Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Copper Fox -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (9552)	5/31/2015 2:51:35 PM
From: Hog Head	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

Batteries for grid power would never work IMHO. A 24 hr wind power pilot project was undertaken last year (I don't have a link) on a small island down south. The ingenious plan was to generate excess power during windy periods - and use the excess power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (using electrolysis) which is stored separately until power is needed. When the winds slack, the hydrogen/oxygen is burned (100% clean - combines back into water). It functions similar to a battery in that it can be charged and discharged, but has the benefits of very high efficiency, no chemicals or costly substances needed (like lithium), and doesn't wear out -> unlimited charge cycles. Add to that there is no hard to dispose of worn out batteries, this simple design could change the world. But likely you have never heard of it, and I can't find it online anymore. Much like cancer cures, business doesn't want cheap and effective solutions - they want complicated, expensive and maintenance intensive solutions to our "problems". Why cure something that can be stretched out with exceedingly expensive treatments? Same for green power - don't let it become a cure, just an expensive alternative you can feel good about supporting.

To: Metacomet who wrote (9552)	5/31/2015 3:08:46 PM
From: Hog Head	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10654

What we see happening, at an increasing rate, is a massive transition to renewables where possible ------------------------------------------ Can you give me some examples of this - I would like to dig into that further. What do you consider "renewables"? Most renewable sources have other impacts, but would like to know what you consider renewable. For example, do you consider hydroelectric renewable? If so, consider other impacts of flooding the prime valley bottom habitat/farms and interruption of wildlife and spawning - not to mention the reduction of crucial nutrients that free flowing rivers deliver to the coastal seawater. Dams stop the flow and all the sediments and nutrients settle to the bottom and don't reach the coast as in the past. Wind farms have problems too with bird kills and low frequency modulation. Im just saying - there is no free lunch, and the truly viable green solutions don't see the light of day because they are the ones that could really effect change... Thorium reactors is a prime example - the technology has been there since the 60's, yet we are still just talking about it.