Republican Bush and fellow GOP thugs block energy solutions
Harry Hope
From The Associated Press, 7/19/08:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_democrats_energy.html
Murray says Bush, GOP block energy solutions
By MATTHEW DALY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON --
Sen. Patty Murray says Democrats have a plan to combat record-high gas
prices, but President Bush and Republicans in Congress are standing in
the way.
When Bush took office seven years ago, gas was $1.46 a gallon, said
Murray, D-Wash.
"Today, in my state, it's more than triple that. Clearly there's
something wrong with these tired policies."
While there's no simple solution, some reasonable steps can be taken
now to reduce oil prices, Murray said Saturday in the Democrats'
weekly radio address.
"Bush-McCain Republicans haven't come up with anything more than
drill, drill, drill," she said.
"Even John McCain recently admitted that his offshore drilling
proposal has mainly 'psychological' benefits. Our families don't need
to 'feel better' about spending four dollars and-a-half per gallon.
American families need real action that gets real results."
First, oil companies should drill in 68 million acres of federal land
already leased for such use - nearly doubling U.S. production, Murray
said.
The president also should tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -
available for use in emergencies - and work with Democrats to crack
down on Wall Street traders who are unfairly driving up oil prices by
buying huge quantities of oil just to resell at a higher price, Murray
said.
"I don't know what President Bush thinks, but
four-and-a-half-dollar-a-gallon gas is an emergency for America's
families," she said.
"When was the last time the president filled his own tank?"
Eventually, the United States needs to get serious about investing in
renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power,
Murray said.
"Every day, American scientists, innovators and venture capitalists
are researching new technologies that could one day end our addiction
to oil forever. We should fast-track their efforts by making new
investments and keeping their taxes low," Murray said.
__________________________________________________
Harry
Citizen Jimserac
Shortly before making touting himself as the candidate with major
concerns about electric batteries, new energy resources and the like,
candidate John McCain VOTED AGAINST a bill to provide funding for
solar, wind and other energy research.
Make no mistake about it, they will feign interest in new technologies
but the REPUBLICANS COULD AS WELL BE CALLED THE REPUBLICARBONS or
Republicarbs.
The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
is terrifying to republicarbs.
SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
Citizen Jimserac
Tab182
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
dkat
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was the oil companies the were Reagan's biggest supporters - he
promptly destroyed the energy policies of Nixon, Ford and Carter and
took all the money away from federal support of alternative energy
sources. It has been down hill since then.
Patriot Games
<taberna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>BTW...
No one listens to a liar....
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:00:37 -0400, Patriot Games
<Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT), Tab182
><taberna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 13, 9:15 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Tab182
>>> <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jul 11, 6:04 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:36:15 -0700 (PDT), Tab182
>>> >> <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On Jul 11, 7:34 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/international/pakistan_militants/2008/07/10/11...
>>> >> >> Pakistan: Police Nab a Taliban Leader
>>> >> >> Thursday, July 10, 2008
>>> >> >Yeah we get yet another of the weekly they nabbed/killed another
>>> >> >terrorist leader propaganda that later turns out to be nothing more
>>> >> >than complete Bull Shit!
>>> >> Feel free to cite just one time when it was bullshit...
>>> >> >BTW Pretend Patriot FYI the last "Terrorist Leader"the Pakis claimed
>>> >> >they nabbed turned out to be nothing more than a common drug dealer!
>>> >> Cite?
>>> >Gee Pretend Patriot I do not know how you could of missed it?
>>> >After all it was in the same paper and in fact right next to that
>>> >Manimal William sisters story you posted!
>>> If it was SO EASY TO FIND then why haven't you CITED it?
>>> Could the answer be that YOU ARE LYING?
>YES! It turns out YOU WERE LYING!
>>http://mediamatters.org/items/200505130001
>You said he was "nothing more than a common drug dealer."
>Your cite PROVES YOU LIED.
>Your cite describes him as an ACTUAL AL QAEDA Leader, a
>"'middle-level' leader," a "regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and
>local Pakistani Islamic groups."
>You're a PROVEN LIAR.
>Run along LIAR, your credibility has been pissed on.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Harry Hope wrote:
>
> From The Associated Press, 7/19/08:
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_democrats_energy.html
>
> Murray says Bush, GOP block energy solutions
>
> By MATTHEW DALY
> ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
>
> WASHINGTON --
>
> Sen. Patty Murray says Democrats have a plan to combat record-high gas
> prices, but President Bush and Republicans in Congress are standing in
> the way.
>
> When Bush took office seven years ago, gas was $1.46 a gallon, said
> Murray, D-Wash.
>
> "Today, in my state, it's more than triple that. Clearly there's
> something wrong with these tired policies."
>
What Bush policy is driving the price of gas up?
> While there's no simple solution, some reasonable steps can be taken
> now to reduce oil prices, Murray said Saturday in the Democrats'
> weekly radio address.
>
> "Bush-McCain Republicans haven't come up with anything more than
> drill, drill, drill," she said.
>
Increase domestic supply. That makes logical sense. It also isn't
true that Bush only support drilling for oil. He supports biofuels,
whether or not that's sensible or not doesn't matter here.
> "Even John McCain recently admitted that his offshore drilling
> proposal has mainly 'psychological' benefits. Our families don't need
> to 'feel better' about spending four dollars and-a-half per gallon.
> American families need real action that gets real results."
>
I think you are going to have to settle for feeling good about
paying four and half dollars a gallon.
> First, oil companies should drill in 68 million acres of federal land
> already leased for such use - nearly doubling U.S. production, Murray
> said.
>
> The president also should tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -
> available for use in emergencies
>
THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY. USING THE SPR FOR THIS IS WRONG. If
Murray wants to do this, Murray is wrong.
> - and work with Democrats to crack
> down on Wall Street traders who are unfairly driving up oil prices by
> buying huge quantities of oil just to resell at a higher price, Murray
> said.
>
If they are buying oil and holding it, doesn't that mean that
eventually there will be more and more oil and a precipitous price
drop? Yes it does.
> "I don't know what President Bush thinks, but
> four-and-a-half-dollar-a-gallon gas is an emergency for America's
> families," she said.
>
Redefining words to what you want them to mean to justify depleting
the SPR is inane. There is no emergency. What American families
don't need is to go through this pain more than once. They need to
find ways to reduce their energy use. America needs to find more
domestic energy sources. This really must include a build out of
nuclear power.
> "When was the last time the president filled his own tank?"
>
> Eventually, the United States needs to get serious about investing in
> renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power,
> Murray said.
>
> "Every day, American scientists, innovators and venture capitalists
> are researching new technologies that could one day end our addiction
> to oil forever. We should fast-track their efforts by making new
> investments and keeping their taxes low," Murray said.
>
So she wants to give business tax cuts. That's funny.
--
"It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
-+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
> a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
> oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
> is terrifying to republicarbs.
>
> SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
>
How might solar and wind power be set up in the fashion you claim
and how would it get around "monopolists"?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Tab182 wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 11:21 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On J
-
>
> BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
> terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
> used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
>
Really? Is that why Bush has supported development of hydrogen fuel
cells for years?:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07/13/fuel-cell-forklifts-president-bush-likes-them-companies-want-t/
#begin quote
We have got news from two companies going a step ahead the use of
lead-acid batteries in forklifts, at least towards the promotion of
fuel cells. In one hand, there's GrafTech International, Ltd, which
President Bush recently visited, in the other LiftOne and
Engineered Solutions. Both companies have introduced fuel cell
powered forklifts.
As is widely known, President Bush is a firm supporter of the
development of fuel cells, a key for future oil-independence,
according to his words, and thus he showed his support when
visiting GrafTech in Parma, OH. GrafTech unveiled a new graphite
material for the proton exchange membrane of a fuel cell made by
Cellex Provider Products. The cell is mounted in a Crown model PE
End-Controlled Rider Pallet Truck.
#end quote
Tab182
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Tab182
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
SNIFF SNIFF.....I Smell WHITE TRASH!
Hey Pretend Patriot why don't you go back to posting your usual Racist
Filth!
Citizen Jimserac
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
> > The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
> > a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
> > oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
> > is terrifying to republicarbs.
>
> > SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
>
> How might solar and wind power be set up in the fashion you claim
> and how would it get around "monopolists"?
>
Easy. It's called Capitalism.
Massive centrally located pollution spewing hydrocarbon power plants
are unable to compete with the spontaneous emergence of many
environmentally congruent small power stations. Where there is wind
USE WIND. Where there is sun USE SOLAR. Where there is neither, use
nuclear.
Laws already exist which allow independent and/or small power
companies to sell their excess power back to the local power company.
Why hell, it may go even farther than that. Imagine solar panels
and high tech windmills on MANY houses and buildings.
