If every roof was a solar panel
Karen Silkwood
Wouldn't that be a better world? New research could make the panels
cheap. They could heat water or air, even make electricity.
and Karen would still be with us.
--
Karma, What a concept!
Nick Naim
"Karen Silkwood" <geor...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:georgeswk-0419F...@news.toast.net...
The Real Bev
Why has nobody mentioned the outgassing problem?
--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
Election 2012:
There's never been a better time to vote libertarian.
Karen Silkwood
The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/18/11 19:41, Nick Naim wrote:
>
> > "Karen Silkwood"<geor...@toast.net> wrote in message
> > news:georgeswk-0419F...@news.toast.net...
> >> We wouldn't need nuke power plants or Wars for Oil.
> >> Wouldn't that be a better world? New research could make the panels
> >> cheap. They could heat water or air, even make electricity.
> >> and Karen would still be with us.
> >> --
> >> Karma, What a concept!
> > Wars would be for still
>
> Why has nobody mentioned the outgassing problem?
One person's "problem" is another's opportunity .
Some see problems , I only see solutions.
AndyS
Andy comments:
Well, lets look at some numbers:
A "typical " house has about 5000 sq ft of roof, which is
185 sq meters.
Sunlight, at 90degrees, puts about 1000 watts per sq meter on
the earth during "full sun". (That is about 120 pk w/sqm from a
solar panel at 12% efficiency)
Dallas, for instance, has an average of 5.5 hours of "full sun" per
day.
(That's averaging over an entire day, 24 hrs, and then converting
that to direct, unblocked sunlight hours)
That means a roof could intercept 185 X1000X5.5 = 1000 kwh per day.
The roof cannot be aimed. As the sun moves, the output goes down
Use about 30% for non-trackable efficiency.
Solar Cells have theoretical max efficiency of 17%. Typically, they
run around 12%, in a practical system.
Storage cells are used to store and then redistribute the energy.
Efficiency
varies, but lets say a 75% efficiency could be obtained, to have a
realistic
number
There's other stuff, but so far our conversion efficiency is
.30 x .17 x .75 = 4% (approx)
That means the 1000kwh of sunlight per day from a 5000 sq ft
roof could result in about 40 kwh of power available for use.
That's 1200 kwh per month. Probably about half what you or I use
now, but not unrealistic to tighten our belts and be comfortable
with...
Now, what does it cost.
185 sq meters x 120 = 22000 peak watts
Presently , solar panels are around $5 per peak watt.
which means $111,000 dollars for the panels to cover a
5000 sq ft roof.
Plus installation --- probably 25K
Plus the storage battery installation --- est around $10,000
Plus the electric inverters to convert the stored energy est around
$5000
OK, we have a ball park number of $151,000 to accomplish the task.
The panels will last about 20 years, so that's $72,000 per year....
My present electric bill, to generate twice that amount of power,
is about $2000 per year......
WoW !!!! Doesn't look very practical with today's technology...
However, I encourage you to learn enough about the systems to do
the cost analysis for yourself. You'll probably use different
numbers,
but not radically so.
It only looks practical if you are thinking "free sunlight"....
That's really like thinking "free gasoline" and then having to
pay for a car to use it.....
Andy in Eureka, Texas registered P E
Karen Silkwood
<557ba508-3ea1-4a42...@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
AndyS <jungl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't look very practical with today's technology...
that's my point. More research, more breakthroughs. The Consumers must
drive this baby. Imagine \\
It's amazing what you can do if you put your mind to it.
Rod Speed
> AndyS <jungl...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Doesn't look very practical with today's technology...
> that's my point.
Its a dud point.
> More research, more breakthroughs.
We've been researching that area for 50 years now.
> The Consumers must drive this baby.
Fantasy. What might happen is that chinese manufacture drives the cost down significantly.
> Imagine \\
> It's amazing what you can do if you put your mind to it.
No with something thats been extensively researched for 50 years now.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
reams of your pig ignorant mindless **** flushed where it belong
J Burns
> Andy comments:
>
> Well, lets look at some numbers:
About a year ago, the cost dropped below $1 per watt. Here's an example:
http://www.sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=47&products_id=1504
A pallet of 50 would cover 214 square meters, produce 2.3kW peak, and
cost $2254. Tax deductions and utility rebates may cover some of that.
http://dallas-solar-panels.com/
According to this page, annual production in Dallas (day and night,
winter and summer, rain and shine) averages 13% of peak. That would be
2583kWh per year. At 15 cents per kWh, that could cut 387.45 off your
bill if you always use it as you produce it or if in your state it's
legal to let your excess run the meter backward. Counting the cost of
the panels only and excluding rebates and deductions, that would be a
six-year payback.
If you aren't using storage batteries and it's not legal to run your
meter backwards, then the electric company will pay you something less
than retail for electricity you sell them; so your payback would be
longer than 6 years but could be much less than 6 years if you count
rebates and deductions.
In that case, it might pay to have some battery storage, to save some of
the excess from sunny hours instead of selling it to the utility.
Besides, a little storage could let you run essentials during power outages.
Power-company peaks come from A/C. Presumably, it's in their interest
to have customers with solar panels. Peak A/C coincides with peak sun,
so their peak capacity can be smaller. If I had an A/C designed to run
from solar panels of my capacity, I could run it straight from my
panels: no fear of blackouts or outages with the sun beating down.
I'm ignoring other costs such as an inverter. (For more than 10 years,
my BIL has had a windmill, inverter, and batteries to run his household,
shop, and electric car; the utility is his backup.)
>
> That's 1200 kwh per month. Probably about half what you or I use
> now, but not unrealistic to tighten our belts and be comfortable
> with...
I believe the US household average these days is 1000kWh a month. Mine
is about 325, so $2254 worth of panels would produce most of what I use
in a year. My refrigerator is more than 20 years old. If I bought a
modern one, the annual production of those panels could exceed my annual
consumption.
Cars, refrigeration, A/C, and electronics are far more efficient than
they were in the 1970s, but per capita energy use is about the same. I
guess we're greater spendthrifts than we were then, when it comes to
energy. Maybe I should skip the solar panels and just get a new
refrigerator.
m...@privacy.net
>It only looks practical if you are thinking "free sunlight"....
ok but what if every roof in the USA had just one
square yard of panel.... again one every roof coast to
coast
And every roof was grid tied into the system so as to
inject this power back into grid
Rod Speed
>> It only looks practical if you are thinking "free sunlight"....
> ok but what if every roof in the USA had just one square
> yard of panel.... again one every roof coast to coast
It would be a waste of a hell of a lot of money.
Essentially because square yard of panel wont power very much.
> And every roof was grid tied into the system so as to inject this power back into grid
All that would do is put more power into the grid when it isnt needed.
Its needed most when people start cooking in the evening etc and in the winter
for heating once they come home from work etc and would be no use for that.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, because nowhere in the civilized world would anyone use air conditioning
during the day
Rod Speed
A square yard of panel aint gunna drive a house's air conditioning, stupid.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
And the poster wasn't talking about one square yard, drongo, he was talking
about every roof. Do learn to read
Rod Speed
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to see the one square
yard panel mentioned in the second para, fuckwit.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Even a drongo like you should be able to see the "one on every roof coast to
coast" mentioned in the second para. Do learn to read
Karen Silkwood
wrote:
What if every yard had a garden. Plants have solar displays. called
leaves. If you have a nice southern exposure for your house install
bigger windows with adjustable shading. Free Heat.
Karen Silkwood
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for A.C.
bob haller
worse storage batteries age and will need replaced......
Michael Black
But that really was what it was about forty years ago.
Note that wind power was somewhat common in the thirties on farms, they'd
be used to charge some batteries for the radio and maybe a few other
things, before electricity had been brought to the farms. But they
basically lived without electricity, so they used other "power" to
heat the homes and cook the food, and the wind power was just a
supplement.
