Saturday, January 24, 2015

Ultra-Cheap, High-Efficiency Chinese Solar Panels: A Paradigm Shift in Energy - High-Efficiency Appliances - All Cars Can Be Huge, Luxurious, and Solar - Do Not Allow Elitist Taxes (e.g. Al Dork's Carbon Tax) to Steal This Consumer Dividend - Destroying the Rothschild–Rockefeller Energy Monopoly

Source: Jim Stone Freelance

Jan 22 2015

Could China's cheap solar panels spark world war 3?

Discuss this on the Forum

Energy is one of the key mechanisms of elite control over the world. And energy has been held back in many areas, from the banning of the closed-loop nuclear fuel cycle (which basically amounted to free energy) to the sidelining of fully viable ultra-efficient cars such as the straight-up, not-plugged-in, no-tricks-at-all, cheap-to-produce, 300-mpg Volkswagen XL-1. But there is one area of practically free energy that is progressing forward totally unabated, and it is ultra-cheap Chinese solar panels.

These solar panels are easy to find in Mexico. And right before I got seriously sick (now totally over it), I checked the most current prices on these panels, and they are still dropping. Now, ALL power needs, and I MEAN ALL, including running lights, electronics, the refrigerator, washing machine, EVERYTHING a home needs, can be answered for an upfront cost of only $300 U.S. dollars. Of course, you will still need to add batteries and an inverter to this, at additional cost, but when you contrast this with the past, where batteries and the inverter were the cheap part of a solar project when compared with the cost of the panels, it represents a paradigm shift in energy; and I seriously wonder if the Rothschilds will tolerate it. I am hedging my bets that they will not, and will trigger a world war if Chinese solar brings free energy to the world in any meaningful way.

The panels are heavy and high-quality, made with high-quality glass. 250 watts (or more) on a giant panel costs only $150 USD. If high-efficiency appliances and lights are used, two of these panels will run a home with ease. If you look at the back of most modern refrigerators now (at least in Mexico), most use 200 watts or less while running, and they only run a small part of the time. Even a 100-watt panel would be enough to run a modern full-sized refrigerator in Mexico (refrigeration actually moves energy with up to 500% efficiency – you can get 1000 watts of cooling from 200 watts of input), so even though it may seem impossible, a refrigerator that is properly designed will not eat all your solar power. Add CFL bulbs and the fact that many 32-inch televisions are now so efficient they only consume 50 watts, and it becomes clear: not only is solar getting cheap, but appliances are now getting so efficient that it does not take much solar to do the job.

But it is actually much bigger than this:

If you wanted a huge box-shaped vehicle like a Honda Odyssey, it could be equipped with enough Chinese solar panels to keep it on the road and supply all needs for daily driving. I have calculated this out, and it is absolutely true. Let me put this in layman's terms:

A lot of plug-in cars can get enough power for daily driving from being plugged into a single 120-volt power outlet for only 8 hours a day. Though high-rate chargers use 240-volt outlets, there are plenty out there that are set up to just use a normal 120-volt outlet. Since these power outlets are practically never able to deliver more than 2,400 watts (and common sense says your car charger should not draw more than 1,800 or so, so most probably do not), this can now easily be matched by the new high-efficiency solar panels China is putting out. If you put 10 such panels on a large van and had any sort of system built into that vehicle to keep the panels pointed in a good direction, they would drastically outperform common sense limits on any (normal) 120-volt power outlet. Most 120-volt outlets in America are hooked up to 15-amp breakers that can deliver 1,800 watts.

Let me say this another way: 1 horsepower is 746 watts. If you had a specially designed vehicle that optimized the number of panels you could have and you managed to get 10 on top, while your vehicle was in the parking lot or anywhere else getting full sun, those panels would provide a charge rate of over 2,500 watts, or about 3 and a half horsepower continuous, getting stored continuously for driving. Over a full day (because peak charging would not be possible at all times), you could likely capture the equivalent of 8 hours at full power, or 8 X 3.5 horsepower-hours. This would equal 28 horsepower-hours per day. Once accelerated and on the highway, it only takes about 15 horsepower or less to keep most large cars going 60 mph. This would equal about 100 miles per day from solar power alone, once various inefficiencies (such as battery power waste) are factored in. 30-50 miles per day in the city would be easy.