We NO LONGER need the huge ice companies of the 1920's to provide us
ice, refrigerators now do it. Likewise, the production of energy can
be systemically distributed throughout our country.
The consequences for invigorating our economy and freeing us
from the gouging of the cartels are enormous.
Who loses -> the mideast, the cartels, BIG energy and their lobbyists
and the senators and congressmen who are under their control.
Who wins? WE DO.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Tab182 wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 11:21 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On J
> -
>
> > BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
> > terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
> > used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
>
> Really? Is that why Bush has supported development of hydrogen fuel
> cells for years?:
>
> #begin quote
> We have got news from two companies going a step ahead the use of
> lead-acid batteries in forklifts, at least towards the promotion of
> fuel cells. In one hand, there's GrafTech International, Ltd, which
> President Bush recently visited, in the other LiftOne and
> Engineered Solutions. Both companies have introduced fuel cell
> powered forklifts.
>
> As is widely known, President Bush is a firm supporter of the
> development of fuel cells, a key for future oil-independence,
> according to his words, and thus he showed his support when
> visiting GrafTech in Parma, OH. GrafTech unveiled a new graphite
> material for the proton exchange membrane of a fuel cell made by
> Cellex Provider Products. The cell is mounted in a Crown model PE
> End-Controlled Rider Pallet Truck.
> #end quote
>
> --
> "It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
>
> -+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
YES Bill Blonde, Bush is for hydrogen fuel cells -> in fact provided
300 million dollars for "research"!!! And yet Bush is against
research in solar and wind power and McCain recently voted AGAINST
research money for solar and wind.
How can this be??? It is because, (YOU DOLT!)
HYDROGEN FUEL CELL RESEARCH IS THE AT&T PICTUREPHONE OF THE ENERGY
INDUSTRY!!!
You recall the AT&T Picturephone that never was?? For 30 years AT&T
would talk about its "research" (never mentioning all 2 engineers
working on the "project") while all the while just wanting to keep its
cozy government sanctioned monopoly going. (Not exactly "capitalism",
eh Blonde?). "Sure" said the AT&T executives, we're researching
picturephones for a "better tommorow" for all.
Now Bush and GM and the Republicans have found the perfect item for
"research". It MIGHT be ready in 30 years but the technical problems
are just hard enough that (OH DARN IT) will just HAVE to stay with
coal, gas and oil until the new "breakthrough" is ready.
GM, after taking nearly every single one of its EV-1 electric cars to
the junkyard to be crushed, now tells us that in "several" years there
will be "hundreds of thousands" of fuel cell cars on the roads.
BULLSHIT.
Oh yes, with the high price of oil, it has become politically
expedient for Republican candidates to start talking nice nice about
solar and wind because they don't dare expose their true position
which is MORE OF THE SAME - energy dominated by big energy
companies.
GET IT?
Citizen Jimserac
HughJorgan
>
> - Show quoted text -
SNIFF-SNIFF........... I smell a liberal that lost his argument.
HughJorgan
>
> - Show quoted text -
And solar/bird cuisanarts are T-Bone Pickens/Dr."Oracle" Gore's folly.
Citizen Jimserac
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And solar/bird cuisanarts are T-Bone Pickens/Dr."Oracle" Gore's folly.
The FOLLY is to persist in digging for more oil or for "oil from
coal", "oil from rocks", "oil from the sea" or the rest of it.
WE have the technology NOW.
Gore is right, it can be DONE IN 10 YEARS - and once we do it, we will
have liberated ourselves from the cartels ONCE AND FOR ALL.
There are those who do NOT want this, who would allow ANY disruption
of our economy and our society in order to continue their monopoly. I
need not remind you of the historically high profits, in the BILLIONS
that certain oil companies now enjoy
just by doing the same old same old.
Citizen Jimserac
Tom Sr.
It's called the Iraq War.
-Tom Sr.
wby...@ireland.com
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>
>
>> The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
>> a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
>> oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
>> is terrifying to republicarbs.
>>
>> SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
>>
>How might solar and wind power be set up in the fashion you claim
>and how would it get around "monopolists"?
Easily - solar cells and windmills can be set up by municipal power
companies that already exist in many cities and towns, or vote these
public corporations into being thru the ballot. But omigod that means
socialism - not. When the private sector fails abysmally then the
public sector steps in. Our local municipal power/water company
provides electricity at prices lower than PG&E for power and shows a
profit that's utilized to strengthen the infrastructure - and those of
us with solar plug into the grid and watch the meters run backwards at
times.
WB Yeats
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
>
> YES Bill Blonde, Bush is for hydrogen fuel cells -> in fact provided
> 300 million dollars for "research"!!! And yet Bush is against
> research in solar and wind power and McCain recently voted AGAINST
> research money for solar and wind.
>
They are against research in those areas or they think that there's
a private market already doing it?
> How can this be??? It is because, (YOU DOLT!)
> HYDROGEN FUEL CELL RESEARCH IS THE AT&T PICTUREPHONE OF THE ENERGY
> INDUSTRY!!!
>
> You recall the AT&T Picturephone that never was?? For 30 years AT&T
> would talk about its "research" (never mentioning all 2 engineers
> working on the "project") while all the while just wanting to keep its
> cozy government sanctioned monopoly going. (Not exactly "capitalism",
> eh Blonde?). "Sure" said the AT&T executives, we're researching
> picturephones for a "better tommorow" for all.
>
What does that, if true, have to do with hydrogen? Bush is putting
millions of dollar into research into fuel cells and fuel cells are
coming on line.
> Now Bush and GM and the Republicans have found the perfect item for
> "research". It MIGHT be ready in 30 years but the technical problems
> are just hard enough that (OH DARN IT) will just HAVE to stay with
> coal, gas and oil until the new "breakthrough" is ready.
>
Today, most hydrogen is made from natural gas.
> GM, after taking nearly every single one of its EV-1 electric cars to
> the junkyard to be crushed, now tells us that in "several" years there
> will be "hundreds of thousands" of fuel cell cars on the roads.
> BULLSHIT.
>
I'm not sure why you oppose fuel cells.
> Oh yes, with the high price of oil, it has become politically
> expedient for Republican candidates to start talking nice nice about
> solar and wind because they don't dare expose their true position
> which is MORE OF THE SAME - energy dominated by big energy
> companies.
>
> GET IT?
>
No, I don't follow what "energy dominated by big energy company"
means. Producers of energy produce energy, it's going to be that
way in the future too. If you want to dribble in with your energy,
have at it.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 7:15 am, HughJorgan <BurtonU...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And solar/bird cuisanarts are T-Bone Pickens/Dr."Oracle" Gore's folly.
>
> The FOLLY is to persist in digging for more oil or for "oil from
> coal", "oil from rocks", "oil from the sea" or the rest of it.
> WE have the technology NOW.
>
For what? Wind is transitory energy, it cannot be counted on,
therefore it cannot be used for a large percentage of the grid's
energy. It's as simple as that.
> Gore is right, it can be DONE IN 10 YEARS - and once we do it, we will
> have liberated ourselves from the cartels ONCE AND FOR ALL.
>
The price of oil is driven by the market.
> There are those who do NOT want this, who would allow ANY disruption
> of our economy and our society in order to continue their monopoly. I
> need not remind you of the historically high profits, in the BILLIONS
> that certain oil companies now enjoy
> just by doing the same old same old.
>
Oil is the most practical of fuels therefore it is chosen before
other choices. If the price gets too high, people will shift.
Perhaps we should go back to whale oil.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 6:19 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > CitizenJimseracwrote:
> >
> > > The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
> > > a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
> > > oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
> > > is terrifying to republicarbs.
> >
> > > SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
> >
> > How might solar and wind power be set up in the fashion you claim
> > and how would it get around "monopolists"?
> >
>
> Easy. It's called Capitalism.
>
> Massive centrally located pollution spewing hydrocarbon power plants
> are unable to compete with the spontaneous emergence of many
> environmentally congruent small power stations.
>
What?
> Where there is wind
> USE WIND. Where there is sun USE SOLAR.
>
You ignored *when*.
> Where there is neither, use
> nuclear.
>
Nuclear is perfect for base power. Wind and solar cannot be counted
on.
> Laws already exist which allow independent and/or small power
> companies to sell their excess power back to the local power company.
>
Which are sops to the saps. They get the same price for energy they
demand at any time that they sell back any time they feel like it.
That's not right.
> Why hell, it may go even farther than that. Imagine solar panels
> and high tech windmills on MANY houses and buildings.
> We NO LONGER need the huge ice companies of the 1920's to provide us
> ice, refrigerators now do it.
>
That's because the energy for the process is coming into your house
on those wires you hate.
> Likewise, the production of energy can
> be systemically distributed throughout our country.