Forty years ago when people were talking about "alternative technology",
the thrust was to minimize consumption. Make houses energy efficient, so
they didn't need much power for heating (or cooling). Build them from
scratch, so you could do a better job than trying to retrofit some old
house designed for fashion. Since electricity would be difficult to come
by via solar panels or windpower, you tried to eliminate electricity use
before that. Don't make electricity then convert it to heat, build up
solar collectors to heat up the home, or bury the house to keep it at a
constant temperature to limit heating/cooling power consumption.
Forty years ago, a house could live with relative little electricity, if
done properly and the will was there. But they'd do things like get
propane powered refrigerators. But also, there was a lot less things
around the house that ran off electricity. And what you'd do is modify
the equipment to run off DC or buy equipment that ran off DC, so you'd
avoid collecting power through solar panels and then using an inverter to
get the power up to 120VAC, which the equipment would then convert
internally down to a lower voltage DC.
And you'd change your life, take advantage of daylight sun, and then go to
bed as darkness arrived (more or less). Solar power disappears at night,
hence the need for storage system in order to provide power when the sun
isn't out.
Michael
Rod Speed
You're hallucinating, again.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> m...@privacy.net wrote
>>>>> AndyS <jungl...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> It only looks practical if you are thinking "free sunlight"....
>>>>> ok but what if every roof in the USA had just one square
>>>>> yard of panel.... again one every roof coast to coast
>>>> It would be a waste of a hell of a lot of money.
>>>> Essentially because square yard of panel wont power very much.
>>>>> And every roof was grid tied into the system so as to inject this
>>>>> power back into grid
>>>> All that would do is put more power into the grid when it isnt needed.
>>>> Its needed most when people start cooking in the evening etc and in
>>>> the winter for heating once they come home from work etc and would
>>>> be no use for that.
>>> Yes, because nowhere in the civilized world would anyone use air conditioning during the day
>> A square yard of panel aint gunna drive a house's air conditioning, stupid.
> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for A.C.
You wont run a full house swamp cooler with a square yard panel either.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It only looks practical if you are thinking "free sunlight"....
>
> >>>>>>> ok but what if every roof in the USA had just one square
> >>>>>>> yard of panel.... again one every roof coast to coast
>
> >>>>>> It would be a waste of a hell of a lot of money.
>
> >>>>>> Essentially because square yard of panel wont power very much.
>
> >>>>>>> And every roof was grid tied into the system so as to inject this
> >>>>>>> power back into grid
>
> >>>>>> All that would do is put more power into the grid when it isnt needed.
>
> >>>>>> Its needed most when people start cooking in the evening etc and
> >>>>>> in the winter for heating once they come home from work etc and
> >>>>>> would be no use for that.
>
> >>>>> Yes, because nowhere in the civilized world would anyone use air
> >>>>> conditioning during the day
>
> >>>> A square yard of panel aint gunna drive a house's air conditioning,
> >>>> stupid.
>
> >>> And the poster wasn't talking about one square yard, drongo, he was
> >>> talking about every roof. Do learn to read
>
> >> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to see the one square
> >> yard panel mentioned in the second para, fuckwit.
>
> > Even a drongo like you should be able to see the "one on every roof
> > coast to coast" mentioned in the second para. Do learn to read
>
> You're hallucinating, again.
Translation: He is absolutely correct and I didn't notice the part about every
roof coast to coast. I am such a drongo
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
Rod Speed
m...@privacy.net
>
>Even someone as stupid as you should be able to see the one square
>yard panel mentioned in the second para, fuckwit.
>
there are 130 million roofs in the USA
so that's 130 million square yards total
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to see the
>> one square yard panel mentioned in the second para, fuckwit.
> there are 130 million roofs in the USA
So the cost would be immense.
And they would mostly be generating power at a
time of day when the grid has a surplus of power.
THATS the very fundamental problem with solar on the grid.
> so that's 130 million square yards total
Nope, because they wouldnt all be working for long.
J Burns
>
> Note that wind power was somewhat common in the thirties on farms,
> they'd be used to charge some batteries for the radio and maybe a few
> other things, before electricity had been brought to the farms. But they
> basically lived without electricity, so they used other "power" to
> heat the homes and cook the food, and the wind power was just a supplement.
My BIL, a cabinetmaker, has used a windmill to run his household, shop,
and car since the 1990s. He sells his excess to the utility.
Naturally he doesn't use electricity to heat — but I doubt any of his
neighbors have heat pumps, either. I'm sure his refrigeration is
electric. I'll bet he has electric cooking, but I haven't asked.
>
>
> Forty years ago, a house could live with relative little electricity, if
> done properly and the will was there. But they'd do things like get
> propane powered refrigerators. But also, there was a lot less things
> around the house that ran off electricity. And what you'd do is modify
> the equipment to run off DC or buy equipment that ran off DC, so you'd
> avoid collecting power through solar panels and then using an inverter
> to get the power up to 120VAC, which the equipment would then convert
> internally down to a lower voltage DC.
>
> And you'd change your life, take advantage of daylight sun, and then go
> to bed as darkness arrived (more or less). Solar power disappears at
> night, hence the need for storage system in order to provide power when
> the sun isn't out.
>
> Michael
Forty years ago, I knew a rich man who had been a corporate president,
then a farmer, then retired. He lived in an elegant house he'd built.
He once complained that his electric bill was nearly $2.
He loved the convenience of electricity for lighting, music, cooking,
refrigerating, water heating, etc. He kept his refrigerator in the
cellar because it made sense to put it where it was cool and he didn't
want noise in his living space. If he had a few minutes to spare, he'd
cook with wood because it was more enjoyable than electricity. His
electric bill was low because he had 19th Century aesthetic values.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And they would mostly be generating power at a
> time of day when the grid has a surplus of power.
Because of course there is no such thing as increased demand for air
conditioning in the summer.
The Real Bev
More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August,
I take it...
--
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"It is a matter of regret that many low, mean suspicions
turn out to be well-founded." -- Edgar Watson Howe
The Real Bev
> On 3/22/11 12:21 AM, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> Note that wind power was somewhat common in the thirties on farms,
>> they'd be used to charge some batteries for the radio and maybe a few
>> other things, before electricity had been brought to the farms. But they
>> basically lived without electricity, so they used other "power" to
>> heat the homes and cook the food, and the wind power was just a supplement.
>
> My BIL, a cabinetmaker, has used a windmill to run his household, shop,
> and car since the 1990s. He sells his excess to the utility.
>
> Naturally he doesn't use electricity to heat — but I doubt any of his
> neighbors have heat pumps, either. I'm sure his refrigeration is
> electric. I'll bet he has electric cooking, but I haven't asked.
He clearly doesn't live in a city -- I can't imagine any City Zoning
Board allowing a windmill, and many HOAs don't even allow clotheslines.
I wouldn't mind having a windmill in the backyard, and I'd LOVE a cell
tower!
m...@privacy.net
>So the cost would be immense.
>
>And they would mostly be generating power at a
>time of day when the grid has a surplus of power.
>
>THATS the very fundamental problem with solar on the grid.
>
>> so that's 130 million square yards total
>
>Nope, because they wouldnt all be working for long.
maybe
I can put a square yard panel on roof and inverter for
abt $800
since the USA has 4 times zones that fact helps...since
each roof gets sun at varying times of day
even if its not stored...what does it hurt?
we use the nukes, coal, and gas at night
m...@privacy.net
>What if every yard had a garden. Plants have solar displays. called
>leaves. If you have a nice southern exposure for your house install
>bigger windows with adjustable shading. Free Heat.
watch this video
m...@privacy.net
m...@privacy.net
>worse storage batteries age and will need replaced......
watch this video
we don't need batteries
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> And they would mostly be generating power at a
>> time of day when the grid has a surplus of power.
> Because of course there is no such thing as increased
> demand for air conditioning in the summer.
