Solid-state generation of electricity without causing hazardous pollution or radioactivity -- possible?
![Green Xenon [Radium]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXIeIJhTqOxEYFvKAuip5ejWy8hTeL-C1nyXJxAbSVgQnnxXQ=s40-c)
Green Xenon [Radium]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/17785791b4c58f75
:
> In sci.physics Green Xenon [Radium] <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
>>Which do you think is more likely to be used for power in the next 2
>>centuries -- aneutronic fusion or matter/anti-matter annihilation?
> Neither.
In the next 20 to 50 years, what is likely to be a solid-state source of
electricity that does not cause harmful radioactivity [such as fission
power], pollution [such as burning coal], or increase the concentration
of atmospheric greenhouse gases [burning methane increases CO2, burning
hydrogen increases water-vapor]? What about in the next 50 to 100 years?
100 to 200 years?
Solid-state power generation does not require a turbine or steam. It
directly converts a non-electric form of energy [such as light, heat, or
sound] into electricity. Photovoltaic is an example of solid-state power
but it is inefficient.
Is it likely that electric power will ever be replaced by some other
type of power [e.g. optical or magnetic power]? If so, then most likely,
what -- if this happens in the next century?
Whata Fool
>Solid-state power generation does not require a turbine or steam. It
>directly converts a non-electric form of energy [such as light, heat, or
>sound] into electricity. Photovoltaic is an example of solid-state power
>but it is inefficient.
>
>Is it likely that electric power will ever be replaced by some other
>type of power [e.g. optical or magnetic power]? If so, then most likely,
>what -- if this happens in the next century?
Photovoltaic is a process in which efficiency is not important
other than the initial cost for equipment.
It is free energy, and efficiency is only important if
fuel is used that costs money.
The only reason that PV hasn't already become
a larger source of electricity is the production capacity, for
electricity, but not heat, PV works on cloudy days provided
there are enough panels.
And with production increasing at 50 percent per year,
it should not be long before PV begins to provide a substantial
fraction of the electrical power, but better at the place of use,
not by power companies.
Morris Dovey
| The only reason that PV hasn't already become
| a larger source of electricity is the production capacity, for
| electricity, but not heat, PV works on cloudy days provided
| there are enough panels.
Yuppers. Direct conversion to heat is still very much more efficient
(and still works well on cloudy days!) - which translates to a
considerably lesser need for panel area.
In the news yesterday there was a mention that over 500,000 homes were
without electricity following ice storms through the central USA. The
commentator noted that meant large numbers of homes would be without
heat in freezing weather. An excellent argument for incorporating at
least some passive solar heating into residential architecture.
| And with production increasing at 50 percent per year,
| it should not be long before PV begins to provide a substantial
| fraction of the electrical power, but better at the place of use,
| not by power companies.
Your point-of-use comment is important. Our current (sorry) paradigm
is that energy is produced at a central location at a remove from the
point-of-use. As lower-level efficiency gains importance, point-of-use
production is likely to become more significant.
This could present significant diffuculties for major urban centers,
and we'll probably see dual developments to deal with these issues:
First, we'll see new architectural solutions and, second, I think
we'll see some interesting production developments as more resources
are attracted to R&D focusing on those needs. I would guess that urban
centers will tend to "flatten out" in the long run.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>... Direct conversion to heat is still very much more efficient
>(and still works well on cloudy days!)
Less well than PVs, with a minimum usable temperature.
>In the news yesterday there was a mention that over 500,000 homes were
>without electricity following ice storms through the central USA. The
>commentator noted that meant large numbers of homes would be without
>heat in freezing weather. An excellent argument for incorporating at
>least some passive solar heating into residential architecture.
Or low-power active solar, or cogeneration.
Nick
Morris Dovey
| Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
|
|| ... Direct conversion to heat is still very much more efficient
|| (and still works well on cloudy days!)
|
| Less well than PVs, with a minimum usable temperature.
I'm not following. In what way less well than PVs? The conversion from
Solar -> Electrical -> heater isn't wonderfully efficient at that
first stage. What am I missing?
|| In the news yesterday there was a mention that over 500,000 homes
|| were without electricity following ice storms through the central
|| USA. The commentator noted that meant large numbers of homes would
|| be without heat in freezing weather. An excellent argument for
|| incorporating at least some passive solar heating into residential
|| architecture.
|
| Or low-power active solar, or cogeneration.
Of course, but in my poverty-stricken condition I tend to think in
terms of lower-cost solutions than those...
