Except that the hydro-generated electricity produced in Washington does get sold to other States. The use of that electricity by Microsoft meant that some other State probably had to generate electricity by some other means, creating pollution. My guess is that this fee has something to do with the lost revenue since they could have sold that electricity to another State at a higher price if they had enough advanced notice that Microsoft wasn't going to use it. I also suspect that there are incentives for the companies generating electricity to offer it first to Washington State businesses... there are probably laws regulating that too since the rivers in Washington State are a resource of the people of Washington.

Hey donaggie, don't take what they say to heart. Some people will twist and contort some minor detail in your comment and then run with it like it must be the only way to interpret what was typed. You (and the initial AC) are absolutely correct that much can be learned from a properly set up experiment that did not produce the result the scientist was hoping for. For instance, I work in a field where the chemical reactions aren't easily predictable. I mix two precursors because the evidence I have says it will produce the material I want. However, I end up getting no reaction at all. This "Negative Result" still provides important information that I wish I could publish, but unfortunately most journals wouldn't accept it. Instead I have to keep searching for precursors that will produce the desired result and then I can sometimes include my negative results in with that. It would save a lot of time for me if I could easily find the negative results of others so that I don't repeat their procedure.

To comment on another reply concerning the "faulty cable", control experiments should be designed to find these things. Not including a control or check against a known sample is pretty bad science in my opinion. If you get extraordinary results, then it is absolutely up to the scientist to make sure that equipment is functioning properly well before you even begin to write a paper.

Finally, this constant pressure for new, positive results is as much of a byproduct of political involvement as it is scientists cutting corners to produce positive results faster for their own professional gain. I have seen in some aspects of my field that in order to accomplish proper science in the time allotted by nearly every government grant initiative that much of the "proposed" work has to already be done before you even start applying for the grant. It's my opinion (based solely on my limited personal experience) that this is a direct result of a moderate number of groups pushing out papers as fast as they can without properly checking their results... without any intention of ever running the experiment a second time. I've come across several papers (and patents) which claim that a particular set of precursors will result in a very specific product. Yet, when I perform the experiment precisely in the reported conditions, the result is absolutely no reaction. There are of course some conditions which are difficult to quantify and report in literature, but it seems hard to believe that I get absolutely no reaction rather than a slower reaction, faster reaction, or a result that's not the same stoichiometry as reported. In this case, one can always write a rebuttal. However, in the case where you perform an experiment properly without faulty equipment and get a negative result, it's difficult to get it published.

Any word on whether there was a decline in this type of tumor when CMOS x-ray imaging started being used in dentistry? Using CMOS rather than film supposedly requires less exposure time or less x-ray intensity in order to obtain an image comparable to film. I see the article does comment on the decreased intensity of x-ray source now as compared to a decade or so ago, but unless they couldn't readily identify this type of tumor back then, then I would expect to have seen a decline in this type of tumor as well.

What I saw from the proposal is that they will use the excess heat from the Zn and O2 gasses to at least assist in this (not sure if there is enough energy in 1 mole of Zn and 0.5 moles of O2 at 1750C to raise all the reactants in the 2nd process to 420C). I would also like to compare the energy lost in waste heat to that of the energy lost in the electrolysis of water. I think that there have been ideas for using solar heating at much lower temperatures where it is used to just boil water and power a turbine (presumably using a liquid that is better at absorbing solar radiation than water and then transferring the energy to the water). The electricity could then be used to split water when it is not being used to power something else. Again, that's if the energy loss is less. Something I would have assumed they looked into.

Also, sorry for the earlier comments. As a grad student I regularly did these reactions at (relatively) moderate temperatures in order to obtain ZnO crystals. I did not think to look what the products of Zn+H2O at lower temperatures produced.

I don't think this is true. Water doesn't start to decompose until roughly 2000C. So, having something that decomposes at a lower temperature as well as a material that stays put longer (ZnO stays a solid until it decomposes) is quite a bit better.

Here is a proposal posted on the National Renewable Energy Lab's website ( http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/development_solar-thermal_zno.pdf ). It discusses in further detail the process by which ZnO is decomposed into Zn metal and oxygen, using the Zn metal to react with water to form ZnO and H2 gas.

Here is an article from work being done at NREL ( http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/development_solar-thermal_zno.pdf ). Condensing Zn vapor from the ZnO decomposition can be done by rapidly cooling. They seem to claim that the reaction of liquid Zn metal with water gas favors the production of ZnO, not zinc hydroxide.

Also, to call ZnO primarily ionic is neglecting that it is very close to 50/50 ionic/covalently bonded. Last, I was not aware that some classified metal-oxides as salts.

The article clearly states that it is Zn vapor reacted with water. Pardon me for starting from where the linked article left off. ...and yes, I did state "still hot, but cool it just below the decomposition temperature of ZnO".

Yes, I see where the confusion is. This is at high temperatures where Zn and H2O will form ZnO and H2. This not done at the temperatures where zinc hydroxide will form.

Okay, perhaps I should clarify here as well... this is being done at very high temperatures. This will form ZnO at those temperatures, not zinc hydroxide.

I'm not sure where you get Zn(OH)2. Zn vapor and water do not form zinc hydroxide. Also, ZnO is not a salt. It will not dissociate to form zinc ions when placed in water.

I believe this is all done in the gas phase, with the exception of the zinc oxide (ZnO) which decomposes directly from a solid to Zn vapor and oxygen gas at 1975 C (3550 F). It sounded like their proposal would use solar radiation to increase the temperature of the ZnO such that it decomposes directly into Zn and oxygen gas. The Zn vapor is somehow isolated and the oxygen is removed from the system. You then use the Zn vapor (still hot, but cool it just below the decomposition temperature of ZnO) and add water (which will also be a vapor/steam at these temperatures). This will return ZnO and hydrogen gas. Also, keep in mind, ZnO is not a salt. It will not dissociate in liquid water to form Zn ions. Also, Zn when added to water will not form zinc hydroxide.

The zinc oxide is just used in an intermediate step. It is not permanently depleted in the overall reaction. You start with zinc oxide and water. You end with zinc oxide, oxygen, and hydrogen.

You take zinc oxide, use sunlight to produce zinc vapor and oxygen. Somehow the zinc vapor and oxygen are separated so that they don't form zinc oxide again (the oxygen is no longer needed in the device and is discarded as far as the generator is concerned. The zinc is then reacted with water to produce zinc oxide and hydrogen. The real question is how does the device separate the zinc vapor and the oxygen gas after the zinc oxide is decomposed by the sunlight? You couldn't just condense the Zn as it would most likely react with the oxygen gas surrounding it.

2ZnO+Sunlight -> 2Zn(vapor) + O2
Zn(vapor)+H2O -> H2 + ZnO

I'm sure to you it was an investment in the future. Right now I'm seeing it as giving money to someone who was careless about what he said and actually for a moment gave support to those who want to dismantle the welfare and federal aid system that he took advantage of. Quite frankly, if you think ending welfare will fix more problems than it will cause, you aren't thinking clearly. Some of them might be able to find jobs, but not most of them. They will lose their homes, live on the street... then what? They won't be able to get a job while living in the tent city across the street from your house. Theft will skyrocket from them taking the food they need to survive. We've been here before... no welfare. It wasn't a pretty place.