Mostly when people get home from work, when the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
Rod Speed
> J Burns wrote
>> Michael Black wrote
>>> Note that wind power was somewhat common in the thirties on farms,
>>> they'd be used to charge some batteries for the radio and maybe a
>>> few other things, before electricity had been brought to the
>>> farms. But they basically lived without electricity, so they used
>>> other "power" to heat the homes and cook the food, and the wind
>>> power was just a supplement.
>> My BIL, a cabinetmaker, has used a windmill to run his household,
>> shop, and car since the 1990s. He sells his excess to the utility.
>> Naturally he doesn't use electricity to heat — but I doubt any of his
>> neighbors have heat pumps, either. I'm sure his refrigeration is
>> electric. I'll bet he has electric cooking, but I haven't asked.
> He clearly doesn't live in a city -- I can't imagine any City Zoning Board allowing a windmill,
Some do. Not usually the traditional types of windmill.
> and many HOAs don't even allow clotheslines.
So dont be stupid enough to 'live' in one of those.
> I wouldn't mind having a windmill in the backyard,
I actually had one at work. Pretty useless.
> and I'd LOVE a cell tower!
You're just a pov, you dont qualify.
J Burns
> On 03/22/11 10:56, J Burns wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/11 12:21 AM, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> Note that wind power was somewhat common in the thirties on farms,
>>> they'd be used to charge some batteries for the radio and maybe a few
>>> other things, before electricity had been brought to the farms. But they
>>> basically lived without electricity, so they used other "power" to
>>> heat the homes and cook the food, and the wind power was just a
>>> supplement.
>>
>> My BIL, a cabinetmaker, has used a windmill to run his household, shop,
>> and car since the 1990s. He sells his excess to the utility.
>>
>> Naturally he doesn't use electricity to heat — but I doubt any of his
>> neighbors have heat pumps, either. I'm sure his refrigeration is
>> electric. I'll bet he has electric cooking, but I haven't asked.
>
> He clearly doesn't live in a city -- I can't imagine any City Zoning
> Board allowing a windmill, and many HOAs don't even allow clotheslines.
>
> I wouldn't mind having a windmill in the backyard, and I'd LOVE a cell
> tower!
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> So the cost would be immense.
>> And they would mostly be generating power at a
>> time of day when the grid has a surplus of power.
>> THATS the very fundamental problem with solar on the grid.
>>> so that's 130 million square yards total
>> Nope, because they wouldnt all be working for long.
> maybe
No maybe about it, you'll never see 100% of anything working
forever, even stuff as basic as a stove or vacuum cleaner or bike.
> I can put a square yard panel on roof and inverter for abt $800
And you wouldnt be able to power much more than lights and electronic appliances from it.
None of those once it gets dark.
> since the USA has 4 times zones that fact helps...
> since each roof gets sun at varying times of day
Sure, but none of them get anything from the panels at night.
> even if its not stored...what does it hurt?
Its the cost that hurts.
> we use the nukes, coal, and gas at night
Once you have those, there isnt any point in spending that $130B on a square yard of panel on every roof.
The marginal cost of running the nukes during the day is peanuts. They dont like being stopped daily anyway.
J Burns
> On 03/21/11 20:21, Karen Silkwood wrote:
>> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for A.C.
>
> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August, I
> take it...
>
I guess that's why the Yuma County Fair warns that the Fine Arts
Building has evaporative cooling only. I'll bet it will be fine March
29 to April 3. I imagine it would be adequate on many August days.
Rod Speed
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote
> watch this video
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o
He's completely off with the fairys. And my qualifications are in chemisty.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mostly when people get home from work, when the panels are producing fuck all
> power, stupid.
But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning their store or
office during the heat of the summer when the panels are producing the most
power, drongo
> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
But spread out over several time zones and millions of rooftops it's a perfect
way to produce extra base load. Do learn something about the grid
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Mostly when people get home from work, when
>> the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
> But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning
> their store or office during the heat of the summer
Those can be perfectly adequately powered with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
more expensively.
>> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
> But spread out over several time zones and millions
> of rooftops it's a perfect way to produce extra base load.
Pity about the immensely more expensive cost, fuckwit.
That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Mostly when people get home from work, when
> >> the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
>
> > But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning
> > their store or office during the heat of the summer
>
> Those can be perfectly adequately powered with the baseload power generation,
> fuckwit.
Maybe yesterday and maybe today, but with the ever increasing new gotta have
gizmos the base load requirement will soon be swamped. In any event
supplementing the baseload with solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
>
> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
> more expensively.
Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build just TWO
Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that and never even have to
address the spent fuel issue...while increasing baseload and lowering emissions.
But what the hey, PV is just too damn expensive...unless you have a gov't loan
guarantee...too bad such a thing couldn't happen for PV
>
> >> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
>
> > But spread out over several time zones and millions
> > of rooftops it's a perfect way to produce extra base load.
>
> Pity about the immensely more expensive cost, fuckwit.
Compared to Nukes, it's an absolute bargain
>
> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could, improving the environment
and lessening health care costs...absolutely
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Mostly when people get home from work, when
>>>> the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
>>> But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning
>>> their store or office during the heat of the summer
>> Those can be perfectly adequately powered
>> with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
> Maybe yesterday and maybe today,
No maybe about it. For the future too.
> but with the ever increasing new gotta have gizmos
> the base load requirement will soon be swamped.
Nope, anyone with even half a clue builds more as they are required.
> In any event supplementing the baseload with
> solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
Like hell it does with airconditioning.
A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
And does that MUCH more expensively than any of the
normal base load power generation systems does.
>> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
>> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
>> more expensively.
> Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build
> just TWO Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
No need, they know that $130B wouldnt do anything like that.
> You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that
Another pig ignorant lie. Nothing like what those nukes will generate.
> and never even have to address the spent fuel issue...
Nothing to 'address', its reprocessed and used in nukes.
> while increasing baseload
At a VASTLY higher cost, particularly when is so unreliable.
> and lowering emissions.
Another pig ignorant lie. You're ignoring the emissions produced when the panels are made.
> But what the hey, PV is just too damn expensive...
Corse it is. PV would cost 5 times what the nukes would cost
and would be MUCH less a reliable source of electricity.
> unless you have a gov't loan guarantee...too bad such a thing couldn't happen for PV
Because even Obama aint actually THAT stupid.
>>>> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
>>> But spread out over several time zones and millions
>>> of rooftops it's a perfect way to produce extra base load.
>> Pity about the immensely more expensive cost, fuckwit.
> Compared to Nukes, it's an absolute bargain
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
havent got a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
You need the nukes for when the sun aint shining anyway, fool.
>> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
> By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could,
Pigs arse it would. What jobs it would produce would be in china.
> improving the environment
Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those roofs.
> and lessening health care costs...
Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns falling off their roofs when cleaning the panels.
Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted with.
m...@privacy.net
>Those can be perfectly adequately powered with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
there isn't enough uranium to last more than 30 years
at current rates
what then? coal ONLY? that's not good
Bob F
>> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for
>> A.C.
>
> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in
> August, I take it...
Yuma is no problem. Where it's humid, maybe less so.
J Burns
Sometimes in August Yuma's dew point is in the 70s.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Those can be perfectly adequately powered with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
> there isn't enough uranium to last more than 30 years at current rates
That is just plain wrong. There is hordes of it from the bombs being scrapped,
spent fuel reprocessed and thats not even counting the thorium and breeder nukes.
> what then?
Breeders.
> coal ONLY? that's not good
Its just a fantasy.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Those can be perfectly adequately powered
> >> with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
>
> > Maybe yesterday and maybe today,
>
> No maybe about it. For the future too.
If the future means for the next several years. Technology doesn't sleep.
>
> > but with the ever increasing new gotta have gizmos
> > the base load requirement will soon be swamped.
>
> Nope, anyone with even half a clue builds more as they are required.
At ever increasing marginal costs.
>
> > In any event supplementing the baseload with
> > solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
>
> Like hell it does with airconditioning.