Obviously, the regular wall outlet would be the backup power for rainy days, or the vehicle could be equipped with a small high-efficiency generator for rainy days as well.

What I have stated here is for the current efficiency levels of only 15 percent. These efficiencies are steadily climbing upward. What is going to happen in the near future, when these Chinese panels hit an efficiency of 30 percent or more, and the picture above becomes twice as clear? Already, there are high-cost panels that have efficiencies over 35 percent – IT CAN BE DONE – and in the not-so-distant future, it WILL BE DONE CHEAPLY. This will definitely threaten or destroy the energy monopoly. Do you think the Rothschilds will tolerate this, or will they instead opt to blow China off the map?

Discuss this on the Forum

Here is the math that proves what I say in the above report about Chinese solar possibly sparking world war 3 is true:

This math is flexible, and is summed up below and compared against the cars Tesla Motors produces, to put it all in real-world terms. 1 watt for 1 hour equals 3.42 BTU. One gallon of petrol contains approximately 125,000 BTU. If you have 2,500 watts of solar panels set up on a vehicle, they will produce 8,500 BTU equivalent power per hour. Times 8 hours equals 68,400 BTU (or a little over the total energy in half a gallon of petrol).

That sounds pretty weak compared to petrol, RIGHT? Well, here is the rest of the equation:

The top efficiency of ANY petrol-based engine is achieved with a 2-stroke diesel locomotive engine, and sits right around 49 percent. But gasoline engines are FAR WORSE, and with all the mileage and efficiency limits imposed by the U.S. federal government, actual efficiency of a normal petrol-based engine in America, right now, sits at around 8 percent, with the remainder going out the exhaust as heat and the radiator as heat. Volkswagen's 300-mpg XL1, which does not operate over 50 percent efficient (despite how good it may be), proves the 8 percent efficiency of American cars (at best) completely true. So, take your 0.55 gallons of petrol those solar panels are worth per day, and divide it by 0.08. In comparison to the efficiency of a normal gasoline engine in America, the solar panels are now worth 6.84 gallons of gas, which is then fed into a system (the electrical system in your solar-powered car) which is approximately, all losses (battery losses, inverter losses, motor losses) considered, 78 percent efficient.

Take your 6.84 gallons of gas then and multiply it by 0.78 for efficiency losses in your solar electrical system. This leaves you with 5.33 gallons of gasoline equivalent.

If a Honda Odyssey sized vehicle (which would be needed for that many panels) gets 18 mpg or so, the solar panels on the roof of your now-modified Odyssey would provide 18 X 5.33 miles of range per day (or 95.94 miles of range per day). Times 365 days in a year, that is well over 32,000 miles of driving per year, which is far more than most Americans drive.

Obviously, shills are going to rip this, citing this, that, and losses to smurfs, but this is all flexible math that is completely dependent upon engineering decisions, and I was very lax in favor of inefficiency, because I wanted to leave room for knowledgeable people to calculate even better range possibilities and know I am not full of it.

If the same mechanical efficiencies were allowed for what Volkswagen's XL1 achieves, the Honda Odyssey sized solar vehicle would in fact get over 150 miles of range per day on solar alone. I did not exaggerate the math above; if there was a will and the powers that be actually cared, ALL CARS would be HUGE, LUXURIOUS, AND SOLAR. This is not the 1970s: solar is actually viable now.

Obviously, with Al Dork's carbon tax as a profit motive, such cars have yet to happen.

