Monday Message Board

It’s time for the first Monday Message Board of 2012. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpits, please.

30 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    @Troy Prideaux

    Ecologically sound technology may well look less efficient based on other criteria, but this is OK.

    Escaping from fossil technology is the key.

    There may be something of interest here:

  2. @Chris Warren
    “There may be something of interest here:”

    No, the closest indication I could find of the state at which they’re at is in the UOW link at the bottom which provides us with the statement “The research teams are currently performing studies to obtain efficiency data and are working towards engineering a prototype device” which is a concern given that obtaining efficiency data is a *simple* process of measurement.

    Other than this concern, I agree with your general point, but as I said, if the entire process of solar collection to hydrogen conversion is say 2-3% efficient, then you’ll always have economic tradeoffs to consider and compete with.

  3. After my recent gripe about the lack of MSM treatment of the polio story, I note that The Australian did have just such a story in today’s edition, ie Friday 13th. Quite a detailed story, too.

  4. @Chris Warren #22
    ‘So why do we need uranium power to reduce CO2 when universities can power large buildings with solar produced hydrogen.’
    There is a big difference between “can do X” and “are going to set up a test of X to see how well it works” (for experimental purposes only, once only). The same of course applies to all the claims for safe nuclear, clean carbon and carbon sequestration, etc.

    @Troy #27. From your quote, they haven’t built the thing so it is a little hard to measure anything. They are probably talking about calculating an expected efficiency, possibly using some experintal mock ups of parts of the final system. Also sounds like they are being intentionally vague in their press releases (which I wouldn’t hold against them), and there is very little there at all yet.

  5. @MartinK
    Yes Martin, when researchers make vague but *ground breaking* efficiency claims without backing them up with actual numbers, there’s more than just a scent of the “professional optimists seeking more funding grants” stench to it.
    Of course, that’s not to say I truly hope they’re on to something!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s