Care to try that in english
>
> A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
And you continually insist on proving your lack of reading abilities. Read the
subject line: "If every roof was a solar panel". Do try to keep up old man
>
> And does that MUCH more expensively than any of the
> normal base load power generation systems does.
Sure, 14.5 billion for two nukes is much less expensive and more quickly
implemented.
>
> >> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
> >> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
> >> more expensively.
>
> > Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build
> > just TWO Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
>
> No need, they know that $130B wouldnt do anything like that.
What they know is that they can't lose any money building nukes. Gov't loan
guarantees and a guaranteed rate of return courtesy of the Georgia Public
Utilities Commission. They couldn't do it without either of those. Capitalism at
its best
>
> > You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that
>
> Another pig ignorant lie. Nothing like what those nukes will generate.
Including nuclear waste with no viable storage solution.
>
> > and never even have to address the spent fuel issue...
>
> Nothing to 'address', its reprocessed and used in nukes.
1) where it is reprocessed it is only because of the inability to extract all of
the available energy in one pass
2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once with an additional gain
of approx 25%. New generations of unbuilt plants MIGHT do a second and third
reprocessing
3) Not all countries reprocess.
Once-through nuclear fuel cycle
A once through (or open) fuel cycle
Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent to storage without further
processing save additional packaging to provide for better isolation from the
biosphere. This method is favored by six countries: the United States, Canada,
Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
>
> > while increasing baseload
>
> At a VASTLY higher cost, particularly when is so unreliable.
What part of PV is unreliable? Perhaps you would like to use the words "not
always available"
>
> > and lowering emissions.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie. You're ignoring the emissions produced when the
> panels are made.
And you will show us with your usual style a well documented cite proving that
these emissions are equal to or greater than the emissions from coal and gas
fired plants
>
> > Compared to Nukes, it's an absolute bargain
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
> havent got a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Oh, did I upset you, again?
>
> You need the nukes for when the sun aint shining anyway, fool.
Strange how the world lived without nukes for over 60 years
>
> >> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
>
> > By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could,
>
> Pigs arse it would. What jobs it would produce would be in china.
Not if the policy were to buy local so as to stimulate the economy. But even if
it they were in China, it would still produce more jobs than a Nuke plant would.
>
> > improving the environment
>
> Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those
> roofs.
Roofs that are so beautiful now?
>
> > and lessening health care costs...
>
> Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns falling off their roofs
> when cleaning the panels.
Not everyone is as clumsy as you. Of course I guess we should eliminate chimneys
because of all those chimney sweeps that are falling off the roofs when sweeping
chimneys.
>
> Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted with.
Is that really the best you can do?
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Those can be perfectly adequately powered
>>>> with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
>>> Maybe yesterday and maybe today,
>> No maybe about it. For the future too.
> If the future means for the next several years.
For the hundreds of years in fact.
> Technology doesn't sleep.
What matters is the relative prices of the technology.
>>> but with the ever increasing new gotta have gizmos
>>> the base load requirement will soon be swamped.
>> Nope, anyone with even half a clue builds more as they are required.
> At ever increasing marginal costs.
Thats another lie. If you dont care about the CO2 from
coal burning, those get cheaper, not more expensive.
>>> In any event supplementing the baseload with
>>> solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
>> Like hell it does with airconditioning.
> Care to try that in english
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to comprehend
that, its only got one word with more than one syllable.
>> A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
> And you continually insist on proving your lack of reading abilities.
> Read the subject line: "If every roof was a solar panel".
All threads move on from the subject, fuckwit.
This one had moved on to one square yard panel per roof, fuckwit.
>> And does that MUCH more expensively than any of the
>> normal base load power generation systems does.
> Sure, 14.5 billion for two nukes is much less expensive
Yep, even just one square yard panel on every roof would cost
something like $130B. Ten times the cost of those two nukes.
> and more quickly implemented.
Thats a lie with one panel per roof.
>>>> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
>>>> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load,
>>>> much more expensively.
>>> Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build
>>> just TWO Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
>> No need, they know that $130B wouldnt do anything like that.
> What they know is that they can't lose any money building nukes.
> Gov't loan guarantees and a guaranteed rate of return courtesy
> of the Georgia Public Utilities Commission. They couldn't do it
> without either of those. Capitalism at its best
Irrelevant to the FACT that one panel on every roof would cost a hell
of a lot more and wouldnt deliver anything like the same power either.
>>> You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that
>> Another pig ignorant lie. Nothing like what those nukes will generate.
> Including nuclear waste with no viable storage solution.
Another pig ignorant lie. Its reprocessed and used in nukes.
>>> and never even have to address the spent fuel issue...
>> Nothing to 'address', its reprocessed and used in nukes.
> 1) where it is reprocessed it is only because of the
> inability to extract all of the available energy in one pass
And that happens with ALL nukes, fuckwit.
> 2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once
Another pig ignorant lie.
> with an additional gain of approx 25%.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> New generations of unbuilt plants MIGHT
> do a second and third reprocessing
Doing it right now, fool.
> 3) Not all countries reprocess.
Not all countrys have nukes, fool.
> Once-through nuclear fuel cycle
Another pig ignorant lie.
> A once through (or open) fuel cycle
Only fools do anything like that.
> Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent
> to storage without further processing save additional
> packaging to provide for better isolation from the biosphere.
Only fools do anything like that.
> This method is favored by six countries: the United States,
> Canada, Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
Those only do that currently because its cheaper to use new fuel currently.
>>> while increasing baseload
>> At a VASTLY higher cost, particularly when is so unreliable.
> What part of PV is unreliable?
The sun stops shining at least once a day fool.
> Perhaps you would like to use the words "not always available"
Nope, its unreliable, because the sun doesnt shine all the time, fool.
>>> and lowering emissions.
>> Another pig ignorant lie. You're ignoring the emissions produced
>> when the panels are made.
> And you will show us with your usual style a well documented
> cite proving that these emissions are equal to or greater than
> the emissions from coal and gas fired plants
Corse they have to be greater when the power used to do that
comes from coal and gas fired plants and there is the extra
emissions from the plants that produce the materials used, fool.
>>> Compared to Nukes, it's an absolute bargain
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>> havent got a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Oh, did I upset you, again?
You never ever have done anything like that, fool.
>> You need the nukes for when the sun aint shining anyway, fool.
> Strange how the world lived without nukes for over 60 years
That was when it didnt care about the CO2 produced that way.
>>>> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
>>> By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could,
>> Pigs arse it would. What jobs it would produce would be in china.
> Not if the policy were to buy local so as to stimulate the economy.
Taint gunna happen. That would make an already immense cost much higher again.
Even you should have noticed that the US already has a massive problem
paying for the bailout that was needed when the clowns were allowed to
completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
> But even if it they were in China, it would still
> produce more jobs than a Nuke plant would.
Done by illegal immigrants.
>>> improving the environment
>> Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those roofs.
> Roofs that are so beautiful now?
Lot better than they would be with a panel on every roof.
>>> and lessening health care costs...
>> Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns
>> falling off their roofs when cleaning the panels.
> Not everyone is as clumsy as you. Of course I guess we
> should eliminate chimneys because of all those chimney
> sweeps that are falling off the roofs when sweeping chimneys.
Few clean their own chimneys. Plenty would try to clean their
own panels, just like they mostly do clean their own windows.
>> Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted with.
> Is that really the best you can do?
Your shit is clearly the best you can manage.
<reams of your wogshit flushed where it belongs>
Bill Bowden
> On 03/21/11 20:21, Karen Silkwood wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Rod Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> >> > Rod Speed<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote
> >> >>> AndyS<junglean...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> >>>> It only looks practical if you are thinking "free sunlight"....
>
> >> >>> ok but what if every roof in the USA had just one square
> >> >>> yard of panel.... again one every roof coast to coast
>
> >> >> It would be a waste of a hell of a lot of money.
>
> >> >> Essentially because square yard of panel wont power very much.
>
> >> >>> And every roof was grid tied into the system so as to inject this
> >> >>> power back into grid
>
> >> >> All that would do is put more power into the grid when it isnt needed.
