NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/energy/5724

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 3.6 KB | 78 lines

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:50:42 GMT
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>|> Actually, all the approaches listed, with the exception of geothermal,
>>>|> *are* solar energy. And *all* have better efficiency than *direct* solar.
>>>|> However, the *most* efficient collectors of solar energy remain *plants*.
>>>|> Burning plants, freshly dead, or concentrated under tons of rocks for
>>>|> eons, is still the most efficient use of solar energy. And there is very
>>>|> little capital cost involved with setting up the "plants."  :-)
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I suppose in the clasical economic sense of land, labor, & capital...
>but if you consider land cost as a capital expenditure ... farms
>are not cheap...

Who said anything about farms? Grass, weeds, trees, any plant, anywhere
acts as a solar collector.

>>>If one added the
>>>additional processes involved in converting the plant to
>>>fossil fuel then the "efficiency" would be even worse.
>>
>>Ah, but unlike photovoltaic cells, or solar thermal collectors,
>>it costs us nothing, or nearly nothing to deploy organic solar
>>collectors.
>
>Whoa there!!  It is clear to me that you have never lived in farm country!
>Running a farm is not 'nearly nothing' in costs!  It is running about
>$10,000/acre for decent land out here...and don't talk to me about
>what it would take to buy new water rights ...

Born on one, raised on one, own one. But we aren't talking about farms,
we're talking about plants, you know, those green things that grow
everywhere you don't pave?

>>Converting that energy to readily usable combustibles
>>also costs us nothing.
>
>Again, a quibble:  Every seen a Rice Dryer?  Corn Dryer?  Right now
>there is a major jump in propane demand 'cause they had a bumper
>corn crop in the MidWest.  That standing crop of wet fuel plants
>will need to be collected, chopped/formed/whatever, and DRIED.

Ever seen a dead log, dry grass? Assume it's been dead for a *long*
time and has undergone anerobic conversion under lots of heat and
pressure.

>Now, you could let it dry in the fields, if you live somewhere like
>California where the rain stops in summer.  But that standing crop
>drying in the field is preventing you from planting your second crop
>of the season ...  If you dry it by stacking it, you have labor costs
>to transport and handle.
>
>OK, so we go for a wet ferment instead of drying it ... now you have
>the capital cost of the fermenter and the labor costs and ...
>
>My point?  'costs us nothing' is a brazen red flag.  On a farm,
>everything costs you something ...

But I'm not talking about farms. I'm talking about dead plants,
preferrably ones that have been dead a few million years and
pressed under lots of rock so that they form nice gas and oil.
All for free, no labor input, no agri-chemicals, no machinery,
just a little time.

Gary