:-)
Whata Fool
>Your point-of-use comment is important. Our current (sorry) paradigm
>is that energy is produced at a central location at a remove from the
>point-of-use. As lower-level efficiency gains importance, point-of-use
>production is likely to become more significant.
>
>This could present significant diffuculties for major urban centers,
I don't think so, in fact, point of use PV may help the power
companies be more profitable, they won't need to upgrade existing
transmission lines and transformers as new construction increases
demand in an area.
>and we'll probably see dual developments to deal with these issues:
>First, we'll see new architectural solutions and, second, I think
>we'll see some interesting production developments as more resources
>are attracted to R&D focusing on those needs. I would guess that urban
>centers will tend to "flatten out" in the long run.
Most urban centers are flattening out, a few mayors are
still throwing money away trying to build the downtown centers,
but sooner or later they will see that people won't be coming
downtown as much.
We need more innovation though to move toward more
passive solar thermal promptly, and more PV as production
increases, plus some solar steam or solar freon turbines that
can make both electricity and useful thermal energy for space
heating and process heat.
I just noticed an hour ago (as I walked back home
from taking the neighbor some mail put in my mail box
by mistake) that all I need to do to get some solar thermal
is take a storm window from a window that was there
before my aunt had the bathroom paneled, and paint
the inside wall or window black and replace the storm
window.
That may give me an idea of what people will think
if I install some passive solar air boxes on the side, and
then the front of the house. The 11 foot ceilings will
allow me to use 8 foot boxes, and get good circulation
possibly without a fan.
It is hard to believe the number of solar installations
before 1982, and still there are essentially none seen
today here at 38 degrees north.
Anthony Matonak
> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> | Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
> |
> || ... Direct conversion to heat is still very much more efficient
> || (and still works well on cloudy days!)
> |
> | Less well than PVs, with a minimum usable temperature.
>
> I'm not following. In what way less well than PVs? The conversion from
> Solar -> Electrical -> heater isn't wonderfully efficient at that
> first stage. What am I missing?
I'm not entirely sure I follow myself. Perhaps he means that the
typical solar heater is built with only modest insulation from
the outside air temperature. A single pane of glass is not uncommon.
This means that as the outside air temperature drops, more of the
heat collected goes to heating the outdoors and less to any useful
heating. It's possible that if the temperature outside gets low
enough that all the heat collected goes to the outside. It's even
possible that the air (or water) circulating through the collector
will come out colder than it goes in.
That is to say, these collectors work only down to some minimum
outside temperature.
Of course, you can always use double or triple panes of glass to
insulate your collector from the outside air. This will make them
useful down to lower outdoor temperatures. Some solar water heaters
use glass tubes with a vacuum inside. They're more expensive but
they work better in low temperature conditions.
Anthony
Whata Fool
>Morris Dovey wrote:
>> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>> | Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
>> |
>> || ... Direct conversion to heat is still very much more efficient
>> || (and still works well on cloudy days!)
>> |
>> | Less well than PVs, with a minimum usable temperature.
>>
>> I'm not following. In what way less well than PVs? The conversion from
>> Solar -> Electrical -> heater isn't wonderfully efficient at that
>> first stage. What am I missing?
>
>I'm not entirely sure I follow myself. Perhaps he means that the
>typical solar heater is built with only modest insulation from
>the outside air temperature. A single pane of glass is not uncommon.
No, PV works better than passive thermal on cloudy days because
solar cells always produce about the same voltage, the light intensity only
affects the amperage, so with enough panels, batteries will still
be charged ............. some ................
Diffuse light from clouds is far less in intensity than direct
sunlight, it doesn't seem like so much because the eyes see
a log function in light, like decibels in sound.
So even with less intensity, solar cells work a little,
passive solar may not work at all, although in overcast
skies with thin clouds, quite a bit of heat may be collected.
Morris Dovey
| So even with less intensity, solar cells work a little,
| passive solar may not work at all, although in overcast
| skies with thin clouds, quite a bit of heat may be collected.
Ok - now you've got me jumping up and down, chompin' at the bit, to
get my passive hot-air panel sensors on line. (I just ordered the
stuff this afternoon.)
I think I may have some pleasant surprises for you. :-))
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Solid-state power generation does not require a turbine or steam. It
>>directly converts a non-electric form of energy [such as light, heat, or
>>sound] into electricity. Photovoltaic is an example of solid-state power
>>but it is inefficient.
>>
>>Is it likely that electric power will ever be replaced by some other
>>type of power [e.g. optical or magnetic power]? If so, then most likely,
>>what -- if this happens in the next century?
>
>
> Photovoltaic is a process in which efficiency is not important
> other than the initial cost for equipment.