>
> >> >> Its needed most when people start cooking in the evening etc and in
> >> >> the winter for heating once they come home from work etc and would
> >> >> be no use for that.
>
> >> > Yes, because nowhere in the civilized world would anyone use air
> >> > conditioning during the day
>
> >> A square yard of panel aint gunna drive a house's air conditioning, stupid.
>
> > But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for A.C.
>
> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August,
> I take it...
>
My relatives lived in Yuma with one level of the house underground.
Stayed fairly cool day and night in August with most of the hot air
upstairs, or outside.
-Bill
Bill Bowden
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So the cost would be immense.
>
> >And they would mostly be generating power at a
> >time of day when the grid has a surplus of power.
>
> >THATS the very fundamental problem with solar on the grid.
>
> >> so that's 130 million square yards total
>
> >Nope, because they wouldnt all be working for long.
>
> maybe
>
> I can put a square yard panel on roof and inverter for
> abt $800
>
A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
housing material and inverter.
-Bill
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the hundreds of years in fact.
Not a chance. Worst case scenario is that a new technology comes along to change
the formula
> What matters is the relative prices of the technology.
And those prices always become lower
> Thats another lie. If you dont care about the CO2 from
> coal burning, those get cheaper, not more expensive.
But strangely enough we care about such marginal things as pollution. Shame you
don't. You might as well say if we paid the coal miners less the they get
cheaper.
> >> Like hell it does with airconditioning.
>
> > Care to try that in english
>
> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to comprehend
> that, its only got one word with more than one syllable.
monosyllabic gibberish is still gibberish
>
> >> A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
>
> > And you continually insist on proving your lack of reading abilities.
> > Read the subject line: "If every roof was a solar panel".
>
> All threads move on from the subject, fuckwit.
And I keep moving it back, old fella
>
> This one had moved on to one square yard panel per roof, fuckwit.
Then you should have changed the subject line. I fixed that by moving my
discussion back on topic
> > Sure, 14.5 billion for two nukes is much less expensive
>
> Yep, even just one square yard panel on every roof would cost
> something like $130B. Ten times the cost of those two nukes.
At todays prices. Remember, technology moves on and prices get lower.
>
> > and more quickly implemented.
>
> Thats a lie with one panel per roof.
Let's see your math to back that up
> Irrelevant to the FACT that one panel on every roof would cost a hell
> of a lot more and wouldnt deliver anything like the same power either.
In fact having a program to cover every roof with one square yard each would
result in the per unit cost becoming lower, low enough for somebody to realize
that they could actually put more than one square yard on each roof
> > 1) where it is reprocessed it is only because of the
> > inability to extract all of the available energy in one pass
>
> And that happens with ALL nukes, fuckwit.
Which makes them inherently wasteful
>
> > 2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.
I don't see you offering proof
>
> > with an additional gain of approx 25%.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.
Since you are obviously a Nuclear Physicist I'll wait for you to provide a cite
to prove that
>
> > New generations of unbuilt plants MIGHT
> > do a second and third reprocessing
>
> Doing it right now, fool.
Which ones?
>
> > 3) Not all countries reprocess.
>
> Not all countrys have nukes, fool.
So you were unable to follow the thought. How unsurprising. So I'll rod it down
for you: Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
>
> > Once-through nuclear fuel cycle
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.
Which you will be unable to prove
>
> > A once through (or open) fuel cycle
>
> Only fools do anything like that.
Seems like fools and nuke plants go hand in hand
>
> > Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent
> > to storage without further processing save additional
> > packaging to provide for better isolation from the biosphere.
>
> Only fools do anything like that.
>
> > This method is favored by six countries: the United States,
> > Canada, Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
>
> Those only do that currently because its cheaper to use new fuel currently.
So your statement that only fools do that is a lie
> > And you will show us with your usual style a well documented
> > cite proving that these emissions are equal to or greater than
> > the emissions from coal and gas fired plants
>
> Corse they have to be greater when the power used to do that
> comes from coal and gas fired plants and there is the extra
> emissions from the plants that produce the materials used, fool.
That's a very verbose lack of response. In fact there is at least one PV plant
that is powered by...PVs
Now if you offer some actual proof about the emissions, I would be impressed.
> > Oh, did I upset you, again?
>
> You never ever have done anything like that, fool.
Of course I do and you will soon prove it by running away from this discussion
and replacing everything with your version of a slammed door:
reams of your pig ignorant mindless **** flushed where it belong
or
Rod Speed once again wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for
dead
> Taint gunna happen. That would make an already immense cost much higher
> again.
Remember this, say it over and over until you actually hear it: Technology never
sleeps
>
> Even you should have noticed that the US already has a massive problem
> paying for the bailout that was needed when the clowns were allowed to
> completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
And you should have been able to discern that the economy is slowly but surely
getting better.
>
> > But even if it they were in China, it would still
> > produce more jobs than a Nuke plant would.
>
> Done by illegal immigrants.
Jobs is jobs
>
> >>> improving the environment
>
> >> Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those
> >> roofs.
>
> > Roofs that are so beautiful now?
>
> Lot better than they would be with a panel on every roof.
Just for effete snobs like you they now make PVs that mimic roof tiles
>
> >>> and lessening health care costs...
>
> >> Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns
> >> falling off their roofs when cleaning the panels.
>
> > Not everyone is as clumsy as you. Of course I guess we
> > should eliminate chimneys because of all those chimney
> > sweeps that are falling off the roofs when sweeping chimneys.
>
> Few clean their own chimneys.
But what about those poor chimney sweeps?
> Plenty would try to clean their
> own panels, just like they mostly do clean their own windows.
By incorporating special Low-E glass you tend to eliminate dust problems and a
good hose with a nozzle or wand eliminates the need to actually climb on the
roof.
>
> >> Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted
> >> with.
>
> > Is that really the best you can do?
>
> Your shit is clearly the best you can manage
But it's so much better than yours. Must irritate the hell out of you that you
can never provide proof for any of your pig ignorant blathering.
.
>
> <reams of your wogshit flushed where it belongs>
See, you've already put on your size 14EEE track shoes so you can run away as
fast as possible.
The Real Bev
Perhaps. I know you need SOMETHING. While we were having dental work
in Algodones the power in the entire town went out for an hour or so.
Not pleasant.
If you, as a business, warn people about your own shortcomings, I
suspect that they're not likely to be imaginary.
--
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Once you've provoked a few people into publicly swearing they are going
to hunt you down and kill you, the thrill wears off." -Elric of Imrryr
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Those can be perfectly adequately powered
>>>>>> with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
>>>>> Maybe yesterday and maybe today,
>>>> No maybe about it. For the future too.
>>> If the future means for the next several years.
>> For the hundreds of years in fact.
> Not a chance.
Fraid so, you watch.
> Worst case scenario is that a new technology comes along to change the formula
Wont happen with power generation eliminating baseload power generation.
You cant change the laws of physics, stupid.
>>> Technology doesn't sleep.
Sometimes it does. There hasnt been any new technology for
eating utensils since knives and forkes and spoons were invented.
The chinese didnt even bother with those, they kept using
chopsticks they invented thousands of years ago now.
>> What matters is the relative prices of the technology.
> And those prices always become lower
Not always, particularly when the resource used starts getting very scarce.
>>>>> but with the ever increasing new gotta have gizmos
>>>>> the base load requirement will soon be swamped.
>>>> Nope, anyone with even half a clue builds more as they are required.
>>> At ever increasing marginal costs.
>> Thats another lie. If you dont care about the CO2 from
>> coal burning, those get cheaper, not more expensive.
> But strangely enough we care about such marginal things as pollution.
Some do, plenty dont. The chinese clearly dont currently.
> Shame you don't.
You aint established that I dont. I care about the
visual pollution that solar on all roofs would produce.
I'd much rather have nice clean nukes producing electricity that
is used to power everything instead. And would much rather not
have the CO2 pollution that coal fired power stations produce.