CROSS-CHECK: According to Tesla's officially reported standards, Tesla Motors produces cars that go 3 miles per kilowatt hour. However, Tesla drivers state the cars are more efficient than Tesla's rating, which makes sense according to my math above, which is actually pretty good math. At present, it would be possible to equip a Honda Odyssey with 9 310-watt solar panels placed optimally, and flexible panels that got whatever they could get. 9 X 310 X 8 hours equals 22,320 watts worth of solar panels (conservatively stated and not including flexible panels); this equates to a 67-mile range on solar alone, with Tesla's official efficiency standards in place (which are in fact below reality). Even with Telsa underrating their efficiency, if I go with their official numbers, solar would be equal to 24,000 miles or more of driving per year, still well above what most Americans drive. This is comparing to Tesla's conservative ratings and not what Volkswagen did (petrol efficiency-wise) with the XL1 (which is considerably better). The math stands: with solar, you could have a car which got driven an average of 25 miles per day during weekdays, and then be good for a 200-mile trip every weekend. If you had to, you could (obviously) plug it in, as well.

Jan 23 2015

Food for thought: the ultimate free energy device, in my opinion, would be a giant heat pump operating in Death Valley. With up to 5:1 power input/output ratio, the low elevation facilitating operation with dense air, and the super-hot year-round temperatures, a Death Valley heat pump would probably work absolutely great for boiling water and spinning a turbine for electricity. The power input/output ratio is far, far beyond what would be needed to make such a system self-sustain and dish out tons of power.

If America had any brains, peak temperatures in Death Valley would be 90 Fahrenheit, with the remainder of that energy leaving the valley as electricity. Heat pumps work so well that even in -50 degree Fahrenheit weather, they can easily heat a home, with heat extracted from air that cold.

Jan 31 2015

About the solar panels in Mexico

I have not dug into the topic AT ALL, other than to occasionally go and look what is at the local solar stores. A cheap price is easy to make note of. Just drive down to Mexico and start looking around. Another thing: Mexico has great solar hot water. In America, you get a big stupid box on your roof that looks horrible and falls apart; in Mexico, a solar hot water heater uses vacuum tubes, is super small, and looks great. On top of that, they are cheap (they cost $300 or so) and they never degrade. The neighbor has the smallest one you can get, and they have a towel wrapped around half the vacuum tubes because it was making too much hot water. The vacuum tubes are glass and they never degrade; as long as nothing happens to break them, the heater will last forever.

The picture shows one similar to what the neighbor has; there are smaller personal ones, but this one is enough for a family – or in the neighbor's case, too much, because the tubes are covered with a towel.


  1. Solar panels will always be costly and inefficient, the sun only produces a fixed amount of energy.

    This is where the world is going: Laser Driven Fusion Power!

    Check this out: ITER - the way to new energy


    1. Ooops here is the Laser driven version ( same concept though ):

      Nuclear Fusion 500 Terawatt Laser at the National Ignition Facility


    2. So you imply that "Laser Driven Fusion Power" provides... INFINITE energy? More energy than the sun's rays?? Where does your magic laser get its power source from? Have you been reading LaRouche or some such pseudoscientific phony – or are you hawking dodgy wares? Solar is NOT costly and NOT inefficient: we're not in the 1970s anymore. Have you done NO reading into what ALREADY exists? The article above is very clear.

      It's not the technologies that are lacking – it's the greedy cartel that's blocking. Note that Jim Stone alludes to "the closed-loop nuclear fuel cycle". In other words, we have MANY inexpensive, hyper-efficient energy options available NOW. The world is not moving toward just one energy source – so there's no need to be such a cheerleader for your "home team".

    3. I never implied that it was infinite did I? No I didn't did I.

      Are you saying the ITER project isn't real, I don't even know if LaRouche supports it.

      Secondly, do you know about the Z-Machine?
      It's being built by a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. ( still in the experimental stages, but promising )

      I have no "home team", I am just smarter than you are.
      Now you can take your junkie, outdated, chinese solar panels and stick em where the sun doesn't shine.