How is efficiency not important?
>
> It is free energy, and efficiency is only important if
> fuel is used that costs money.
What about the cost to design, built, and maintain the photovoltaic devices?
Continued intense heat from the sun can damage photovoltaic panels. A
natural disaster can damage them.
So it does cost a lot of money.
>
> The only reason that PV hasn't already become
> a larger source of electricity is the production capacity, for
> electricity, but not heat, PV works on cloudy days provided
> there are enough panels.
Huh? What are you saying here?
> And with production increasing at 50 percent per year,
> it should not be long before PV begins to provide a substantial
> fraction of the electrical power, but better at the place of use,
> not by power companies.
When do you think there will be photovoltaic cars?
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>| So even with less intensity, solar cells work a little,
>| passive solar may not work at all, although in overcast
>| skies with thin clouds, quite a bit of heat may be collected.
>
>Ok - now you've got me jumping up and down, chompin' at the bit, to
>get my passive hot-air panel sensors on line. (I just ordered the
>stuff this afternoon.)
>
>I think I may have some pleasant surprises for you. :-))
I hope so, after 35 years of promoting solar and not
seeing much of it, some good news for north country would
be great. I am especially interested because I feel that
the big source of energy in the future has to be from Stirling
engines made using bellows instead of cylinders, because
low friction devices are needed to extract energy from sources
which do not provide a big difference in temperature to work with.
There isn't any question that passive solar thermal works
well in the sunbelt even though it is under utilized because not
that much money is spent on space heating there.
So good data on the amount of energy available under
overcast skies can only help convince the builders and the
architects of the rationality of using passive solar.
It may be a good idea to approach the issue with some
good automatic equipment that shuts off the heat when the
room(s) are warm enough, that should be convincing, and
I believe it is true and not just a gimmick.
But don't overlook the option to put PV panels in the
passive solar boxes as an attractive option, even though
collector area is not an issue in most places, it is a big
issue in others.
By the way, the southwest side of my house has a
pretty wide overhang, which will help avoid any weather
problems with the top edge of the panels.
And I may want to go to ten foot lengths on the
boxes (if the city doesn't ban visible collectors), there is
10 foot material available at good sign supply distributors,
although shipping that length is an extra problem.
Morris Dovey
| "Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
|
|| Your point-of-use comment is important. Our current (sorry)
|| paradigm is that energy is produced at a central location at a
|| remove from the point-of-use. As lower-level efficiency gains
|| importance, point-of-use production is likely to become more
|| significant.
||
|| This could present significant diffuculties for major urban
|| centers,
|
| I don't think so, in fact, point of use PV may help the
| power companies be more profitable, they won't need to upgrade
| existing transmission lines and transformers as new construction
| increases demand in an area.
I'm still not understanding, but suspect that the problem is my lack
of background depth, rather than your assertion. I picture a major
urban center as an environment where there is at least moderately high
energy consumption per unit of area. It's the alternative energy
production area restriction that causes me to see difficulties.
| Most urban centers are flattening out, a few mayors are
| still throwing money away trying to build the downtown centers,
| but sooner or later they will see that people won't be coming
| downtown as much.
I think you're right on the mark. I'm also seeing considerable
movement toward virtual offices - a move that (IMO) is long overdue.
| We need more innovation though to move toward more
| passive solar thermal promptly, and more PV as production
| increases, plus some solar steam or solar freon turbines that
| can make both electricity and useful thermal energy for space
| heating and process heat.
Also (implied in the above) major improvements to engineering and pure
science education at all levels. Speaking of which, we could do with
more science fiction writers - they don't normally contribute much to
either education or to R&D, but they have a way of awakening the
interests that bring people into these fields.
| I just noticed an hour ago (as I walked back home
| from taking the neighbor some mail put in my mail box
| by mistake) that all I need to do to get some solar thermal
| is take a storm window from a window that was there
| before my aunt had the bathroom paneled, and paint
| the inside wall or window black and replace the storm
| window.
| That may give me an idea of what people will think
| if I install some passive solar air boxes on the side, and
| then the front of the house. The 11 foot ceilings will
| allow me to use 8 foot boxes, and get good circulation
| possibly without a fan.
<rant> [ rant deleted ] </rant> Just do it!
| It is hard to believe the number of solar installations
| before 1982, and still there are essentially none seen
| today here at 38 degrees north.