>
It's not the same at all.
> The consequences for invigorating our economy and freeing us
> from the gouging of the cartels are enormous.
>
> Who loses -> the mideast, the cartels, BIG energy and their lobbyists
> and the senators and congressmen who are under their control.
>
> Who wins? WE DO.
>
Kook Alert.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
So they buy power at the same price they sell it to you even though
clearly the value isn't the same. What happens if a lot of people
have solar and suddenly a cloud comes by, or worse, it's night?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
The Iraq War isn't driving the price of oil. Demand is driving the
price of oil. And that's got to do with China and India growing and
the perception of shortage. Iraq is now pumping about what it did
before the war and it will be able to pump much more in future
because sanctions have been lifted.
wby...@ireland.com
Huh? The power they sell is more than they pay to deliver - they own
the infrastructure. During hours in which the solar isn't available,
we pay the rates. During the daylight when our power use is nada (no
A/C) we sell power. The net/net is the savings pay for the cells in
8-10 years with the life of the cells 25+ depending. I've heard the
newer cells are good for 50+ with the "+" a number not yet arrived at.
WB Yeats
HughJorgan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will I be able to fuel my gas guzzling SUV with it or will Gore/Obama
mandate what I can drive? If you beleive we can build enough solar
power/bird choppers to replace all fossil fueled applications in 10
years you're a bigger loon that we suspected (which is hard to do).
HughJorgan
It's called global demand and speculation. I thought Bush's war was so
we could steal their oil?? Where the fuck is it??
HughJorgan
What do you kooks plan to do about the people that don't want their
countryside covered by bird choppers and millions of solar panels??
What do you plan to do about the animal rights wack jobs and PETA ??
The windmills kill thousands of migrating birds every year.
HughJorgan
>
> - Show quoted text -
The bottom line is,and we all know it,but the left is still trying to
hide the fact that they want to
socili............uuuuuuuhhhhh.................................eeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr..................uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh.....................duuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......................uuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......"nationalize"
Big Oil !
HughJorgan
Perhaps we could boil all the fat assed liberals for their tallow??
HughJorgan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will the goverment still subsidize wind power ? If so,why??
HughJorgan
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:55:54 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>
> - Show quoted text -
No a/c ?? HUH???
HughJorgan
>
> - Show quoted text -
How many solar cells will it take to provide the same amount of power
as one nuclear power plant?? 2 million? 20 million?? 200 million??
Where do you plan to put these?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
HughJorgan wrote:
>
>
> Will the goverment still subsidize wind power ? If so,why??
>
Wind power should be used if it makes sense. But it doesn't make
sense for a large percentage of the grid because it isn't power
that can be counted on. If you combine it with pumped power
storage, then include the cost of both in any comparison of wind to
something like oil or coal or nuclear.
The government should limit any subsidies to what it takes to prime
the pump, not to warp the market to the point that uneconomical
things appear sensible.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
It's important to note that it doesn't really matter how many cells
it would be since the power isn't the same power in both cases.
Nuclear power is great as base power. It's there, it's long term,
it's inexpensive. Peaking power is available from natural gas/oil
turbines often. Or it can come from hydro and purpose built pumped
storage. Where does solar fit in? If a cloud comes by, the output
goes down. Imagine trying to predict ever changing power demand
against now an ever changing source of power.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
All electrical power doesn't have the same cost to generate or the
same value. Base power is produced from large plants that can't be
quickly changed in output but produce cheaply. Peaking power is
often done with natural gas/oil turbines that can be quickly spun
up as the need arises.
What is solar power? It is power that the power company can't count
on, it's not base power and it's not peaking power. There are laws
in place that force electrical companies to buy back wind and solar
power from residential producers at retail one for one rates even
though obviously the power so produced isn't worth anything close
to a one for one exchange.
> The net/net is the savings pay for the cells in
> 8-10 years with the life of the cells 25+ depending.
>
If solar cells can pay for themselves in 8 to 10 years, that's
because of massive subsidies and use of these laws that require
repurchase of power at retail rates. I'm sure you can see what
would happen to the grid if everyone got on board and did this. I'm
not saying it's not a good deal for you, because it clearly seems
to be. It's just not a workable solution to the energy problem.
> I've heard the
> newer cells are good for 50+ with the "+" a number not yet arrived at.
>
Maybe I should put up some solar panels too.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
HughJorgan wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 12:48 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')"
> <
> > No, I don't follow what "energy dominated by big energy company"
> > means. Producers of energy produce energy, it's going to be that
> > way in the future too. If you want to dribble in with your energy,
> > have at it.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The bottom line is,and we all know it,but the left is still trying to
> hide the fact that they want to
>
>."nationalize"
> Big Oil !
>
I guess we now know who really wants to steal the oil, Liberals.
Citizen Jimserac
-
>
> How many solar cells will it take to provide the same amount of power
> as one nuclear power plant?? 2 million? 20 million?? 200 million??
> Where do you plan to put these?
You need to read about solar concentrator mirrors
and solar concentrators and what they do!!
Won't answer all our energy needs but here's the trick -
the movement towards and popularization of a large number of small
solar generation stations is incredibly threatening to the big daddy
warbucks power plants that we have now.
The commercial interests arrayed against this development,
irrespective of the advantages of it, will utilize any fallacy,
including the one you've been duped about regarding the land needed
for such plants. NOBODY is talking about supplying
all our power needs with just ONE option. So NO, the United States
will not be covered with solar mirrors everywhere.
I will repeat -> where there is lots of sun, let solar power
generation predominate; where there is lots of wind, let wind
generation predominate; where there is neither, let us use nuclear
and other diverse power generation - hydroelectric for example.
Observe how strategically vulnerable our current system is to
terrorist attack or to enemy country attack. With a few
well placed bombs or missiles, MUCH of our power grid would be WIPED
OUT or, at best, left inoperative for some time.
In opposition to that, now imagine that each region were suplied power
by HUNDREDS, perhaps even THOUSANDS of small companies - wind, solar,
whatever. NOW it is NOT SO EASY to knock them out.
True, the nuclear plants are harder to protect.
Likewise, there is no way to form a cartel controlling the wind or the
sun.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> All electrical power doesn't have the same cost to generate or the
> same value. Base power is produced from large plants that can't be
> quickly changed in output but produce cheaply. Peaking power is
> often done with natural gas/oil turbines that can be quickly spun
> up as the need arises.
Your statement makes sense ONLY on the presupposition that power is
being supplied by a few BIG plants.
>
> What is solar power? It is power that the power company can't count
> on, it's not base power and it's not peaking power. There are laws
> in place that force electrical companies to buy back wind and solar
> power from residential producers at retail one for one rates even
> though obviously the power so produced isn't worth anything close
> to a one for one exchange.
Correct! But ONLY under the current system which has DRASTICALLY
UNDERVDEVELOPED solar and wind power generation.
A large number of small generating plants would change the equation.
LINK those plants with a nationwide grid - in which some regions are
generating power from lots of sunlight while other regions with little
sunlight are generating with lots of wind and still other regions are
using nuclear and hydroelectric.
The result is a dispersed web of power generation NOT easily
interdicted - efficient and cheap and virtually uninterruptible in
total.
Of course.... many of the OLD STYLE power plants would be ... forced
out of business - an idea not taken kindly by them.
Citizen Jimserac
HughJorgan
Cartel?? How about a liberal government "cartel' where the government
owns and provides all our "needs"? You like the USPS you'll LOVE
nationalized oil.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 8:27 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this >
> > All electrical power doesn't have the same cost to generate or the
> > same value. Base power is produced from large plants that can't be
> > quickly changed in output but produce cheaply. Peaking power is
> > often done with natural gas/oil turbines that can be quickly spun
> > up as the need arises.
>
> Your statement makes sense ONLY on the presupposition that power is
> being supplied by a few BIG plants.
>
How would it be supplied by lots of little plants? Who is going to
tune the grid if no one knows what is going to happen from one
millisecond to the next?
> >
> > What is solar power? It is power that the power company can't count
> > on, it's not base power and it's not peaking power. There are laws
> > in place that force electrical companies to buy back wind and solar
> > power from residential producers at retail one for one rates even
> > though obviously the power so produced isn't worth anything close
> > to a one for one exchange.
>
> Correct! But ONLY under the current system which has DRASTICALLY
> UNDERVDEVELOPED solar and wind power generation.
> A large number of small generating plants would change the equation.
>
It would unbalance the grid. I don't know if you want to get into
load shedding computer technology as well has alternative use sinks
such as producing excess power and using whatever is extra that
second to smelt aluminium or make hydrogen from water.
> LINK those plants with a nationwide grid - in which some regions are
> generating power from lots of sunlight while other regions with little
> sunlight are generating with lots of wind and still other regions are
> using nuclear and hydroelectric.