And would much rather have houses heated with the electricity
from nice clean nukes rather than have then heated by burning
natural gas, oil or wood.
> You might as well say if we paid the coal miners less the they get cheaper.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
>>>>> In any event supplementing the baseload with
>>>>> solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
>>>> Like hell it does with airconditioning.
>>> Care to try that in english
>> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to comprehend
>> that, its only got one word with more than one syllable.
> monosyllabic gibberish is still gibberish
You wouldnt know what real gibberish was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
>>>> A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
>>> And you continually insist on proving your lack of reading
>>> abilities. Read the subject line: "If every roof was a solar panel".
>> All threads move on from the subject, fuckwit.
> And I keep moving it back,
Another bare faced lie.
>> This one had moved on to one square yard panel per roof, fuckwit.
> Then you should have changed the subject line.
Nope. Some usenet clients dont handle that very well, fuckwit.
> I fixed that by moving my discussion back on topic
Another bare faced lie. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as always.
>>> Sure, 14.5 billion for two nukes is much less expensive
>> Yep, even just one square yard panel on every roof would cost
>> something like $130B. Ten times the cost of those two nukes.
> At todays prices. Remember, technology moves on and prices get lower.
Thats true in spades of nukes, fuckwit.
>>> and more quickly implemented.
>> Thats a lie with one panel per roof.
> Let's see your math to back that up
Dont need any maths to see how long it would take to cover all roofs with solar.
>>>>>> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
>>>>>> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load,
>>>>>> much more expensively.
>>>>> Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build
>>>>> just TWO Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
>>>> No need, they know that $130B wouldnt do anything like that.
>>> What they know is that they can't lose any money building nukes.
>>> Gov't loan guarantees and a guaranteed rate of return courtesy
>>> of the Georgia Public Utilities Commission. They couldn't do it
>>> without either of those. Capitalism at its best
>> Irrelevant to the FACT that one panel on every roof would cost a hell
>> of a lot more and wouldnt deliver anything like the same power either.
> In fact having a program to cover every roof with one square
> yard each would result in the per unit cost becoming lower,
Yes.
> low enough for somebody to realize that they could
> actually put more than one square yard on each roof
They still wouldnt do it anyway.
>>>>> You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie. Nothing like what those nukes will generate.
>>> Including nuclear waste with no viable storage solution.
>> Another pig ignorant lie. Its reprocessed and used in nukes.
>>>>> and never even have to address the spent fuel issue...
>>>> Nothing to 'address', its reprocessed and used in nukes.
>>> 1) where it is reprocessed it is only because of the
>>> inability to extract all of the available energy in one pass
>> And that happens with ALL nukes, fuckwit.
> Which makes them inherently wasteful
Nope, reprocessing stops the waste, fool.
>>> 2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> I don't see you offering proof
YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
YOU get to prove it.
THATS how it works.
>>> with an additional gain of approx 25%.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Since you are obviously a Nuclear Physicist I'll
> wait for you to provide a cite to prove that
YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
YOU get to prove it.
THATS how it works.
>>> New generations of unbuilt plants MIGHT
>>> do a second and third reprocessing
>> Doing it right now, fool.
> Which ones?
The frog ones.
>>> 3) Not all countries reprocess.
>> Not all countrys have nukes, fool.
> So you were unable to follow the thought. How unsurprising. So I'll
> rod it down for you: Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
Yep, they use the services of countrys that do
that more cheaply than they can do it themselves.
>>> Once-through nuclear fuel cycle
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Which you will be unable to prove
YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
YOU get to prove it.
THATS how it works.
>>> A once through (or open) fuel cycle
>> Only fools do anything like that.
> Seems like fools and nuke plants go hand in hand
Nope, just your pig ignorance, as always.
>>> Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent
>>> to storage without further processing save additional
>>> packaging to provide for better isolation from the biosphere.
>> Only fools do anything like that.
>>> This method is favored by six countries: the United States,
>>> Canada, Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
>> Those only do that currently because its cheaper to use new fuel currently.
> So your statement that only fools do that
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> is a lie
Nope, everyone can see for themselves that yours is.
>>> And you will show us with your usual style a well documented
>>> cite proving that these emissions are equal to or greater than
>>> the emissions from coal and gas fired plants
>> Corse they have to be greater when the power used to do that
>> comes from coal and gas fired plants and there is the extra
>> emissions from the plants that produce the materials used, fool.
> That's a very verbose lack of response.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> In fact there is at least one PV plant that is powered by...PVs
Not with the raw materials it uses for the housings etc it aint.
> Now if you offer some actual proof about the emissions, I would be impressed.
You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.
>>> Oh, did I upset you, again?
>> You never ever have done anything like that, fool.
>>>>>> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
>>>>> By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could,
>>>> Pigs arse it would. What jobs it would produce would be in china.
>>> Not if the policy were to buy local so as to stimulate the economy.
>> Taint gunna happen. That would make an already immense cost much higher again.
> Remember this, say it over and over until you actually hear it:
> Technology never sleeps
Quite a bit of the time it does in fact.
Try telling that to the chinese still using chopsticks after all this time.
And that pathetic little mantra has nothing to do with what was being discussed there anyway.
>> Even you should have noticed that the US already has a massive
>> problem paying for the bailout that was needed when the clowns were
>> allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
> And you should have been able to discern that the economy is slowly but surely getting better.
Pity about the immense national debt that isnt.
>>> But even if it they were in China, it would still
>>> produce more jobs than a Nuke plant would.
>> Done by illegal immigrants.
> Jobs is jobs
The congress aint gunna be stupid enough to spend billions subsidising
jobs for illegals with the already immense national debt its currently got.
>>>>> improving the environment
>>>> Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those roofs.
>>> Roofs that are so beautiful now?
>> Lot better than they would be with a panel on every roof.
> Just for effete snobs like you they now make PVs that mimic roof tiles
Pity fuck all will be paying much more for those when the cost is already so
high that hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to cover their roof with them.
>>>>> and lessening health care costs...
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns
>>>> falling off their roofs when cleaning the panels.
>>> Not everyone is as clumsy as you. Of course I guess we
>>> should eliminate chimneys because of all those chimney
>>> sweeps that are falling off the roofs when sweeping chimneys.
>> Few clean their own chimneys.
> But what about those poor chimney sweeps?
They're irrelevan to what solar panels.
>> Plenty would try to clean their own panels,
>> just like they mostly do clean their own windows.
> By incorporating special Low-E glass you tend to eliminate dust problems and
> a good hose with a nozzle or wand eliminates the need to actually climb on the roof.
Pigs arse it does with houses with more than one level.
>>>> Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted with.
>>> Is that really the best you can do?
>> Your shit is clearly the best you can manage
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
> J Burns wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> Karen Silkwood wrote
>>>> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for A.C.
>>> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August, I take it...
>> I guess that's why the Yuma County Fair warns that the Fine Arts Building has evaporative cooling only. I'll bet it
>> will be fine March 29 to April 3. I imagine it would be adequate on many August days.
> Perhaps. I know you need SOMETHING. While we were having dental work
> in Algodones the power in the entire town went out for an hour or so. Not pleasant.
Irrelevant to how well swamp coolers would work there.
m...@privacy.net
<atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
something I came across
USA has no place to PUT spent fuel
m...@privacy.net
>A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
>for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
>and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
>housing material and inverter.
yep only abt 100 watts
but think of the 130 million roofs in the USA
that's 13 gigawatts yes?
interesting
Rod Speed
> Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
> something I came across
> USA has no place to PUT spent fuel
Thats just plain wrong, all nukes have spent fuel.
And when you are going to reprocess it, there is no point in PUTting it anywhere.
> http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=315726
Rod Speed
> Bill Bowden <bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
Only at peak sun times.
> interesting
Nope, its a fart in the bath in the total power demand,
particularly given that you wont get that all at once.
Rod Speed
> Bill Bowden <bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote
>> A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
>> for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
>> and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
>> housing material and inverter.
