>>>>>>>>Another little known or understood fact about the transmission of power is that for maximum transfer of power the impedence of the load must match the impedence of the power source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Impedance is measured in Ohms; your later comments refer to MW (power units).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, but maximum power (MW) can only be transfered IF the internal impedance of the generator (source) equals the internal impedence of the load (sink). In AC circuts the impedence is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the inductive reactance, capacitative reactance, and the ohmic resistance. Assuming that both internal impedance reactance cancel only ohmic resistance remains.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK.
>>>>>>>Hydrogen could be used for storage (as in a battery). But let's not forget that the energy has to come from somewhere in the first place. Nuclear energy would be perfectly acceptable, provided the nuclear reactor is far enough from the consumers (say, 150 million kilometers / 93 million miles).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would not like to see the adoption of nuclear energy, because of the long life of dangerous radioactive waste. Hydrogen has no such problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>I repeat: nuclear energy represents no serious thread if the reactor is quite far away, for instance, 150 million km. (I was referring to solar energy.) Actually, some threats do exist in the long run (perhaps in a few billion years) - but this can't be avoided anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Oh! Pardon my 'density'. I read the first part of your sentence and not the last, because it triggered my warning flag. :-)
>>>>
>>>>What amazes me is the misconception folks have about the safety of Hydrogen, mostly derived from the Hindenburg disaster. What folks don't realize is that hyrdocarbons are more dangereous because their vapors, being heavier than air, flow along the ground/floor like a river and when they encounter an ignition point a flash-back to the source occurs, causing an explosion. This is how houses blow up when their propane furnaces leak, or when gasoline spills. Hydrogen, on the other hand, rapidly floats up and disperses, and doesn't form a dense 'river'. Experiments with pressure tanks containing Hydrogen and Propane show that when the tanks are hit with a round from a high powered rifle the Propane tank ruptures, the heavy gas spills out and catches fire, spreading fire along the ground as it burns. The Hydrogen tank ruptures and catches fire, but the Hyrdogen fire burns UPWARD, harmlessly, and doesn't flow out.
>>>>
>>>>JLK
>>>
>>>Jerry;
>>>
>>>Hydrogen burns upward then places like San Francisco and New York City will have a problem. Almost everything is vertical! :) Solar Power! If we went solar on our houses then the local electric utility would put a meter on your house and charge you for the work of the sun. I have faith in the system! The PUC and our PG&E have all this worked out.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>
>>IIRC, a federal law allows you to feed any excess power your home solar/wind generator my create back into the national grid, including running your meter backwards... i.e., the power company pays you. Is that law still active?
>
>Jerry;
>
>Yes it is - but I "do not trust them"! When solar generation becomes popular just watch the "public utilities" claim the energy from the sun as belonging to them! :)

Neither do I. The power companies are just as bad as Enron and MS type companies... if they could meter sunlight they would. There are proven methods of extracting energy from the sun, 24/7 clear or cloudy, called "Solar Power Tower II"s. Each community could set aside enough quarter sections of land to meet its needs plus some extra to feed into the national grid and to generate Hydrogen gas. We could be less than 5 years away from fossile fuel independence. Every car running today can be easily modified to accept Hydrogen fuel, or we could extract CO2 from the air and hydrogenate it to create our own butane. The oil companies could not meter the sunlight and once the SPT2 plant was built it and its maintenance could be amortized to create a stable and economical charge for a KW of electricity. It is the oil companies and their lobbies that are keeping us tied to the MidEast oil.

>
>There are a few homes and businesses in San Francisco (and the rest of the Bay Area) that have recently installed solar energy panels. They also get a tax benifit for installing solar systems.


When Jimmy Carter was president he pushed for solar power credits for homeowners. We still have a few A-Frame solar collectors on roofs around town. Some look like have been maintained and are still working. I think the real solution is the fuel cell power generator. Some are small enough to put in the basement of the average home and generate 1-10 KW by using natural gas, propane, butane or Hydrogen. The SPT2 would fit right into this scenerio.


>
>Imagine my grandfather grew up on a dairy ranch in San Francisco (1890-1909) and there was no electricity or natural gas on the ranch. the city had it though. How water was obtained by solar heaters which were very popular until around 1910 when the PG&E convinced people to use natural gas to heat water.
>
>Where my father grew up (Ukiah, Oregon - today's population 200) they had no electricity at the horse ranch where he was raised. Electricity in north eastern Oregon in the 1920-30's was not available everywhere, when the population was 1200.
>
>It was not that long ago that you could find many areas in the United States without a public utilities company to supply power. Could we consider shutting off all utilities? Times change and so do expectations.

When the June 3rd, 1980 tornadoes struck Grand Island, NE, we were without power and water for 5 days. The town was under marshal law and few people were allowed out or in. That was miserable. Most folks take electricty for granted because it has been so ubiquitous and reliable.

>
>In Condon, Oregon, (population 600) a company has installed wind generators. One supplies Condon and the rest of the energy is sold to the local grid.

Lincoln Electric System put up to 1.25 MW wind generators, but I fear they were setup to fail because the engineer in charge uses an average annual windspeed of 15mph and the publically available data from NOAA shows that for the last 50 years, and I checked this and still have my spreadsheet, the average wind speed was only 9 mph. Some time in the future they will claim that they 'tried wind mills but they didn't live up to forcasts'. It doesn't bother me because huge wind mills are not the way to go. They destroy too many birds in their region, and with just a little bug juice coating the leading edge of the airfoil their efficiency (which is only 69% to begin with) drops way off.

The bummer part is that they financed it with volunteers who agreed to add $6 to their monthly electric bill until the project was paid for. Call me a chump.