>
Naturally it makes sense to connect North America in a grid of
grids using high voltage DC. Because it is DC, these grids wouldn't
be as susceptible of taking each other down if there's a problem.
And you could work on load balancing certainly increasing your wind
and solar generation percentage. I don't know what the max is
though. It would depend on how high tech you wanted to get.
> The result is a dispersed web of power generation NOT easily
> interdicted - efficient and cheap and virtually uninterruptible in
> total.
>
I think the mistake you make is that you ignore the fact that the
grid must be balanced, that the supply and the demand must match.
> Of course.... many of the OLD STYLE power plants would be ... forced
> out of business - an idea not taken kindly by them.
>
I think you are being silly. You can't compete with your idea.
wby...@ireland.com
Let me make this easy. I didn't say that solar power would work for
everybody - it's part of the energy patchwork that can eventually take
the place of what the world has now. Folks can continue down the path
they're on and continue the use of fossil fuels until the world is
choked in a Bejiing type haze - or they can do something. Or they can
all sit on their asses until government is forced into the equation.
As for wind farms - they're not the answer, they're an answer. Solar
panels go right on our roof and do not dot the countryside. The solar
farms in the Mojave disturb nothing but a few lizards and die-hard
Gram Parsons' fans.
WB Yeats
Citizen Jimserac
Excuse me? I said NOTHING about nationalized ANYTHING.
I'm talking about small companies.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
The entire strategy of your thinking is dominated by the assumption
of a grid based on the requirements of a FEW BIG power plants
rather than on the distributed deployment of many SMALL ones.
The balancing of that grid and the necessity of utilizing ONLY
high voltage DC, all of that would need to be re-examined
vis a vis the new system.
Citizen Jimserac
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> The entire strategy of your thinking is dominated by the assumption
> of a grid based on the requirements of a FEW BIG power plants
> rather than on the distributed deployment of many SMALL ones.
>
That is utterly unstable. What happens when any part of the grid
doesn't have enough power at that instant?
> The balancing of that grid and the necessity of utilizing ONLY
> high voltage DC, all of that would need to be re-examined
> vis a vis the new system.
>
If any part of the system goes below what is being demanded of it,
you'll get a brown out or things will blow up and you'll have a
black out. How do you deal with that if you don't have anyone
centrally load balancing?
leona...@primus.ca
On 7/22/08 10:14 AM, in article ndqb84llvk0uuk35a...@4ax.com,
"wby...@ireland.com" <wby...@ireland.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT), HughJorgan
> <Burto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 21, 10:12 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:19:40 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>>> this wall'')" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
>>>>> a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
>>>>> oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
>>>>> is terrifying to republicarbs.
>>>
>>>>> SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
>>>
>>>> How might solar and wind power be set up in the fashion you claim
>>>> and how would it get around "monopolists"?
>>>
>>> Easily - solar cells and windmills can be set up by municipal power
>>> companies that already exist in many cities and towns, or vote these
>>> public corporations into being thru the ballot.
€€ How how are you proposing to pay for the
plants and network? What!!‹ you did not
think of that? It's a pity but exactly what one
might expect from a wannabe poet.
>>> But omigod that means
>>> socialism - not. When the private sector fails abysmally then the
>>> public sector steps in. Our local municipal power/water company
>>> provides electricity at prices lower than PG&E for power and shows a
>>> profit that's utilized to strengthen the infrastructure - and those of
>>> us with solar plug into the grid and watch the meters run backwards at
>>> times.
€€ Solar is only effective across the south and
then it is only as an auxiliary device.
>
> Let me make this easy. I didn't say that solar power would work for
> everybody - it's part of the energy patchwork that can eventually take
> the place of what the world has now. Folks can continue down the path
> they're on and continue the use of fossil fuels until the world is
> choked in a Bejiing type haze - or they can do something.
€€ Bloody nonsense! Foul deeds will rise though
all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes,
the crime will out.
> Or they can
> all sit on their asses until government is forced into the equation.
> As for wind farms - they're not the answer, they're an answer.
€€ They are only an answer for people in remote
locations, like the late Neill Welliver, who
lived in an one hundred fifty year old cabin on
the top of a mountain in Maine. Central Maine
Power demanded a king's ransom to run a 220
line up the hill from the road. Neill got an huge
storage battery installed in his basement and a
tower high above any trees. Years later CMP
approached Neill and told him they were taking
a right-of-way across his mountain for an high
tension line. Neill: "Are you going to drop
down a line for me?" CMP "No we could never
do that." Neill "Then you cannot cross my
property." CMP "You can't stop us, we have
'eminent domain'." Neill "See you in court."
Welliver won!
> Solar
> panels go right on our roof and do not dot the countryside. The solar
> farms in the Mojave disturb nothing but a few lizards and die-hard
> Gram Parsons' fans.
€€ But few live in the Mohave, and how many of
the 3± million in San Diego region might be
prepared to invest in solar panels in the next 20
years or so before winter sun loses much of its
radiative effect.
€€ Coal, oil, and natural gas are the primary
energy providers of the past, present, and
future, no matter what the ecofascists say.
--- ---
As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2,
atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400
parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
paleological records show that every time CO2
levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
an ice age. Every time ‹ without exception.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
> <leona...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> >АА Solar is only effective across the south
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
Effective for what? Solar can make sense in a lot of places for
heating water. Solar cells for feeding the grid, that's not
economically viable even in full sun on the equator.
leona...@primus.ca
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:11 pm, HughJorgan <BurtonU...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 8:04 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 7:36 pm, HughJorgan <BurtonU...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> How many solar cells will it take to provide the same amount of power
>>>> as one nuclear power plant?? 2 million? 20 million?? 200 million??
>>>> Where do you plan to put these?
>>
>>> You need to read about solar concentrator mirrors
>>> and solar concentrators and what they do!!
€€ So what!! You need to read about
what they can NOT do. They can not
do much without direct sunlight
which will begin to diminish within
20 to 30 years. They will be obsolete
before their original cost is amortized
>>> Won't answer all our energy needs but here's the trick -
>>> the movement towards and popularization of a large number of small
>>> solar generation stations is incredibly threatening to the big daddy
>>> warbucks power plants that we have now.
€€ Actually while they are useless in at
least half of the of the lower 48, they
can take the pressure off the
conventional plants in overextended
locations like Southern Cal~ at least
temporarily.
>>> The commercial interests arrayed against this development,
>>> irrespective of the advantages of it, will utilize any fallacy,
>>> including the one you've been duped about regarding the land needed
>>> for such plants.
€€ ¥ou are the dupe. Your ecofascist
friends are responsible for the "the
land needed for such plants".
>>>NOBODY is talking about supplying
>>> all our power needs with just ONE option. So NO, the United States
>>> will not be covered with solar mirrors everywhere.
€€ Certainly not since solar mirrors will only work
in less than 24 states and nowhere really long
term
>>> I will repeat -> where there is lots of sun, let solar power
>>> generation predominate; where there is lots of wind, let wind
>>> generation predominate; where there is neither, let us use nuclear
>>> and other diverse power generation - hydroelectric for example.
€€ You are looking at pie in the sky. In spite of the
ecofascists in EPA, AlGore, and Pelosi, coal,
natural gas, and petroleum will be our basic
energy sources for the next 100,000 years.
>>
>>> Observe how strategically vulnerable our current system is to
>>> terrorist attack or to enemy country attack. With a few
>>> well placed bombs or missiles, MUCH of our power grid would be WIPED
>>> OUT or, at best, left inoperative for some time.
€€ So we need an aggressive defense against all
attackers
>>
>>> In opposition to that, now imagine that each region were suplied power
>>> by HUNDREDS, perhaps even THOUSANDS of small companies - wind, solar,
>>> whatever. NOW it is NOT SO EASY to knock them out.
>>> True, the nuclear plants are harder to protect.
>>
>>> Likewise, there is no way to form a cartel controlling the wind or the
>>> sun.
€€ Pure idiocy
>>
>> Cartel?? How about a liberal government "cartel' where the government
>> owns and provides all our "needs"? You like the USPS you'll LOVE
>> nationalized oil.
>
> Excuse me? I said NOTHING about nationalized ANYTHING.
>
> I'm talking about small companies.
>
€€ Who is going to finance all these pie
in the sky small companies?
What kind of pie do you prefer?
Cherry? Or Banana cream
lorad
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"> Utter nonsense.
Leo-nard appears to be stupid.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
lorad wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 11:33 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
> >
> > <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
> > >АА Solar is only effective across the south
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
>
> Leo-nard appears to be stupid.
>
Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
>where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
Right here (northern Florida). I'm sure there are lots of other
places.
