ie8 fix
Energy heats up for high tech
 
Alternative energies are looking good again

By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 12, 2004 4:00AM PT

One of today's more promising growth engines could come from an industry that harks back to beanbag chairs and Jimmy Carter.

Companies promoting solar power and other alternative-energy concepts are rapidly attracting venture funding, research grants and, just as important, the interest of many of the tech industry's deep thinkers and influential figures.

"We have a huge energy issue in this century, and it will not be solved by policy. The only real solution is technology," said Jim Plummer, dean of Stanford University's School of Engineering. "The alternative is to shut down our economy."

Landfill gases

U.S. concerns about energy are probably greater today than at any time since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. The future reliability of fuel and power supplies has been increasingly clouded by such issues as rising oil prices, conflicts in the Middle East, the threat of terrorism at domestic facilities and the kind of Enron-related "rolling blackouts" that California experienced a few years ago.

Still, history shows that crisis doesn't always lead to long-term change. In 1978, after the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. Energy Department invested $250 million in photovoltaic, or solar-energy, technology. But the funding dropped to $35 million by 1983, according to Terry Peterson, a consultant with the Electric Power Research Institute.

The more immediate drivers for the interest in alternative energy today are technological improvements and declining costs--in other words, qualities that appeal to the venture capitalists of Silicon Valley and others looking for new opportunities.

Lowell, Mass.-based Konarka Technologies, for instance, has raised $32 million from, among others, ChevronTexaco, utility company Electricite de France and venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Konarka, which counts Nobel Prize winner Alan Heeger as a founder, says it will deliver solar cells made of thin layers of plastic to its customers--large manufacturers--by the end of the year.

Mark Lagod

In Silicon Valley, Nanosys of Palo Alto is working with Matsushita on sprayable solar coatings for roofs. Meanwhile, Nanostellar, which was founded by William Miller, CEO emeritus of SRI International, hopes to produce cleaner, cheaper catalytic converters. Other companies with alternative-energy ideas include Ocean Power Deliver (wave power); Clarke Energy (natural gas from landfills); and Bowman Power (microturbines).

Additionally, fuel cell and battery companies such as MTI MicroFuel Cells, PolyFuel and Solicore are finding markets for their products.

Methanol

"It does appear that there has been an increased interest in the sector over the last year," said Sean Brownlee, an executive at British venture capital firm 3i. He estimated that, worldwide, six companies received $64 million in venture capital in 1999; 22 companies received $114 million in 2001, and 26 companies received $277 million in 2003.

At Stanford's engineering school, one of three primary research areas is fossil fuel alternatives, or "clean" technology. ExxonMobil, Toyota, Schlumberger and General Electric together are expected to invest $225 million in the university's Global Climate and Energy Project.

As Plummer points out, the world's energy structure is facing huge problems. Production of easily extractable oil will likely peak--and subsequently decline--between 2016 and 2040, according to statistics compiled by National Geographic. That situation will force petroleum companies to raise prices and look for oil from unconventional sources, such as tar sands. At the same time, the environmental and health problems caused by fossil fuels are also rousing critics and adding to cleanup and insurance costs.

A modern space race
"Going to the moon was the great Sputnik challenge. Today, I think the challenges we face are a little bit different, and I would think it would have something to do with the energy environment that we have," Craig Barrett, chief executive of chipmaking giant Intel, said in a recent interview.

One of the alternative-energy areas drawing the most interest is a technology known as thin-film solar cells.

Traditional solar cells--the hardware used for solar energy in decades past--are rigid silicon chips that must be built in expensive fabrication facilities and eventually get installed in somewhat ungainly roof racks. With thin films, manufacturers use ink-jet nozzles to spray photovoltaic materials onto sheets of plastic or roof tiles in precise patterns. Not only does this cut costs, but the electricity-generating materials are unobtrusive as well.

Hydrogen

"You could even have photovoltaic paint," said Martin Lagod, a managing director at Firelake Capital, a venture firm formed in 2002 that specializes in energy. "The biggest opportunity over the next five to seven years and beyond is in energy and materials."

Government subsidies are also encouraging development of energy technologies. Japan, Germany and California have been the three largest solar markets to date because of subsidies that rebate about half of the cost of a solar installation. Even individual households that use solar technology can sell excess electricity back to their utilities for higher-than-market prices.

Similar programs have since been implemented in Illinois, New Jersey and New York, as well as in Italy, Luxembourg and Spain, among other areas, said Subhendu Guha, president of United Solar Ovonic, a Michigan-based specialist in thin-film solar technology.

