and generates power we can only assume that it is of a DC nature and is a constant output which we have not yet attempted to harness. ( hopefully coming soon.)
There will be a large number of reports dating back to 1984 that the inventor was not ready to release until he felt the timing was right. He feels the timing is now right and these will be posted as soon as possible. If you would like to share some of your experience with the inventor contact him at info@geet.com.
For you,
And the World,
Paul & Molley Pantone
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.phact.org/e/z/geet.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.phact.org/e/z/geet.htm</a>
"With a subsidy, the overall cost of solar-generated electricity can drop to 25 cents per kilowatt hour or less."
Wow. No, actually, even with the subsidy, the overall cost does not change. The cost is simply redistributed broadly to taxpayers, etc. In fact, the subsidy will likely increase activity due to a perceived decrease in cost to the end-consumer (and certainly to the author), resulting in greater overall costs than before the subsidy, had the market been allowed to work freely.
Whether subsidies are a proper way to generate consumer interest in alternative energy sources is up for debate, and a good one could be had. The belief that overall somehow costs magically decrease in the face of a subsidy is erroneous and sadly typical of many of the articles that describe alternative energy.
Imagine if this was spent on alternative energy production & research instead.
see:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3818995.stm" target="_newWindow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3818995.stm</a>
Then there's the environmental costs of refining, transporting, then burning traditional fuel.
The biggest savings though is that wackos like Osama don't get rich off the money we pay Saudis for oil. We save our future.
Personally, I think people who drive gass guzzlers and who don't need them (ie. small families) should be taxed double for financing the enemy.
"With a subsidy, the overall cost of solar-generated electricity can drop to 25 cents per kilowatt hour or less."
Wow. No, actually, even with the subsidy, the overall cost does not change. The cost is simply redistributed broadly to taxpayers, etc. In fact, the subsidy will likely increase activity due to a perceived decrease in cost to the end-consumer (and certainly to the author), resulting in greater overall costs than before the subsidy, had the market been allowed to work freely.
Whether subsidies are a proper way to generate consumer interest in alternative energy sources is up for debate, and a good one could be had. The belief that overall somehow costs magically decrease in the face of a subsidy is erroneous and sadly typical of many of the articles that describe alternative energy.
Imagine if this was spent on alternative energy production & research instead.
see:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3818995.stm" target="_newWindow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3818995.stm</a>
Then there's the environmental costs of refining, transporting, then burning traditional fuel.
The biggest savings though is that wackos like Osama don't get rich off the money we pay Saudis for oil. We save our future.
Personally, I think people who drive gass guzzlers and who don't need them (ie. small families) should be taxed double for financing the enemy.
Lane S. Garrett, P.E., C.E.M.
Lane@ETAEngineering.com
WWW.ETAEngineering,com
Lane S. Garrett, P.E., C.E.M.
Lane@ETAEngineering.com
WWW.ETAEngineering,com
For every production doubling gives a prize reduction of 20%, so after two doublings it is cheaper to have a private PV installation, this means that with 4 GW production the marked goes crazy because 4 GW production can supply the energy of 200.000 homes the Netherlands counts 6.000.000 houses so the market is very big.
Dont forget that the energy prize will rise every year by aprox 5%
Production Module
Year capacity Prize / W KWh prize
2004 1 GW $6.25 $0.344
&. 2 GW $5.00 $0.275
&. 4 GW $4.00 $0.220
Market grow
From 1998 2002 30%
2003 35%
2004 40%
2005 &%
2006 100% ??
With $0.15 kWh electricity prize in the USA it is a long way to have a PV installation. But for the Netherlands and Europe and Japan it is very attractive to have a PV installation. To reach this point it takes about $2 billion of subsidies, for Europe, USA and Japan it is nothing, a give a way!!. To have stable energy prizes
For every production doubling gives a prize reduction of 20%, so after two doublings it is cheaper to have a private PV installation, this means that with 4 GW production the marked goes crazy because 4 GW production can supply the energy of 200.000 homes the Netherlands counts 6.000.000 houses so the market is very big.