    4. "Promising"? Why would anyone believe or invest in your "promises"? You know what opinions are like... well, you have plenty - so enjoy 'em, brainiac. And go enjoy some sunshine while you're at it: it's free. :)

    5. "the sun only produces a fixed amount of energy": dumb statement of the year award. "Laser Driven Fusion Power": does that provide a fixed amount of energy, yes or no?

    6. First of all my statement about the suns maximum output is IRREFUTABLE.

      Secondly, laser driven fusion DOES have a maximum output, but it exceeds your outdated solar panels by 100,000 fold.
      Are you a kid?
      I am not sure what you are arguing with me about.
      Do you think I don't know the Rothschild banks push solar panels to suppress the 3rd world with outdated tech?

      Who do you think you are fooling?
      You look stupid.
      ( oh and please sign your comments with a monkier so I know what idiot I am dealing with )


  2. From personal experience let me point out a few problems with solar , i bought a farm with over 70,000 worth of solar power installed , batteries were single cell 2v 1600 amp hrs each mining batteries , problem is what they don't tell you is you can only use 80% of the power in batteries or their use will only last half the time , mine were guaranteed for 10 yrs but only lasted 5 , it blew 2 inverters which cost over 1,000 each the batteries were very expensive too . You cannot charge them while in use , trickle power from solar ruins them . So you have to charge them via a generator which costs just as much as power itself . This was a top of the range outfit fitted professionally . My experience is its hopeless , there is nothing wrong with coal power , it is cheap and reliable , it was the Rockefeller /Rothschild who came up with the scam to stop using it because it was cheap .

    1. Solar panels are cool, they just won't run the world, ever.
      They are actually more practical in space.
      And it is NOT cheap, it's subsidized.

      For every $1 you put into a solar panel you only get 90 cents out of it.


    2. crapmonkey, your 'economics' really suck. either you're a disinfo agent or you're just dumb and lazy, i can't decide which. you clearly are deficient in the engineering department too. lockheed martin, as in, military mafia? yeah right, give us a break. by the way, oil and other hydrocarbons are (heavily) subsidized too, plus there are huge taxes on consumers and minimal taxes on big oil. how about we all push for an actual free market and let it hack away at the imposters? death to cartels.

  3. AnonymousJanuary 25, 2015 at 2:39 AM

    I know what lockheed martin is and I don't like it.
    So what?
    I crushed your argument into the ground.
    Now stop urinating in your undergarments and get over it.
    You lost this debate to an expert and everyone can see it.

    Do you want to go thru a cost-benefit analysis of solar panels vs a primitive fuel source like coal?
    You will lose that argument as well.
    In fact, I haven't seen you say anything intelligent thus far.


    1. you silly monkey. you have proven nothing. you have further embarrassed yourself.

      germany has been building new higher-efficiency coal plants while decommissioning old lower-efficiency coal plants. germany has also become a world leader in both solar and wind technologies - in 2014 they generated 28% of their country's electricity from renewables (mainly solar + wind). they have chosen BOTH (hard concept to grasp, i know). and germany, if you didn't know, is one of the more industrialized countries in the world, is famous for its engineering prowess, is relatively conservative economically. they get the big picture, even if you don't. would you like to go up against a team of german engineers, and propose that they put a big chunk of their r&d into 'lockheed martin z-machines' or some such 'experimental' military pork, vs. german pragmatic engineering? you'd really need to bulk up on bananas for that one - they'd laugh you out of your monkey tree! ;D

    2. LOL!

      Germany is tanking under astounding energy costs due to the "green energy" scam.

      Germany's Expensive Gamble on Renewable Energy

      So is every other country that attempted it.

      I am not sure who you think you are fooling, but you aren't very clever.

      As a matter of act, you are just babbling incoherently.

      I don't like Club of Rome shills.


    3. Oh and look at this!

      Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'?

      I am laughing in your face!

      Get a new job shill, really.
      You suk at this.


  4. Nice post. I learned something knowledgeable. Thank you so much for sharing.

    solar power inverter for home


Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at