Without subsidies, electricity from a solar installation can cost 30 cents or more per kilowatt hour, far higher than the 6 cents to 15 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity generated by traditional means, such as hydroelectric dams. With a subsidy, the overall cost of solar-generated electricity can drop to 25 cents per kilowatt hour or less.

As the cost of solar declines with improving technology and as the cost of traditional electricity rises, solar becomes attractive. On an installed system, Guha said, "you can get payback in five to eight years."

Daniel McGahn

And business is growing. United Solar Ovonic's revenue for its most recent fiscal year, which ended June 30, came to $35 million--a 90 percent increase from the previous year. Revenue is expected to climb 110 percent this year.

Notable installations include the Coca-Cola building in Los Angeles and a system for the Beijing New Capital Museum that will crank out 360,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year. Like most solar installations, these buildings remain connected to the electricity grid, but they only tap it when solar power is weak or unavailable.

How it works
At present, the art of turning light into electricity remains an imperfect science. Light, in the form of photons, strikes the solar cell, which can be made of rigid, crystalline semiconductors or a pattern of sprayed-on flexible semiconductors. The light excites an electron and prompts it to split with its corresponding "hole," or positive charge.

Waves

The electron and hole get drawn toward different electrodes, with the negatively charged electron providing power to a building, battery charger or some other device. If the electron and hole reunite, or if the electron goes into the ground, the electricity is lost.

Each company promotes a different technological solution to this problem. Konarka has developed a dye injected into titanium oxide that can absorb light and organize itself into patterns. Nanosys takes a similar approach, but with a different designer molecule.

Both companies are working with manufacturers that in turn will incorporate solar power into their products. Konarka's first solar cells will likely appear in a foldable pads that can recharge cell phones, said Daniel McGahn, the company's executive vice president. The military is considering applications such as tents that can generate solar energy, and home-roofing tiles may start to appear in 2006 or 2007.

Miasole and United apply amorphous silicon onto spools of plastic. The technology is less exotic, but both companies say that's an advantage because the manufacturing process and the photovoltaic properties of silicon are better understood. Before going solar in October 2002, Miasole sold coating equipment to optical-networking companies.

"We're basically coating new materials," Miasole CEO David Pearce said, adding that samples of its photovoltaic materials will come out in 90 days, and volume production will begin next year. United already sells product.

Waves

Other companies are developing chlorophyll-like molecules that can convert sunlight into energy, said Josh Wolfe, a principal at Lux Capital, a nanotechnology venture firm.

Right now, the efficiency rate--the amount of sunlight that gets turned into electricity--ranges from 3 percent to nearly 12 percent for various nanoparticles in different lab experiments. That could grow to 20 percent, said Michael McGehee, an assistant professor at Stanford in materials science and engineering. McGehee currently is conducting research on organic photovoltaic nanoparticles.

Although this means that 80 percent of the sunlight will never get converted to electricity, the low cost of thin-film solar cells would make such a system far more economically viable than current solar cells--and more competitive with traditional electricity.

"It costs $300 per square meter now for crystalline solar cells. We think we can get this down to $30 a square meter," he said. Michael McGehee, an assistant professor at Stanford in materials science and engineering

Preaching to the unconverted
Alternative-energy specialists acknowledge that skepticism runs rampant. "The general perception even in the high-tech community is that solar was a good idea, but it was born in the '70s and died in the '70s," Konarka's McGahn said.

Still, as Firelake's Lagod said, a lot has changed in the decades since. Desktop computers and modeling software, which didn't exist back then, are being used to improve emissions performance in cars and create the materials, semiconductors, molecules and other elements that energy start-ups are promoting today.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, proponents say, energy prices and concerns will prompt consumers to flock to new brands and technologies.

"The '70s oil shock introduced Americans to fuel efficient cars from Japan," Lagod said. "Nobody knew what Toyota was. Now they have the dominant market share."

Circumstances may be ripe for alternatives. In 1990, the United States imported 46 percent of its oil. In 2000, the figure jumped to 57 percent. Cash-strapped governments also continue to subsidize traditional electricity and water purification.

Michael McGehee

Pinpointing when a crossover to new technologies could occur is tough to gauge. Because thin film barely exists as an industry, it is much more expensive than regular electricity. Improved technology and a larger manufacturing base could mean acceptable parity as soon as 2006 or 2008, but the calculation isn't easy to establish.

Other alternative forms of energy face tricky evaluations as well. Wind power works, but it will likely remain a European phenomenon, Brownlee said.