Dont forget that the energy prize will rise every year by aprox 5%
Production Module
Year capacity Prize / W KWh prize
2004 1 GW $6.25 $0.344
&. 2 GW $5.00 $0.275
&. 4 GW $4.00 $0.220
Market grow
From 1998 2002 30%
2003 35%
2004 40%
2005 &%
2006 100% ??
With $0.15 kWh electricity prize in the USA it is a long way to have a PV installation. But for the Netherlands and Europe and Japan it is very attractive to have a PV installation. To reach this point it takes about $2 billion of subsidies, for Europe, USA and Japan it is nothing, a give a way!!. To have stable energy prizes
a friend of mine said it was just market forces
at work. When I told him it was really criminals
at work he told me to calm down. (I was not foaming at the mouth but I was upset a little)
I knew from long experance how this kind of
rigging was done and most people were unsuspecting. Much has been revieled since then
but still most people are unsuspecting. This subject is way too important for so many people
to be in the dark about. It only looks like market forces are at work on the surface.
The only technology that will go forward on a
significant scale will involve hydorcarbons and
the OIL INDUSTRY period, end of story
a friend of mine said it was just market forces
at work. When I told him it was really criminals
at work he told me to calm down. (I was not foaming at the mouth but I was upset a little)
I knew from long experance how this kind of
rigging was done and most people were unsuspecting. Much has been revieled since then
but still most people are unsuspecting. This subject is way too important for so many people
to be in the dark about. It only looks like market forces are at work on the surface.
The only technology that will go forward on a
significant scale will involve hydorcarbons and
the OIL INDUSTRY period, end of story
Bill's view is the economic threshold of PV cells is 10%, which takes into account the cost of the necessary protective surface and mounting structures. There is also the question of the durability of thin-film surfaces. Silicon cells will have lifetime durability of 30 years or much longer, he contends.
The interview, which is available at this time only to our paid subscribers can be found at:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=697" target="_newWindow">http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=697</a>
Bill Moore
Editor/Publisher
EVWORLD.COM
Bill's view is the economic threshold of PV cells is 10%, which takes into account the cost of the necessary protective surface and mounting structures. There is also the question of the durability of thin-film surfaces. Silicon cells will have lifetime durability of 30 years or much longer, he contends.
The interview, which is available at this time only to our paid subscribers can be found at:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=697" target="_newWindow">http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=697</a>
Bill Moore
Editor/Publisher
EVWORLD.COM
please visit <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a>
What you see there is the tip of the iceberg.
We are funded by the California Energy Commission.
This is the future of wind energy. -Doug Selsam
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a>
please visit <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a>
What you see there is the tip of the iceberg.
We are funded by the California Energy Commission.
This is the future of wind energy. -Doug Selsam
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.selsam.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.selsam.com</a>
TIA
TIA
Corn ethanol 90/10 for gasoline engines and soy bean methanol 80/20 for diesel engines is clean, environmental friendly, reduces global warming. Local grown corn and soy beans helps local farmers. Run the corn stove on the car battery with a 400 watt inverter. Expect about 100 watts continuous to power the Amaizablaze corn stove fans and auger. www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace
Corn ethanol 90/10 for gasoline engines and soy bean methanol 80/20 for diesel engines is clean, environmental friendly, reduces global warming. Local grown corn and soy beans helps local farmers. Run the corn stove on the car battery with a 400 watt inverter. Expect about 100 watts continuous to power the Amaizablaze corn stove fans and auger. www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace
Use of biomass means all cellulose based plant matter, and not corn starch. You canot use starch/sugar/yeast based ethanol to run the economy. As you know about 15% of corn biomass is starch. 85% is cellulose. Bark, leaves, straw, stems, wood chips etc are all biomass suitable for conversion to sugars and to alcohols.
The driving force for this is the fact that oil is running out and we must do it or walk.
It also means no use of yeast, the cellulose it split into sugars by tethered enzymes that have been tailored for high efficiency as well as high temperature. The sugar is then oxidize to alcohols via similar tethered enzymes.