Galen Hekhuis ghek...@earthlink.net
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
I think that's unlikely. Cite.
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:34:04 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
>> >where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
>>
>> Right here (northern Florida). I'm sure there are lots of other
>> places.
>>
>I think that's unlikely. Cite.
I guess it depends on what you consider "cheap." I consider $.12 a
kilowatt/hr to be relatively cheap grid power.
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
various comments, indicative of complete and
systemic inability to grasp the comments
regarding dispersed production of energy
snipped.
The conversation has been terminated.
Try reading up on associative memory in
the theory of neural networks.
Good Luck.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> lorad wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 11:33 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
>
> > > <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Utter nonsense.
>
> > Leo-nard appears to be stupid.
>
> Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
> where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
>
> --
> "It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
>
> -+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
Yet another post manifesting complete inability or
unwillingness to analyze concepts varying in
any degree from preconceptions.
The conversation is terminated.
Citizen Jimserac
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 6:34 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > lorad wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 22, 11:33 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
> >
> > > > <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
> > > > >АА Solar is only effective across the south
> >
> > > > Utter nonsense.
> >
> > > Leo-nard appears to be stupid.
> >
> > Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
> > where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
> >
> Yet another post manifesting complete inability or
> unwillingness to analyze concepts varying in
> any degree from preconceptions.
>
> The conversation is terminated.
>
Do you think you are being impressive by ignoring debate on the
very subject you claim to care about because you just can't refute
what I say? I doubt it.
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
>kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
Can I? No. Can it be done? Of course.
wby...@ireland.com
>
>
>
>On 7/22/08 10:14 AM, in article ndqb84llvk0uuk35a...@4ax.com,
>"wby...@ireland.com" <wby...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT), HughJorgan
>> <Burto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 10:12 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:19:40 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>>>> this wall'')" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
>>>>>> a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
>>>>>> oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
>>>>>> is terrifying to republicarbs.
>>>>
>>>>>> SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
>>>>
>>>>> How might solar and wind power be set up in the fashion you claim
>>>>> and how would it get around "monopolists"?
>>>>
>>>> Easily - solar cells and windmills can be set up by municipal power
>>>> companies that already exist in many cities and towns, or vote these
>>>> public corporations into being thru the ballot.
>
>€€ How how are you proposing to pay for the
> plants and network? What!!‹ you did not
> think of that? It's a pity but exactly what one
> might expect from a wannabe poet.
Thru the company's profits - it's a municipal company, Bozo.
>>>> But omigod that means
>>>> socialism - not. When the private sector fails abysmally then the
>>>> public sector steps in. Our local municipal power/water company
>>>> provides electricity at prices lower than PG&E for power and shows a
>>>> profit that's utilized to strengthen the infrastructure - and those of
>>>> us with solar plug into the grid and watch the meters run backwards at
>>>> times.
>
>€€ Solar is only effective across the south and
> then it is only as an auxiliary device.
Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
>> Let me make this easy. I didn't say that solar power would work for
>> everybody - it's part of the energy patchwork that can eventually take
>> the place of what the world has now. Folks can continue down the path
>> they're on and continue the use of fossil fuels until the world is
>> choked in a Bejiing type haze - or they can do something.
>
>€€ Bloody nonsense! Foul deeds will rise though
> all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes,
> the crime will out.
Thanks, William, for that fine line which.......means nothing at all.
Your's is "a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying
nothing."
You might wish to give credit for your stolen line.
>> Or they can
>> all sit on their asses until government is forced into the equation.
>> As for wind farms - they're not the answer, they're an answer.
>
>€€ They are only an answer for people in remote
> locations, like the late Neill Welliver, who
> lived in an one hundred fifty year old cabin on
> the top of a mountain in Maine. Central Maine
> Power demanded a king's ransom to run a 220
> line up the hill from the road. Neill got an huge
> storage battery installed in his basement and a
> tower high above any trees. Years later CMP
> approached Neill and told him they were taking
> a right-of-way across his mountain for an high
> tension line. Neill: "Are you going to drop
> down a line for me?" CMP "No we could never
> do that." Neill "Then you cannot cross my
> property." CMP "You can't stop us, we have
> 'eminent domain'." Neill "See you in court."
> Welliver won!
Bull - wind farms in Texas are providing power for large
municipalities at present - as they do off US 580 in the East Bay of
NorCal.
>> Solar
>> panels go right on our roof and do not dot the countryside. The solar
>> farms in the Mojave disturb nothing but a few lizards and die-hard
>> Gram Parsons' fans.
>
>€€ But few live in the Mohave, and how many of
> the 3± million in San Diego region might be
> prepared to invest in solar panels in the next 20
> years or so before winter sun loses much of its
> radiative effect.
The investment in large solar farms is provided by the companies who
then chatge the consumers like normal power companies.
>€€ Coal, oil, and natural gas are the primary
> energy providers of the past, present, and
> future, no matter what the ecofascists say.
Didn't say they weren't, Bozo. But if you wish to keep fouling your
own nest, feel free. It won't last much longer either way.
> As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2,
> atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400
> parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
> paleological records show that every time CO2
> levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
> an ice age. Every time ‹ without exception.
Sure thing except for one thing - no other climatic period included
industrial man with his side effects - increased CO2 over and above
the norm. But either way, fossil fuels are non-renewable and will
eventually disappear along with the almighty dollar.
WB Yeats
wby...@ireland.com
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:44:56 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:34:04 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
>> >> >where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
>> >>
>> >> Right here (northern Florida). I'm sure there are lots of other
>> >> places.
>> >>
>> >I think that's unlikely. Cite.
>>
>> I guess it depends on what you consider "cheap." I consider $.12 a
>> kilowatt/hr to be relatively cheap grid power.
>>
>Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
>kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
Ummm........... excuse me here but we subsidize Big Oil at present.
Give the same subsidies to solar and voila. Taxation is a two way
street - to minimize certain behaviors and promote others. It's been
done since day 1.
WB Yeats
Citizen Jimserac
Exactly!
Citizen Jimserac
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
I'm a bit confused by your claim. If you can't do it, how do you
know it can be done? Is this religious faith?
--
"Bender, where did you get that bird?"
"I found it lying in the street, like all the food I cook."
Bender, "Futurama"
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:35:21 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
>> >kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
>>
>> Can I? No. Can it be done? Of course.
>>
>I'm a bit confused by your claim. If you can't do it, how do you
>know it can be done? Is this religious faith?
No, it isn't religious faith. I simply don't have the bucks to supply
1kw. I can and do supply about a quarter of that at full list
prices for the stuff. With the savings involved in quantity
purchases, such methods make even more economic sense, even if the
cost of grid electricity stays at $.12 per kW/hr, which I doubt.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:37:03 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:35:21 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
> >> >kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
> >>
> >> Can I? No. Can it be done? Of course.
> >>
> >I'm a bit confused by your claim. If you can't do it, how do you
> >know it can be done? Is this religious faith?
>
> No, it isn't religious faith. I simply don't have the bucks to supply
> 1kw. I can and do supply about a quarter of that at full list
> prices for the stuff. With the savings involved in quantity
> purchases, such methods make even more economic sense, even if the
> cost of grid electricity stays at $.12 per kW/hr, which I doubt.
>
OK, so you claim to have a solar system in place. You claim to have
not taken any subsidies and you don't leech off grid power. Is that
all that correct? If so, then what is your cost per kw/hr?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
wby...@ireland.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
> >АА Solar is only effective across the south and
> > then it is only as an auxiliary device.
>
> Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
>
So solar works great in Alaska, Washington, Oregon?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
wby...@ireland.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:35:21 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:44:56 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:34:04 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> >> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
> >> >> >where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
> >> >>
> >> >> Right here (northern Florida). I'm sure there are lots of other
> >> >> places.
> >> >>
> >> >I think that's unlikely. Cite.
> >>
> >> I guess it depends on what you consider "cheap." I consider $.12 a
> >> kilowatt/hr to be relatively cheap grid power.
> >>
> >Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
> >kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
>
> Ummm........... excuse me here but we subsidize Big Oil at present.
>
Whether or not that's true, oil represents an energy gain when it
is brought from the earth. That's pretty clear given that the world
has been run on these fossil fuels for a century.
> Give the same subsidies to solar and voila.
>
There's no evidence that solar electrical power is an energy
positive. I've been trying to get someone to prove that it is
somewhere, but no takers.
> Taxation is a two way
> street - to minimize certain behaviors and promote others. It's been
> done since day 1.
>
So you think that a tax policy that encourages a behaviour that is
energy negative is going to provide more energy? That's absurd.
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:37:03 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:35:21 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
>> >> >kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
>> >>
>> >> Can I? No. Can it be done? Of course.
>> >>
>> >I'm a bit confused by your claim. If you can't do it, how do you
>> >know it can be done? Is this religious faith?