Hmm - before 1982 most of the PV panels I saw were attached to tin
birds being built for NASA - and heating panels were mostly "wavy"
translucent fiberglass panels (or plastic sheeting) nailed to 2x4s
(ugly as sin and not exactly efficient). "State of the art" was beer
cans in a black box. The work needed engineers, and the folks at
Lockheed, Boeing, Hughes, General Dynamics were paying a lot more. I
suspect that with more engineering jobs moving across the Pacific to
Won Wing Lo Aero and energy prices rising, there may be more talent
available today...
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>> Photovoltaic is a process in which efficiency is not important
>> other than the initial cost for equipment.
>
>How is efficiency not important?
In fuel cost, most energy devices rate energy cost,
not life cycle costs.
>> It is free energy, and efficiency is only important if
>> fuel is used that costs money.
>
>What about the cost to design, built, and maintain the photovoltaic devices?
Too much for anyplace but the sunbelts at present.
>Continued intense heat from the sun can damage photovoltaic panels. A
>natural disaster can damage them.
>
>So it does cost a lot of money.
That cost should be much less than the equivalent cost
of fossil fuel eventually.
>> The only reason that PV hasn't already become
>> a larger source of electricity is the production capacity, for
>> electricity, but not heat, PV works on cloudy days provided
>> there are enough panels.
>
>Huh? What are you saying here?
That solar cells always put out about the same voltage
with any light intensity, allowing charging of batteries without
direct sunlight.
>> And with production increasing at 50 percent per year,
>> it should not be long before PV begins to provide a substantial
>> fraction of the electrical power, but better at the place of use,
>> not by power companies.
>
>When do you think there will be photovoltaic cars?
There already are some, I saw about 30 of them about
8 years ago in a race from Florida to Michigan on Dixie Highway.
Seriously, the solar cells don't need to be on the car
for many drivers, a Plug-in Electric Vehicle can be charged
only at work if the employer will put in the facilities with grid
power backup.
A big drop in PV prices in the next year or so could
make a big difference, especially if the material could be
mass produced easier than single crystal silicon.
KLS
wrote:
>In the news yesterday there was a mention that over 500,000 homes were
>without electricity following ice storms through the central USA. The
>commentator noted that meant large numbers of homes would be without
>heat in freezing weather. An excellent argument for incorporating at
>least some passive solar heating into residential architecture.
You're speaking truth to power!!!!
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>| "Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
>|| Your point-of-use comment is important. Our current (sorry)
>|| paradigm is that energy is produced at a central location at a
>|| remove from the point-of-use. As lower-level efficiency gains
>|| importance, point-of-use production is likely to become more
>|| significant.
>||
>|| This could present significant diffuculties for major urban
>|| centers,
>|
>| I don't think so, in fact, point of use PV may help the
>| power companies be more profitable, they won't need to upgrade
>| existing transmission lines and transformers as new construction
>| increases demand in an area.
>
>I'm still not understanding, but suspect that the problem is my lack
>of background depth, rather than your assertion. I picture a major
>urban center as an environment where there is at least moderately high
>energy consumption per unit of area. It's the alternative energy
>production area restriction that causes me to see difficulties.
For one story buildings, there shouldn't be much of a problem
with area for roof tops. And for multi-story buildings, it is pretty
much the same situation because there is less exterior area to
lose heat.
What may be lost, is the option of using the south facing
walls instead of the roof.
>| Most urban centers are flattening out, a few mayors are
>| still throwing money away trying to build the downtown centers,
>| but sooner or later they will see that people won't be coming
>| downtown as much.
>
>I think you're right on the mark. I'm also seeing considerable
>movement toward virtual offices - a move that (IMO) is long overdue.
I think that is over-rated, many people have gone broke
waiting for business from a web site, and even though computer
files are great, there is nothing like paper copy.
There are too many offices anyway, those college graduates
need to roll up their sleeves and make a product or provide a
service, and quit shuffling paper (or digital bits).
>| We need more innovation though to move toward more
>| passive solar thermal promptly, and more PV as production
>| increases, plus some solar steam or solar freon turbines that
>| can make both electricity and useful thermal energy for space
>| heating and process heat.
>
>Also (implied in the above) major improvements to engineering and pure
>science education at all levels. Speaking of which, we could do with
>more science fiction writers - they don't normally contribute much to
>either education or to R&D, but they have a way of awakening the
>interests that bring people into these fields.
All you need do is get some of the pulp rags from 1935
to 1950, after that, it was pretty much duplicate manuscripts.
I do agree though, I had the advantage of being able
to read science fiction every day of the week, but it hurt my
school work.
No, there is a severe shortage of labor in the US, thanks
to the wonderful idea of doctors stopping two million beating hearts
a year (and the testimony of a liar before the Supreme Court).
