98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel

What kind? Don't care. The problem is the total energy cost of the panel.
Coal, oil, nuke, or solar--as long as the panels produce more energy in
their lifetimes than what they took up to be made themselves, the situation
is a win, otherwise it is a waste...

/herb

In article >,
L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III > wrote:
# What kind of energy do you think made the solar energy panels? And like
#the panels we see powering the cell emergency phone along our free ways,
#"just pencils out" building poles to each one.
# God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/
#
#
#"Herb Leong" > wrote in message
...
#> In article . com>,
#> nrs > wrote:
#> #2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
#> #more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
#> Yes. That means you need a super-cheap source of electricity.
#> While solar panels are expensive, they are cheap to run (mostly
#> free--some soap and water to keep it clean and a regular going
#> over by the owner).
#>
#> /herb
#
#
#
#--
#Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#

On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> wrote:

> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn or
> any other starch is the least efficient method of converting solar
> power to energy.

And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn squeezins...

Bob Officer > wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, XS11E > wrote:

>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.

>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.

Note the word "if".

> it is a one time cost.

Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.

Grumman-581 > wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> > wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...

AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>

Hi Herb,
The energy it took to make this iPod charger is the equivalent of a
hundred and ten bucks, I don't know about you, but I don't bother to pull my
chargers out of the wall:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/


"Herb Leong" > wrote in message
t...
>
> What kind? Don't care. The problem is the total energy cost of the
panel.
> Coal, oil, nuke, or solar--as long as the panels produce more energy in
> their lifetimes than what they took up to be made themselves, the
situation
> is a win, otherwise it is a waste...
>
> /herb



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article >,
L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III > wrote:
#Hi Herb,
# The energy it took to make this iPod charger is the equivalent of a
#hundred and ten bucks, I don't know about you, but I don't bother to pull my
#chargers out of the wall:
#http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA

Hiya, Bill!

Well, yeah! Anything that has "iPod" or "for iPod" on it is way the
heck over priced for what you get!

Heck--look at it--the cells are way to small to do jack.

The thing to do is to leave the iPod charger stuck to your wall and have
a bank of *decent* sized solar panels on your roof. Forget storing in a
battery array--use the grid (your meter will run backwards when you make
more than what you use). After a year or five, as you mentioned in
another post, the juice they give off will be energy return on investment
(EROI) positive and so your iPod getting charged off of them would pretty
much be free in terms of new energy use. (That does NOT mean the money
you dumped into the panels will be paid back! That depends on the price
of electricity over the years you have the panels going.)

/herb