Generating electricity from the ocean holds promise because, unlike wind or sunlight, waves never cease. The problem? It involves sinking equipment into rough seas. Similarly, hydrogen looks great on paper, but the experimental results have been inconsistent, and the infrastructure--storage systems, gaskets and the like--doesn't exist.

Despite the challenges, it appears that the inspirational light bulb is going off a lot more often now--solar-powered or otherwise.

"Nano is hot right now, and people are looking for a good application for nanotech," McGehee said. "I never thought I'd see this in Silicon Valley, but they are realizing that the energy market dwarfs the computer market." end

86 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment (Log in or register)
Wind Power/ Hydrogen
This article focuses almost completely on solar.

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.
Posted by jamesw (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
hydrogen as a fuel source
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.
Posted by scaffo (3 comments )
Link Flag
Wind power IS competitive
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.
Posted by dakotatycoon (3 comments )
Link Flag
Rethink Hydrogen
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
Posted by lojack_skjeij (3 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by cornstoves (2 comments )
Link Flag
Wind Power/ Hydrogen
This article focuses almost completely on solar.

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&#38;gas with renewable energy sources.
Posted by jamesw (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
hydrogen as a fuel source
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.
Posted by scaffo (3 comments )
Link Flag
Wind power IS competitive
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.
Posted by dakotatycoon (3 comments )
Link Flag
Rethink Hydrogen
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
Posted by lojack_skjeij (3 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by cornstoves (2 comments )
Link Flag
Complement and lecture on use of 'hole'
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.
Posted by David Whitehouse (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Complement and lecture on use of 'hole'
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.
Posted by David Whitehouse (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.

For you,
And the World,
Paul &#38; Molley Pantone
Posted by puffwhat (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Info-mercial?
A little too wordy with little substance.
Posted by Johnny Mnemonic (376 comments )
Link Flag
THIS GUYS A FRAUD! Read about it here.
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:

<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>
Posted by daver (14 comments )
Link Flag
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.

For you,
And the World,
Paul &#38; Molley Pantone
Posted by puffwhat (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Info-mercial?
A little too wordy with little substance.
Posted by Johnny Mnemonic (376 comments )
Link Flag
THIS GUYS A FRAUD! Read about it here.
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:

<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>
Posted by daver (14 comments )
Link Flag
Good grief...
From the article:

"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.
Posted by bbell37968 (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Stop Subsidising Fossil Fuels
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 &#38; 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>
Posted by jamesw (12 comments )
Link Flag
subsidies exist because they pay off
30% of electricity generated at the power plant is lost just getting to your house, so a 30% subsidy is justified there.

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.
Posted by daver (14 comments )
Link Flag
Good grief...
From the article:

"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.
Posted by bbell37968 (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Stop Subsidising Fossil Fuels
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 &#38; 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>
Posted by jamesw (12 comments )
Link Flag
subsidies exist because they pay off
30% of electricity generated at the power plant is lost just getting to your house, so a 30% subsidy is justified there.

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.
Posted by daver (14 comments )
Link Flag
Renewables are less expensive than stated.
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
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Where to purchase solar panels
What is the best solar panel and where to purchase in quantities?
Posted by (10 comments )
Link Flag
Renewables are less expensive than stated.
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
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Where to purchase solar panels
What is the best solar panel and where to purchase in quantities?
Posted by (10 comments )
Link Flag
Renewables are less expencives than stated
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

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
Posted by (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Renewables are less expencives than stated
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

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
Posted by (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
market forces?
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
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
market forces?
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
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thin Film Solar Shortcomings
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:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&#38;storyid=697" target="_newWindow">http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&#38;storyid=697</a>

Bill Moore
Editor/Publisher
EVWORLD.COM
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thin Film Solar Shortcomings
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:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&#38;storyid=697" target="_newWindow">http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&#38;storyid=697</a>

Bill Moore
Editor/Publisher
EVWORLD.COM
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
New Type of Wind Turbine
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>
Posted by dougselsam (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
New Type of Wind Turbine
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>
Posted by dougselsam (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Corn Stoves Fireplace Inserts HVAC
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
Posted by (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Corn Stoves Fireplace Inserts HVAC
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
Posted by (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Local Low Cost Corn Energy cost less
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
Posted by (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Local Low Cost Corn Energy cost less
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
Posted by (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Coats of Comfort
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
Posted by (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Coats of Comfort
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
Posted by (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Biomass efficiency
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.
Posted by aurizon (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

  • Recently Viewed Products
  • My Lists
  • My Software Updates
  • Promo
  • Log In | Join CNET