>>
>> No, it isn't religious faith. I simply don't have the bucks to supply
>> 1kw. I can and do supply about a quarter of that at full list
>> prices for the stuff. With the savings involved in quantity
>> purchases, such methods make even more economic sense, even if the
>> cost of grid electricity stays at $.12 per kW/hr, which I doubt.
>>
>OK, so you claim to have a solar system in place. You claim to have
>not taken any subsidies and you don't leech off grid power. Is that
>all that correct? If so, then what is your cost per kw/hr?
Zero, if you ignore the cost of the equipment, which is fully covered
in 20-30 years, depending on the exact costs. In any event, the costs
are recouped much faster than your average nuclear, oil, or coal fired
plant. There is no spent fuel or products of combustion to worry
about, no on-going cost to provide fuel for it, virtually no
maintenance.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
So you claim that solar electric pays for itself in 30 years not
counting subsidies and not leeching from the grid? See, I don't
believe that claim. And keep in mind, nuclear and coal are base
power sources. Solar isn't. Oil and natural gas make good peaking
sources, solar does not. What does solar good for? The answer is,
not much, certainly not without all those other energy sources
smoothing things out or something else like pumped power storage
added into the mix. Of course do you cost that in? Nope.
znuybv
> On Jul 20, 10:20 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From The Associated Press, 7/19/08:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_democrats_energy.html
>
> > Murray says Bush, GOP block energy solutions
>
> > By MATTHEW DALY
> > ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
>
> > WASHINGTON --
>
> > Sen. Patty Murray says Democrats have a plan to combat record-high gas
> > prices, but President Bush and Republicans in Congress are standing in
> > the way.
>
> > When Bush took office seven years ago, gas was $1.46 a gallon, said
> > Murray, D-Wash.
>
> > "Today, in my state, it's more than triple that. Clearly there's
> > something wrong with these tired policies."
>
> > While there's no simple solution, some reasonable steps can be taken
> > now to reduce oil prices, Murray said Saturday in the Democrats'
> > weekly radio address.
>
> > "Bush-McCain Republicans haven't come up with anything more than
> > drill, drill, drill," she said.
>
> > "Even John McCain recently admitted that his offshore drilling
> > proposal has mainly 'psychological' benefits. Our families don't need
> > to 'feel better' about spending four dollars and-a-half per gallon.
> > American families need real action that gets real results."
>
> > First, oil companies should drill in 68 million acres of federal land
> > already leased for such use - nearly doubling U.S. production, Murray
> > said.
>
> > The president also should tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -
> > available for use in emergencies - and work with Democrats to crack
> > down on Wall Street traders who are unfairly driving up oil prices by
> > buying huge quantities of oil just to resell at a higher price, Murray
> > said.
>
> > "I don't know what President Bush thinks, but
> > four-and-a-half-dollar-a-gallon gas is an emergency for America's
> > families," she said.
>
> > "When was the last time the president filled his own tank?"
>
> > Eventually, the United States needs to get serious about investing in
> > renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power,
> > Murray said.
>
> > "Every day, American scientists, innovators and venture capitalists
> > are researching new technologies that could one day end our addiction
> > to oil forever. We should fast-track their efforts by making new
> > investments and keeping their taxes low," Murray said.
>
> > __________________________________________________
>
> > Harry
>
> Shortly before making touting himself as the candidate with major
> concerns about electric batteries, new energy resources and the like,
> candidate John McCain VOTED AGAINST a bill to provide funding for
> solar, wind and other energy research.
>
> Make no mistake about it, they will feign interest in new technologies
> but the REPUBLICANS COULD AS WELL BE CALLED THE REPUBLICARBONS or
> Republicarbs.
>
> The idea of thousands of wind farms and solar concentrators providing
> a cooperative network power grid instead of the big behemoth coal and
> oil fired plants we have now which are dominated by an energy cartel
> is terrifying to republicarbs.
>
> SOLAR AND WIND do not suffer monopolists.
>
Wind farms are illegal where I live. Solar power will not power my
home. I have to rely on the power supplied by the power company.
They use natural gas to generate it. They are going to raise their
rates again. Politicians tell me that they are concerned about the
cost of energy but they never do anything to lower it.
The Democrats seem to favor the radical environmentalists. I don't
think they will bring th e cost down if they are in power. As a
matter of fact, they are in power now and the costs have gone up.
znuybv
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Tab182
>
> <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >BTW...
>
> No one listens to a liar....
>
But everyone listens to Algore.
znuybv
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
> terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
> used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
Cheap wind and solar power? Where? They are much more expensive that
carbon based power.
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>wby...@ireland.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
>
>
>> >АА Solar is only effective across the south and
>> > then it is only as an auxiliary device.
>>
>> Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
>>
>So solar works great in Alaska, Washington, Oregon?
You might wish to take a look at a map like this:
http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power.html
No, Alaska, Washington, or Oregon are not exactly ideal places for
solar collectors, but you might be a bit surprised at some of the
places that are quite suitable. Do the math yourself, it is
practically a no-brainer in some places, pretty stupid (from a
financial point of view) in others.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
The first thing to think about is, if solar and wind really is
cheaper than oil and coal, why aren't power companies switching
everything to solar and wind?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:53:03 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >wby...@ireland.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
> >
> >
> >> >€€ Solar is only effective across the south and
> >> > then it is only as an auxiliary device.
> >>
> >> Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
> >>
> >So solar works great in Alaska, Washington, Oregon?
>
> You might wish to take a look at a map like this:
> http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power.html
> No, Alaska, Washington, or Oregon are not exactly ideal places for
> solar collectors, but you might be a bit surprised at some of the
> places that are quite suitable. Do the math yourself, it is
> practically a no-brainer in some places, pretty stupid (from a
> financial point of view) in others.
>
Feel free to explain why the power companies aren't stringing up
solar cells everywhere, anywhere.
znuybv
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> znuybv wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:06 am, Tab182 <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
> > > terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
> > > used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
>
> > Cheap wind and solar power? Where? They are much more expensive that
> > carbon based power.
>
> The first thing to think about is, if solar and wind really is
> cheaper than oil and coal, why aren't power companies switching
> everything to solar and wind?
>
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
znuybv wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2:02 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > znuybv wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 20, 10:06 am, Tab182 <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
> > > > terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
> > > > used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
> >
> > > Cheap wind and solar power? Where? They are much more expensive that
> > > carbon based power.
> >
> > The first thing to think about is, if solar and wind really is
> > cheaper than oil and coal, why aren't power companies switching
> > everything to solar and wind?
> >
> Because it's much more expensive.
>
Of course it is, yet people are ranting even in this thread
otherwise.
Galen Hekhuis
Do the math, I'll help walk you through it. Assume you consume 100
kWh per day. At $.12 a kWh you pay $360 a month, $4320 a year.
Photovoltaic cells can be purchased right now, online, at about $5 per
watt. To produce 100kWh per day you'll need about $500,000 in
photovoltaic cells, if you average 1 hr of peak sunshine per day.
That's like 115 years before you break even, and that is just the cost
of the cells. But there are places that get much more.
(http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power.html)
If you pick a place that gets 5 hours of sunshine, you only need one
fifth of that, or $100,000. You can pay that off in under 25 years at
$.12 a kilowatt/hour. Storage? Even if you use small, off-the-shelf
lead-acid golf-cart type batteries, you'll pay about $100 a battery
capable of storing about a kilowatt of power (at least that's what I
paid for each of six similar sized batteries recently). That's
another $10,000 for batteries, which should be replaced on the average
of once every five years (some will last much longer, some much
shorter). It still pays off in about 30 years. That ignores volume
discounts and the like.
For sure there will be room and need for other things. But
photovoltaic coupled with a storage device (and it doesn't have to be
a bank of batteries, although that is popular) is doable and cost
effective right now in some places, and competitive with the grid.
Galen Hekhuis
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:53:03 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >wby...@ireland.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
>> >
>> >
>> >> >АА Solar is only effective across the south and
>> >> > then it is only as an auxiliary device.
>> >>
>> >> Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
>> >>
>> >So solar works great in Alaska, Washington, Oregon?
>>
>> You might wish to take a look at a map like this:
>> http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power.html
>> No, Alaska, Washington, or Oregon are not exactly ideal places for
>> solar collectors, but you might be a bit surprised at some of the
>> places that are quite suitable. Do the math yourself, it is
>> practically a no-brainer in some places, pretty stupid (from a
>> financial point of view) in others.
>>
>Feel free to explain why the power companies aren't stringing up
>solar cells everywhere, anywhere.
Well, for one, it isn't economical "everywhere, anywhere." Besides
that, I haven't the foggiest.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
So you admit it isn't economical anywhere, given the rules of the
game, a connection to cheap grid power and no subsidies?