> yep only abt 100 watts
That wont even power your TV when the sun is shining fully.
> but think of the 130 million roofs in the USA
> that's 13 gigawatts yes?
> interesting
Fraid not.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> For the hundreds of years in fact.
>
> > Not a chance.
>
> Fraid so, you watch.
Yet another of your unsupported "what-ifs"
>
> > Worst case scenario is that a new technology comes along to change the
> > formula
>
> Wont happen with power generation eliminating baseload power generation.
Yet another of your unsupported "what-ifs"
> You cant change the laws of physics, stupid.
But they bend ever so easily
> >>> Technology doesn't sleep.
>
> Sometimes it does. There hasnt been any new technology for eating utensils
> since knives and forkes and spoons were invented.
Ah, drongo, but they have become so cheap that anyone and everyone can afford
them. Just one of the advantages from technology that doesn't sleep
> The chinese didnt even bother with those, they kept using chopsticks they
> invented thousands of years ago now.
Chopsticks which became easier and cheaper to produce. Just one of the
advantages from technology that doesn't sleep
> >> What matters is the relative prices of the technology.
>
> > And those prices always become lower
>
> Not always, particularly when the resource used starts getting very scarce.
Which leads to replacement resources. Just another advantage from technology
that doesn't sleep
> > But strangely enough we care about such marginal things as pollution.
>
> Some do, plenty dont. The chinese clearly dont currently.
Not true. They know how much in lost productivity and increased health care it
is costing them. They are also losing business from companies refusing to
import products that are produced at gross polluter factdories.
> > Shame you don't.
>
> You aint established that I dont. I care about the visual pollution that
> solar on all roofs would produce.
No one will ever die from an ugly looking roof...except hopefully you.
> I'd much rather have nice clean nukes producing electricity that is used to
> power everything instead. And would much rather not have the CO2 pollution
> that coal fired power stations produce.
>
> And would much rather have houses heated with the electricity from nice clean
> nukes rather than have then heated by burning natural gas, oil or wood.
How sad for you. I'd much rather have a properly designed house that has a
minimum heating and cooling load, a load that could easily be supplied by
direct/indirect solar and passive cooling.
> > You might as well say if we paid the coal miners less the they get cheaper.
>
> You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
Are you speaking from personal experience, old man?
> > monosyllabic gibberish is still gibberish
>
> You wouldnt know what real gibberish was if it bit you on your lard arse,
> child.
Not true. You are a living, breathing example of gibberish...and you are
adamantly intent on continuously proving it.
> >> All threads move on from the subject, fuckwit.
>
> > And I keep moving it back,
>
> Another bare faced lie.
Because when I talk about "every roof" that doesn't mean "every roof" to you.
More proof that you are the poster child for gibberish
> Nope. Some usenet clients dont handle that very well, fuckwit.
But most do. Try using something NOT produced by microsloth
> > I fixed that by moving my discussion back on topic
>
> Another bare faced lie. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as
> always.
Because when I talk about "every roof" that doesn't mean "every roof" to you.
More proof that you are the poster child for gibberish
> > At todays prices. Remember, technology moves on and prices get lower.
>
> Thats true in spades of nukes, fuckwit.
Another bare faced lie. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as
always.
> Dont need any maths to see how long it would take to cover all roofs with
> solar.
So you are unable to do simple math. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of
yourself, as always.
> > In fact having a program to cover every roof with one square yard each
> > would result in the per unit cost becoming lower,
>
> Yes.
So you are now admitting that the $130 billion figure is way too high. Thank
you.
> > low enough for somebody to realize that they could actually put more than
> > one square yard on each roof
>
> They still wouldnt do it anyway.
Just because you are the Rod Almighty in no way means you are able to actually
predict what real people would do
> > Which makes them inherently wasteful
>
> Nope, reprocessing stops the waste, fool.
And still leaves highly radioactive non-fissionable waste to safely store for
1000s of years
> >>> 2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once
>
> >> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
> > I don't see you offering proof
>
> YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
Which you called a lie so it is your responsibility to prove you are correct
>
> YOU get to prove it.
>
> THATS how it works.
Doesn't apply to you though, does it?
> > Which ones?
>
> The frog ones.
Yet another pignorant lie
> > So you were unable to follow the thought. How unsurprising. So I'll rod it
> > down for you: Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
>
> Yep, they use the services of countrys that do that more cheaply than they
> can do it themselves.
Yet another pignorant lie
> >>> Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent to storage without
> >>> further processing save additional packaging to provide for better
> >>> isolation from the biosphere.
>
> >> Only fools do anything like that.
>
> >>> This method is favored by six countries: the United States, Canada,
> >>> Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
>
> >> Those only do that currently because its cheaper to use new fuel
> >> currently.
Ah, so they don't send it to other countries for reprocessing. Thank you for
proving you lied.
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
But as usual you are unable to prove it. Must hurt.
>
> > In fact there is at least one PV plant that is powered by...PVs
>
> Not with the raw materials it uses for the housings etc it aint.
But that wasn't you point. Do try to keep up old fella
>
> > Now if you offer some actual proof about the emissions, I would be
> > impressed.
>
> You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.
TRANSLATION: I rod speed, rod almighty, am unable to offer any proof about the
emissions, so I will soon resort to running away and replying with my less than
kindergarden flame attempts
> > Remember this, say it over and over until you actually hear it: Technology
> > never sleeps
>
> Quite a bit of the time it does in fact.
What a porky
>
> Try telling that to the chinese still using chopsticks after all this time.
>
> And that pathetic little mantra has nothing to do with what was being
> discussed there anyway.
Certainly not with what you are trying to discuss, but most assuredly with what
I keep bringing you back to. Must hurt to have such a short attention span
> > And you should have been able to discern that the economy is slowly but
> > surely getting better.
>
> Pity about the immense national debt that isnt.
Which isn't preventing technology from advancing, nor is it preventing social
advancement. Shame that the economy is slowly but surely getting better.
>
> >>> But even if it they were in China, it would still produce more jobs than
> >>> a Nuke plant would.
>
> >> Done by illegal immigrants.
>
> > Jobs is jobs
>
> The congress aint gunna be stupid enough to spend billions subsidising jobs
> for illegals with the already immense national debt its currently got.
Of course not, but they will spend billions and billions to help national
security and to see all those dollars spent in their districts. That money has
got to go somewhere, doesn't it?
> Pity fuck all will be paying much more for those when the cost is already so
> high that hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to cover their roof with
> them.
Remember technology never sleeps.
> > But what about those poor chimney sweeps?
>
> They're irrelevan to what solar panels.
Could you do that in english?
>
> >> Plenty would try to clean their own panels, just like they mostly do clean
> >> their own windows.
>
> > By incorporating special Low-E glass you tend to eliminate dust problems
> > and a good hose with a nozzle or wand eliminates the need to actually climb
> > on the roof.
>
> Pigs arse it does with houses with more than one level.
Thank you for admitting that the majority of houses would not have any trouble
keeping their panels clean. That wasn't so hard, was it?
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where
> it belongs>
:>}
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote
> > J Burns wrote
> >> The Real Bev wrote
> >>> Karen Silkwood wrote
>
> >>>> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for
> >>>> A.C.
>
> >>> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August, I
> >>> take it...
>
> >> I guess that's why the Yuma County Fair warns that the Fine Arts Building
> >> has evaporative cooling only. I'll bet it
> >> will be fine March 29 to April 3. I imagine it would be adequate on many
> >> August days.
>
> > Perhaps. I know you need SOMETHING. While we were having dental work
> > in Algodones the power in the entire town went out for an hour or so. Not
> > pleasant.
>
> Irrelevant to how well swamp coolers would work there.
Because the efficiency of a swamp cooler rises to infinity when there is no
electricity to power it
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
Bill Bowden
Well, it depends on the average sunlight for the location. Some solar
panels are about $2600 per kilowatt, which is worth 15 cents an hour.
