----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:09
AM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] Hans/Genesis
etc
Hi Jim,
I understand the issues of pumped storage very
well. I did a brief study on a modest scheme myself sometime
last century. Unfortunately it was off the scale in terms of economics. You
consume about 15-20% of the available energy on the way down (depending on how
efficiently you can configure the equipment) and the same again on the way
back up. The other problem is getting enough utilisation time to get a return
on capital.
Pumping water uphill does not create
energy (as the Dominion Post correspondent assumed). It consumes energy but
allows but allows for short term storage of that energy. One scheme in central
London uses a deep shaft for this purpose but the reasons there are to do with
limits on peak transmission capacity. They also have large nuclear and coal
fired power stations running 24hrs/day. The Auckland power crisis some years
back is an illustration of a potential use, although in the event it was
much more economic to build a cable tunnel. NZ simply doesn't have the need
for very expensive short term storage.
Hydrogen production from "sunpower" has the same
issues. What is "sunpower"?. If you mean solar power electricity why not
use the electricity directly. Solar power electricity is not free. In
fact it is hugely expensive compared to what we currently pay, because of the
capital cost of the equipment required. It would be dumb to use a lot of
electricity to create hydrogen so we could use that hydrogen to create less
electricity that than we used in the first place. The only benefit would be
portability, and even then it would probably be cheaper to move the
electricity than the hydrogen.
Hydrogen has been proposed for use in car fuels.
I believe even President Bush thinks it's trendy. I confess that I struggle
with the logic of it. I can see the benefits in terms of pollutants. The
proposals there are based on using natural gas to produce the hydrogen. The
hydrogen can then be used in fuel cells. Why not just use the natural gas
directly? Compared to natural gas, hydrogen is a very difficult material to
deal with.
So remembering that this group is primarily
interested in investments, where does that leave Genesis. Growing plants for
fuel is a way of tapping into the sun's energy. I think Snoopy (tongue firmly
in cheek), last year suggested Fletcher Forests might be able to use its trees
(mostly lignin) as fuel. Genesis' proposals were I believe based on
geneticially modifying plants to produce more cellulose and less lignin. This
to me seems to be in the realms of maybe "public good" science, but a long way
removed from making a commercial return. As an investor I would have no
interest on backing that. To be fair, Dr Watson probably made an off the cuff
comment that has been blown out of proportion.
Hans
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 11:11
PM
Subject: [sharechat] Hans/Genesis
etc
Hans,there is no problem with hydrogen
production via electrolysis if sunpower can be efficiently
utilized......efficient meaning the energy cost of the operation being less
than the hydrogen/oxygen result.....Further,pumping water uphill is not
stupid if you have excess energy unutilized and wish to store it for times
when it is needed.There is a scheme in the UK which does exactly
this.
See IRG research reports