Galen Hekhuis
No, I admit nothing of the sort. I assumed your "everywhere,
anywhere" was sort of equivalent to "willy-nilly," and responded as
such. I apologize if the assumption was incorrect. I don't know why
solar power plants aren't being built where economically feasible.
wby...@ireland.com
this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>wby...@ireland.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:35:21 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:44:56 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:34:04 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>> >> >> this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
>> >> >> >where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right here (northern Florida). I'm sure there are lots of other
>> >> >> places.
>> >> >>
>> >> >I think that's unlikely. Cite.
>> >>
>> >> I guess it depends on what you consider "cheap." I consider $.12 a
>> >> kilowatt/hr to be relatively cheap grid power.
>> >>
>> >Can you produce bulk solar electric power on demand for .12 a
>> >kw/hr? No subsidies, no cheating and leeching off the grid.
>>
>> Ummm........... excuse me here but we subsidize Big Oil at present.
>>
>Whether or not that's true, oil represents an energy gain when it
>is brought from the earth. That's pretty clear given that the world
>has been run on these fossil fuels for a century.
Sure - but the day of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end. Or do
you really wish to continue to line the pockets of Big Oil and the
folks in Dubai and Qatar?
> Give the same subsidies to solar and voila.
>>
>There's no evidence that solar electrical power is an energy
>positive. I've been trying to get someone to prove that it is
>somewhere, but no takers.
See below.
>> Taxation is a two way
>> street - to minimize certain behaviors and promote others. It's been
>> done since day 1.
>>
>So you think that a tax policy that encourages a behaviour that is
>energy negative is going to provide more energy? That's absurd.
Energy negative? How about energy self-sufficient with leftovers that
get sold back to the grid. And with little or no pollutants. Solar is
not the end all - neither is wind power - or even tidal power which
will be tried outside the Golden Gate Bridge and has the potential for
lighting parts of San Francisco. It all a part of a comprehensive
energy plan - something which this administration is sorely lacking.
WB Yeats
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
I don't have a problem with energy companies being paid market
prices for energy. I do have a problem with people who do things to
make it impossible for the US to produce more energy. I see that as
those people who oppose nuclear power, for example.
> > Give the same subsidies to solar and voila.
> >>
> >There's no evidence that solar electrical power is an energy
> >positive. I've been trying to get someone to prove that it is
> >somewhere, but no takers.
>
> See below.
>
> >> Taxation is a two way
> >> street - to minimize certain behaviors and promote others. It's been
> >> done since day 1.
> >>
>
> >So you think that a tax policy that encourages a behaviour that is
> >energy negative is going to provide more energy? That's absurd.
>
> Energy negative? How about energy self-sufficient with leftovers that
> get sold back to the grid.
>
You are ignoring the time value of electrical power.
> And with little or no pollutants. Solar is
> not the end all - neither is wind power - or even tidal power which
> will be tried outside the Golden Gate Bridge and has the potential for
> lighting parts of San Francisco. It all a part of a comprehensive
> energy plan - something which this administration is sorely lacking.
>
I think that this administration understands energy and has been
trying to get practical things, as well as some less practical
things, going. Bush has supported a sop to bio energy producers,
for example. And there's a huge give away going on with solar
power. That wouldn't be terrible if people involved understood that
it isn't the answer today, that stable base power isn't what solar
power is.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
You mean ignoring the interest value of the money? We are talking
about trillions of dollars in a solar build out.
> Storage? Even if you use small, off-the-shelf
> lead-acid golf-cart type batteries, you'll pay about $100 a battery
> capable of storing about a kilowatt of power (at least that's what I
> paid for each of six similar sized batteries recently).
>
So you are claiming you have six kw/hr of power stored and you use
100 kw/hr per day? Does that even make sense?
> That's
> another $10,000 for batteries, which should be replaced on the average
> of once every five years (some will last much longer, some much
> shorter). It still pays off in about 30 years. That ignores volume
> discounts and the like.
>
> For sure there will be room and need for other things. But
> photovoltaic coupled with a storage device (and it doesn't have to be
> a bank of batteries, although that is popular) is doable and cost
> effective right now in some places, and competitive with the grid.
>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080220224901.htm
#begin quote
Under the most extreme assumptions (a 5 percent annual increase in
electricity costs and 1 percent interest rate), the cost of solar
PV is about 80 percent greater than the value of the electricity it
will produce, Borenstein found. Under more likely scenarios about
interest rates and electricity cost increases, the cost of a solar
PV installation today is three to four times greater than the
benefits of the electricity it will produce, he said.
#end quote
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
I think it's because there's no way that solar electric power is
price competitive.
Galen Hekhuis
It isn't A Good Way To Make Money, buy stocks or gold or real estate
or something if that is your aim.
>> Storage? Even if you use small, off-the-shelf
>> lead-acid golf-cart type batteries, you'll pay about $100 a battery
>> capable of storing about a kilowatt of power (at least that's what I
>> paid for each of six similar sized batteries recently).
>>
>So you are claiming you have six kw/hr of power stored and you use
>100 kw/hr per day? Does that even make sense?
I'm not claiming I use 100 kWh per day, I don't use anywhere near
that. I was merely using it as a (excessive) round number. I did
pay roughly $100 per battery, however. The batteries are 8 volt, and
are about 125 amp/hr, or roughly 1kWh per battery. In order to
provide 100 kWh, you'd need about 100 of those puppies, or about
$10,000.
>> That's
>> another $10,000 for batteries, which should be replaced on the average
>> of once every five years (some will last much longer, some much
>> shorter). It still pays off in about 30 years. That ignores volume
>> discounts and the like.
>>
>> For sure there will be room and need for other things. But
>> photovoltaic coupled with a storage device (and it doesn't have to be
>> a bank of batteries, although that is popular) is doable and cost
>> effective right now in some places, and competitive with the grid.
>>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080220224901.htm
>#begin quote
>Under the most extreme assumptions (a 5 percent annual increase in
>electricity costs and 1 percent interest rate), the cost of solar
>PV is about 80 percent greater than the value of the electricity it
>will produce, Borenstein found. Under more likely scenarios about
>interest rates and electricity cost increases, the cost of a solar
>PV installation today is three to four times greater than the
>benefits of the electricity it will produce, he said.
>#end quote
That's one quote. I'm sure there are many that can be found, both
pro and con. The point is, that it is being done, right now, in many
parts of the country. There's a solar grid being put up by the
utility company right near Tampa, if memory serves.
The Trucker
Lie.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Democrats control both the house and the senate, isn't that true?
And that constitutes "being in power", doesn't it? But do explain
what they would do if they had the White House, what would Obama do
to lower gas prices? Put that right here ------>
The Trucker
Nope. D49 R49+Cheney=R50
> And that constitutes "being in power", doesn't it?
Not unless they have enough to override the veto pen of His Assholiness.
> But do explain
> what they would do if they had the White House, what would Obama do
> to lower gas prices? Put that right here ------>
Actually, the Democrats and Pelosi are doing it right now and they will do
it in the future. At present they are attempting to use all their, so
called, power, to force the asshole in chief to free up some of the SPR in
order to pop a speculative bubble. The traders seem to have gotten the
hint but more muscle might still be needed. And as for the future, the
Democrats are investing in alternative R&D, and making the attempt to get
off the oil addiction. The Republicans, of course, want to return to the
golden days of 1930.
This sort of leaves you with a real problem in that the SPR has yet to be
tapped and Pelosi and the Democrats who you claim are "in power" want that
done. How is it that this hasn't happened with them "in power" and how is
it that they are having such a hard time with getting out of Iraq with all
this "power" they are supposed to have? Maybe it has something to do with
(P)residential vetoes and a record number of filibusters in the Senate.
Senate head count:
D49 R49+Cheney=50. On any party line vote the Republicans win.
Therefore, the Democrats do not control the Senate regardless of who
bangs the gavel and where Joe "I love John McBush" Lieberman happens to
caucus.
Citizen Jimserac
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 6:34 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')"
> > <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > lorad wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 22, 11:33 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
>
> > > > > <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
> > > > > >€€ Solar is only effective across the south
>
> > > > > Utter nonsense.
>
> > > > Leo-nard appears to be stupid.
>
> > > Is there any place on earth with a connection to cheap grid power
> > > where it is practical to run solar cells not counting subsidies?
>
> > unwillingness to analyze concepts varying in
> > any degree from preconceptions.
>
> > The conversation is terminated.
>
> Do you think you are being impressive by ignoring debate on the
> very subject you claim to care about because you just can't refute
> what I say? I doubt it.
>
> --
> "It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
>
> -+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
NO! Blonde, it is YOUR comments which are UNIMPRESSIVE!!