So, if you live in a sunny area, you might get $1.50 a day, figuring
10 hours of bright sunlight.
The return on that investment would be about $550 a year or 21% which
is a pretty good deal. But factoring in cloudy days might cut the
return in half or more to maybe 8%. Works well in southern CA, but
probably not Seattle.
-Bill
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Rod Speed
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Bob F
> In article <8v2ebi...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> }
Just plonk him like everyone else has.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
But I like making him dance...and I think my three character response to what he
considers to be the ultimate flame just upsets him too much
The Real Bev
Actually, it shows him that you read it -- or at least noticed it.
Positive feedback. Not productive.
--
Cheers, Bev
While in high school, we were encouraged to keep a daily journal.
I never liked it, especially when early on I realized that anybody
could find it and read it. Fortunately, the jury never saw it.
--Ho...@Horvath.net
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
wrote:
> On 03/25/11 10:46, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
> > In article<imif0o$7d7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bob F"<bobn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >> > In article<8v2ebi...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod
> >> > Speed"<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> }
> >>
> >> Just plonk him like everyone else has.
> >
> > But I like making him dance...and I think my three character response to
> > what he considers to be the ultimate flame just upsets him too much
>
> Actually, it shows him that you read it -- or at least noticed it. Positive
> feedback. Not productive.
I generally do
The Real Bev
Crap, I spelled 'Malcom' wrong in my killfile :-(
--
Cheers, Bev
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again
incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
wrote:
> On 03/25/11 14:14, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > The Real Bev<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 03/25/11 10:46, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >> > "Bob F"<bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >> >> > "Rod Speed"<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> }
> >> >>
> >> >> Just plonk him like everyone else has.
> >> >
> >> > But I like making him dance...and I think my three character response
> >> > to
> >> > what he considers to be the ultimate flame just upsets him too much
> >>
> >> Actually, it shows him that you read it -- or at least noticed it.
> >> Positive
> >> feedback. Not productive.
> >
> > I generally do
>
> Crap, I spelled 'Malcom' wrong in my killfile :-(
You actually had to manually enter it?
Gary Heston
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>something I came across
>USA has no place to PUT spent fuel
>http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=315726
Whe have a place, at Yucca Mountain. However, a bunch of scaremongers
caused it to be shut down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
Gary
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
Then in fact we have no place to put spent fuel. Another interesting fact is
that no nation has a permanent installation to store spent nuclear fuel
Rod Speed
> ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
>> <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>>> something I came across
>>> USA has no place to PUT spent fuel
>>> http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=315726
>> Whe have a place, at Yucca Mountain. However,
>> a bunch of scaremongers caused it to be shut down.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
>> http://www.yuccamountain.org/
And it can obviously be started again when that makes sense.
> Then in fact we have no place to put spent fuel. Another interesting fact
> is that no nation has a permanent installation to store spent nuclear fuel
Because they all either reprocess or plan to do that sometime, fool.
And you are lying about permanent storage of nuclear waste.
Foo Fighter
Karen Silkwood <geor...@toast.net> wrote:
> We wouldn't need nuke power plants or Wars for Oil.
> Wouldn't that be a better world? New research could make the panels
> cheap. They could heat water or air, even make electricity.
> and Karen would still be with us.
and ; got a smart meter story?
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=2292
How about going solar? wind or geo-thermal?
--
Karma, What a concept!
Foo Fighter
Foo Fighter <geor...@toast.net> wrote:
and here the latest on Solar
According to Lusk, "We can now design nanostructured materials that
generate more than one exciton from a single photon of light, putting to
good use a large portion of the energy that would otherwise just heat up
a solar cell."
The research team, which includes participation from the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, is part of the NSF-funded Renewable Energy
Materials Research Science and Engineering Center at the Colorado School
of Mines in Golden, Colo. The center focuses on materials and
innovations that will significantly impact renewable energy
technologies. Harnessing the unique properties of nanostructured
materials to enhance the performance of solar panels is an area of
particular interest to the center.
"These results are exciting because they go far towards resolving a
long-standing debate within the field," said Mary Galvin, a program
director for the Division of Materials Research at NSF. "Equally
important, they will contribute to establishment of new design
techniques that can be used to make more efficient solar cells."
fo mo;
http://theenergycollective.com/mikegregory1/54515/smaller-particle-size-c
ould-make-solar-panels-more-efficient
Rod Speed
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Get back to us when someone has actually done it commercially and not just
> waffled about it.
technology never sleeps
Rod Speed
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Get back to us when someone has actually done
>> it commercially and not just waffled about it.
> technology never sleeps
The technology involved in clay tablets has.
The technology involved in message sticks has.
The technology the Inka stone wall technology has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inka_mauern_cuzco.jpg
You've never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Get back to us when someone has actually done
> >> it commercially and not just waffled about it.
>
> > technology never sleeps
>
> The technology involved in clay tablets has.
of course it hasn't
>
> The technology involved in message sticks has.
of course it hasn't
>
> The technology the Inka stone wall technology has.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inka_mauern_cuzco.jpg
of course it has
>
> You've never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
technology never sleeps
Rod Speed
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
marco polo
in a perfect world: every roof would be a solar panel,
and there wouldn't be any abortions,
but we don't live in a perfect world.
I think the bottom line is cost.
Solar isn't cheap enough yet. Installation cost,
and future maintenance/replacement.
It will be cost effective sometime in the future,
but it may be decades.
marc
Rod Speed
> in a perfect world: every roof would be a solar panel,
Not necessarily. Its MUCH harder to move around on roofs like that.
> and there wouldn't be any abortions,
> but we don't live in a perfect world.
> I think the bottom line is cost.
Its about more than just cost.
> Solar isn't cheap enough yet. Installation cost,
> and future maintenance/replacement.
> It will be cost effective sometime in the future,
You dont know that.
> but it may be decades.
It may not ever be cost effective. Particularly for the more
demanding uses of power, for heating and cooling.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may not ever be cost effective. Particularly for the more
> demanding uses of power, for heating and cooling.
yes, because the need for cooling would never coincide with the easiest to
harvest solar energy
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
marco polo <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
> in a perfect world: every roof would be a solar panel,
> and there wouldn't be any abortions,
nor would there be pedophile priests or teachers
> but we don't live in a perfect world.
>
> I think the bottom line is cost.
> Solar isn't cheap enough yet. Installation cost,
> and future maintenance/replacement.
> It will be cost effective sometime in the future,
> but it may be decades.
It's a whole lot more cost effective than nuclear
>
> marc
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> It may not ever be cost effective. Particularly for the
>> more demanding uses of power, for heating and cooling.
> yes, because the need for cooling would never coincide with the
> easiest to harvest solar energy
Nope, because even with the roof entirely made up of solar panels,
there just aint enough sunlight falling on it to generate enough power, fool.
And its MUCH worse with heating. There isnt even any sun
at all much of the time that most houses need the heating.
Rod Speed
> marco polo <mark...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in a perfect world: every roof would be a solar panel,
>> and there wouldn't be any abortions,
> nor would there be pedophile priests or teachers
>> but we don't live in a perfect world.
>> I think the bottom line is cost.
>> Solar isn't cheap enough yet. Installation cost,
>> and future maintenance/replacement.
>> It will be cost effective sometime in the future,
>> but it may be decades.
> It's a whole lot more cost effective than nuclear
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
h
"marco polo" <mark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2214c177-e6b5-4c8a...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> .
> in a perfect world: every roof would be a solar panel,
> and there wouldn't be any abortions,
> but we don't live in a perfect world.
Huh? In a perfect world there would be no pregnancy, therefore no need for
abortion. Nice try, but epic fail.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Rod Speed once again wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for
dead
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rod Speed once again wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for
dead
m...@privacy.net
>Whe have a place, at Yucca Mountain. However, a bunch of scaremongers
>caused it to be shut down.
I say we put it in YOUR backyard
Bob F
Anyone Except you.
Bob F
Twice in 2 minutes you couldn't.