Solar Concentrators 92%% efficiency developed. These are cheaper than
even Coal.

GetClub news: http://www.getclub.com/Show/view.php?best=Articles&itemid=22

1,300 degrees Farenheit.is achieved and used by a steam turbine to
convert into energy.

Since it is highly efficient very less land is reqyuired to generate
the energy. It may become cheapest energy source.

More details: http://www.getclub.com/Show/view.php?best=Articles&itemid=22

It may reduce the price of energy and oil dependence. As electric cars
will be cheaper than using oil for travel.

Bye
Sanny

Sanny hotmail.com> wrote:

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Nope.

And that process is nothing like 92%% overall efficiency.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Not a chance. Pity about the fact that the sun isnt always there.

Not a chance.

Nukes do that much better.

It is difficult at the moment but in 4-5 hours Solar energy will be 3
times cheaper than all other types of energy.

And Electric Engine with 100-200 miles range on electric Charge has
already been made.

You just need fuel cells and charge them in 5 minutes. And you will
never need an Oil Station. Just Charge your car like we charge the
Mobile Batteries from the plug.

Good hopes for Solar Energy.

Bye
Sanny.

It is difficult at the moment but in 4-5 years Solar energy will be 3
times cheaper than all other types of energy.

And Electric Engine with 100-200 miles range on electric Charge has
already been made.

You just need fuel cells and charge them in 5 minutes. And you will
never need an Oil Station. Just Charge your car like we charge the
Mobile Batteries from the plug.

Good hopes for Solar Energy.

Bye
Sanny.

"Sanny" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6093a7a1-af5b-43fc-b045-919e2406d9af@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Dear Sanny:

On Aug 18, 3:44 am, Sanny hotmail.com> wrote:

Only if all the coal and oil disappears, or if "carbon taxes" make
them cost prohibitive.

But *not* carbon neutral. Manufacturing the batteries take a lot of
power.

But *not* carbon neutral. Manufacturing the fuel cells take a lot of
power, and they get poisoned quite easily if the fuel and oxygen
sources are not pure.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:36:42 -0700 (PDT), dlzc cox.net> wrote:

(snip)

A controlled reliable means for cold hydrogen fusion would solve most
of the world's fuel/energy problems, but how can this ever be
accomplished?

Sanny hotmail.com> wrote:

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

And you're just plain wrong with nukes anyway.

Pity about the price.

You still need a charging station. AND it takes a hell of a lot longer to charge it too.

Pity about how long it takes.

Nothing like that claim of yours now at the top.

dlzc cox.net> wrote:

Dear Antares 531:

On Aug 18, 7:58 am, Antares 531 swbell.net> wrote:
...

It can't. If it could occur, Nature would have done it. The
coloumbic barrier keeping positve charges apart is too high to have
cold fusion. And were this not so, we would not be alive to have this
discussion.

Additionally, fusion of any sort will release *hosts* of neutrons,
which will make materials around them radioactive. The expectation is
that once we have fusion power plants, they will move from facility to
facility, returning to the first facility after a few years... after
the radiation has decayed down enough to recycle the facility. Sort
of like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.