You think that endlessly repeating your assertions
and pretending not to "understand" the opposing
argument is reasoning... it is NOT.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
Correct. Mr. Blonde believes that reiterating
his nonsense like a parrot will somehow make
it right. In fact, it is a parrot speaking
in front of a mirror - the constant reassurance
is helpful for him.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:49:01 +0100, Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this
>
>
>
> wall'') wrote:
>
> > The Trucker wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:54:32 -0700, znuybv wrote:
>
Re: comments about a return to the golden days of 1930:
Exactly correct. And that quintessential Republican, Steve Forbes
(guffaws) exemplifies this to a "T" right down
to his 1930's era pinstripe suit.
That the internet exists and that the "masses" are making
comments, exposing the depredations of the FDA and the drug industry,
fir example, or exposing the latest Republican tax cut nonsense, I
don't think that he even knows about this.
Citizen Jimserac
Jeffrey Turner
Amazing how having the facts and science on ones side will make people
take notice.
--Jeff
--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy
Jeffrey Turner
>
> znuybv wrote:
>
>>On Jul 20, 10:06 am, Tab182 <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
>>>terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
>>>used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
>>
>>Cheap wind and solar power? Where? They are much more expensive that
>>carbon based power.
>>
>
> The first thing to think about is, if solar and wind really is
> cheaper than oil and coal, why aren't power companies switching
> everything to solar and wind?
They will be. Only Republidimwits believe you can just say something
and infrastructure will spring into existence.
Jeffrey Turner
> Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:12:27 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>>this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:53:03 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
>>>>this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>wby...@ireland.com wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> then it is only as an auxiliary device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
>>>>>
>>>>>So solar works great in Alaska, Washington, Oregon?
>>>>
>>>>You might wish to take a look at a map like this:
>>>>http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power.html
>>>>No, Alaska, Washington, or Oregon are not exactly ideal places for
>>>>solar collectors, but you might be a bit surprised at some of the
>>>>places that are quite suitable. Do the math yourself, it is
>>>>practically a no-brainer in some places, pretty stupid (from a
>>>>financial point of view) in others.
>>>
>>>Feel free to explain why the power companies aren't stringing up
>>>solar cells everywhere, anywhere.
>>
>>Well, for one, it isn't economical "everywhere, anywhere." Besides
>>that, I haven't the foggiest.
>
> So you admit it isn't economical anywhere, given the rules of the
> game, a connection to cheap grid power and no subsidies?
It should be clear to everyone by now that the market does a lousy job
of anticipating future conditions and it needs a lot of help in dealing
with problems like pollution and global warming.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'') wrote:
> > Galen Hekhuis wrote:
> >>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:12:27 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> >>this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:53:03 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down
> >>>>this wall'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>wby...@ireland.com wrote:
> >>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:10:52 -0400, "leona...@primus.ca"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>АА Solar is only effective across the south and
> >>>>>>> then it is only as an auxiliary device.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Gee, seems to work out very well in our area - the West.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So solar works great in Alaska, Washington, Oregon?
> >>>>
> >>>>You might wish to take a look at a map like this:
> >>>>http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power.html
> >>>>No, Alaska, Washington, or Oregon are not exactly ideal places for
> >>>>solar collectors, but you might be a bit surprised at some of the
> >>>>places that are quite suitable. Do the math yourself, it is
> >>>>practically a no-brainer in some places, pretty stupid (from a
> >>>>financial point of view) in others.
> >>>
> >>>Feel free to explain why the power companies aren't stringing up
> >>>solar cells everywhere, anywhere.
> >>
> >>Well, for one, it isn't economical "everywhere, anywhere." Besides
> >>that, I haven't the foggiest.
> >
> > So you admit it isn't economical anywhere, given the rules of the
> > game, a connection to cheap grid power and no subsidies?
>
> It should be clear to everyone by now that the market does a lousy job
> of anticipating future conditions and it needs a lot of help in dealing
> with problems like pollution and global warming.
>
The market won't spend a lot of money on things to produce energy
that are energy negative. That's a danger of subsidies.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'') wrote:
>
> >
> > znuybv wrote:
> >
> >>On Jul 20, 10:06 am, Tab182 <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>BTW BIG OIL (the owners of the GOP) and the Corn Lobby are even more
> >>>terrified of the prospect of all that cheap WIND and SOLAR power being
> >>>used to make HYDROGEN to power fuel cells in cars!
> >>
> >>Cheap wind and solar power? Where? They are much more expensive that
> >>carbon based power.
> >>
> >
> > The first thing to think about is, if solar and wind really is
> > cheaper than oil and coal, why aren't power companies switching
> > everything to solar and wind?
>
> They will be. Only Republidimwits believe you can just say something
> and infrastructure will spring into existence.
>
Solar and wind are scalable, certainly downward. So why would they
want to build nuclear power plants (or coal or natural gas or even
oil) when they could spend money on solar or wind? They aren't
doing solar and wind isn't taking over. Why?
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 1:43 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Tab182
>> <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >BTW...
>> No one listens to a liar....
>But everyone listens to Algore.
Bwhahahahahahahahaha!!!
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Don't parrots parrot other's stuff? How could I parrot my own
material?
> will somehow make
> it right.
>
Somehow make what I say right? I already know what I say is
correct.
> In fact, it is a parrot speaking
> in front of a mirror - the constant reassurance
> is helpful for him.
>
I'm not sure what that means, too much mixed metaphor, I think.
Citizen Jimserac
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:42:05 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac
>
> <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >That the internet exists and that the "masses" are making
> >comments, exposing the depredations of the FDA and the drug industry,
> >fir example, or exposing the latest Republican tax cut nonsense, I
> >don't think that he even knows about this.
>
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/371959_asbestos24.html
>
> In its final days in power, the Bush White House is rushing to have
> federal agencies water down the regulation of hazardous substances,
> lawmakers and public health experts say. A panel of scientific
> advisers this week denounced an Environmental Protection Agency plan
> to quickly alter the way it measures the cancer-causing risk of
> asbestos, but the thumbs-down doesn't prevent the agency from making
> the change anyway.
>
> The latest 11th-hour toxic sparring match comes while members of
> Congress are asking why the Labor Department has sent plans for
> sweeping changes in how workers are protected from chemical hazards
> directly to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
>
> Many of the government scientists and physicians in the Labor
> Department and other agencies who are normally required to weigh in on
> these kinds of changes say they haven't had a peek at the proposal.
>
> Similar concern has been focused on the firing of John Howard, the
> popular director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
> Health,
>
> People at EPA headquarters say the rush to have them change the way
> asbestos hazards are calculated is caused in part to OMB's desire to
> appease the automotive, mining, construction and chemical industries
> being sued for harm done by asbestos-containing material they've used
> or sold. . .
Exactly as might be expected.
What Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice and others either don't realize and,
apparently, refuse to accept, is that the
slow wheels of legal machinery are slowly turning against
them and PROSECUTION by the law may be INEVITABLE.
The guilty parties WILL be held accountable.
Citizen Jimserac
bval...@aol.com
> Murray says Bush, GOP block energy solutions
> By MATTHEW DALY
> ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
> WASHINGTON --
.
> Sen. Patty Murray says Democrats have a plan to combat record-high gas
> prices, but President Bush and Republicans in Congress are standing in
> the way.
OK, what's the solution?
.
> When Bush took office seven years ago, gas was $1.46 a gallon, said
> Murray, D-Wash.
2nd paragraph, no solution.
.
> "Today, in my state, it's more than triple that. Clearly there's
> something wrong with these tired policies."
3rd paragraph, no solution.
.
> While there's no simple solution, some reasonable steps can be taken
> now to reduce oil prices, Murray said Saturday in the Democrats'
> weekly radio address.
4th paragraph, no solution.
.
> "Bush-McCain Republicans haven't come up with anything more than
> drill, drill, drill," she said.
5th paragraph, no solution.
.
> "Even John McCain recently admitted that his offshore drilling
> proposal has mainly 'psychological' benefits.
This, of course, is a lie. He has said no such thing.
.
> Our families don't need
> to 'feel better' about spending four dollars and-a-half per gallon.
> American families need real action that gets real results."
6th paragraph, no solution.
.
> First, oil companies should drill in 68 million acres of federal land
> already leased for such use - nearly doubling U.S. production, Murray
> said.
These are areas which have tested, and found not to have oil. So the
Democrats solution is to have oil companies waste time and money on
federally mandated wild goose chases.
.
> The president also should tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -
> available for use in emergencies - and work with Democrats to crack
> down on Wall Street traders who are unfairly driving up oil prices by
> buying huge quantities of oil just to resell at a higher price, Murray
> said.
Which would last for three months - worsening the problem, and deplete
our reserves in case an actual disaster happens.
.