... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have 10
batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work but
for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys. And every
2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical at the current
cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and transporting fuel
is too prohibative in cost economics again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost
too, and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.



I googled and look what I found:

"With regard to the three individuals cited in the CIA report and "revealed"
by the Times, two of the individuals have been known since January 2004 when
the Scandal information was first publicized in Iraq. The first American is
Iraqi-born Samir Vincent who has lived in the U.S. since 1958 and once
organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet
with former president Jimmy Carter. And the other person is Shaker
Al-Khafaji who has historically had an indepth involvement with the Hussein
regime. He is described by The Middle East Mediar Reseach Institute (MEMRI)
as "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates,"
and financed a film by Scott Ritter, former UN inspector, [which argued]
against UN sanctions, admitted to having financial ties to the Hussein
regime, been active in the anti-Iraq-war movement and accompanied
Congressmen Jim McDermott (D- Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif), and David
Bonior (D-Mich) to Baghdad prior to Gulf War II in 2002 to criticize the
impending war."


So how come FOX News isn't shouting aboout how Jimmy Carter is
implicated in the oil-for-food scandal?

There are at least 2 other people with Repub & VP connections not
mentioned in this article. But I'm impressed that you actually looked.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have
10 batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work
but for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys.
And every 2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical
at the current cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and
transporting fuel is too prohibative in cost economics again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out the
cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash then
maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost too,
and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.


Homes are a LONG term investment and people need to look out 30 years into
the future when they are designing them. Assume that energy costs are going
to become the biggest expense for the home owner and try to make the house
energy efficient. High ceilings, ceiling fans, lots of insulation, solar
water heaters, appliances that turn on at night to use energy when it's less
expensive, Driers that pull air out of the attic that's already 130 degrees
and doesn't have to be heated, lcd panel tv's instead of plasma (80 watts vs
900 watts), solar powered refrigerators, and more that could be developed.
All of these are doable NOW.

You still need the power grid in most areas at least for some of the
seasons. But you could reduce energy needs by about 50%. An economic
payoff that at todays energy cost would pay for it'self in 20 years and if
energy costs increase allow you to maintain the same comfort level without
damaging your pocketbook.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound
as is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have
10 batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might
work but for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30
batterys. And every 2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not
economical at the current cost for fuel unless you live outside the
power grid and transporting fuel is too prohibative in cost economics
again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost too,
and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.


Homes are a LONG term investment and people need to look out 30 years into
the future when they are designing them. Assume that energy costs are
going to become the biggest expense for the home owner and try to make the
house energy efficient. High ceilings, ceiling fans, lots of insulation,
solar water heaters, appliances that turn on at night to use energy when
it's less expensive, Driers that pull air out of the attic that's already
130 degrees and doesn't have to be heated, lcd panel tv's instead of
plasma (80 watts vs 900 watts), solar powered refrigerators, and more that
could be developed. All of these are doable NOW.

You still need the power grid in most areas at least for some of the
seasons. But you could reduce energy needs by about 50%. An economic
payoff that at todays energy cost would pay for it'self in 20 years and if
energy costs increase allow you to maintain the same comfort level without
damaging your pocketbook.



You need to the power grid to make in financially feasible. Most ot the
solar powered houses and businesses, feed excess power into the grid. The
power companies pay the generator for the power. So, during the day, you
generate an extra 5kw, and at night, you use 6 KW. You only have to pay for
1kw of power. And in California, the power company is required to pay you
at their highest cost to generate power.