Anybody young enough with a pilots license will probably
be able to fly professionally over the next ten years.
And the very reason so much work is being spread around
is the labor problems and the labor shortage.
I have mail from most of those big companies asking
for information from my ads offering instructions and materials
for sale for Large Plane Segmented Solar Energy Concentrating
Mirrors and master molds.
Those companies getting involved is what hurt the solar
energy industry (in my opinion), they need a high hourly rate
for labor just to pay the overhead of large facilities.
More small companies are needed, and you only need
to park a car in the sun on a zero degree C day and study it
to see what is needed, from there it is just the engineering of
the devices to shield the collectors from the sun on hot days
in late fall and early spring.
There is a cost advantage in having uneducated people
just over-engineering for dependability, rather than paying for
the weight reduction by professionals.
All the emphasis needs to be at the end user-installer
point, as every installation has special challenges, and the
average tradesman has all the know-how needed.
They just need to see working installations, and see
the specs on cost and energy savings.
Which is one of the reasons I gave up promoting the
use of concentrating collectors, all the hype was on high
tech, government certified collectors at $30 or $40 per square
foot, and plywood was about 25 cents per square foot.
Morris Dovey
| For one story buildings, there shouldn't be much of a
| problem with area for roof tops. And for multi-story
| buildings, it is pretty much the same situation because there is
| less exterior area to
| lose heat.
|
| What may be lost, is the option of using the south facing
| walls instead of the roof.
The difficulty, as I see it, is that major urban centers pack high
volumes of energy-consuming activity into a limited _area_ - and it's
area that limits the amount of power that can be produced by solar
panels.
|| I'm also seeing considerable
|| movement toward virtual offices - a move that (IMO) is long
|| overdue.
|
| I think that is over-rated, many people have gone broke
| waiting for business from a web site, and even though computer
| files are great, there is nothing like paper copy.
| There are too many offices anyway, those college
| graduates need to roll up their sleeves and make a product or
| provide a service, and quit shuffling paper (or digital bits).
I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Over on alt.solar.thermal
I just handed Jeff (in Atlanta?) a concept drawing done on a computer
at home. If I'd had time to draw it out on paper and send it off in
the mail, he wouldn't see it for the better part of a week. Even more
interesting is that I can separate the individual parts and use the
separate drawing files to control a CNC machine to actually /produce/
those parts. I just don't feel a need to have a paper copy.
People who go broke waiting for business from /any/ source aren't _in_
business. People who are in business don't sit around waiting for
anything - they work to make it happen. "Sales" (a dirty word to a lot
of engineers) needs to be relabeled "prospect education". Of course,
that presupposes that there's something being offered from which
customers derive benefit.
| Which is one of the reasons I gave up promoting the
| use of concentrating collectors, all the hype was on high
| tech, government certified collectors at $30 or $40 per square
| foot, and plywood was about 25 cents per square foot.
Heh - then you'll probably get a kick out of the trough at
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Stirling/Heat.html. We didn't use just
plywood, we threw in some 2x4s and 1x4s too. :-)
Whata Fool
>Heh - then you'll probably get a kick out of the trough at
>http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Stirling/Heat.html. We didn't use just
>plywood, we threw in some 2x4s and 1x4s too. :-)
Great, but you should have bought a parabola protractor
when I offered them for sale (1976).
I don't think there is any local solar energy sales stores here,
and it is hard to sell without a showroom. There is lots of information,
and not enough hardware, more energy is needed more where there
is less sun.
A horn-o-plenty energy information site, I didn't look at
all of it, are you listed there?
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Whata Fool wrote:
>>
>>> Photovoltaic is a process in which efficiency is not important
>>>other than the initial cost for equipment.
>>
>>How is efficiency not important?
>
>
> In fuel cost, most energy devices rate energy cost,
> not life cycle costs.
Okay.
>
>
>>> It is free energy, and efficiency is only important if
>>>fuel is used that costs money.
>>
>>What about the cost to design, built, and maintain the photovoltaic devices?
>
>
> Too much for anyplace but the sunbelts at present.
Why?
>
>
>>Continued intense heat from the sun can damage photovoltaic panels. A
>>natural disaster can damage them.
>>
>>So it does cost a lot of money.
>
>
> That cost should be much less than the equivalent cost
> of fossil fuel eventually.
Hopefully.
>
>
>>> The only reason that PV hasn't already become
>>>a larger source of electricity is the production capacity, for
>>>electricity, but not heat, PV works on cloudy days provided
>>>there are enough panels.
>>
>>Huh? What are you saying here?
>
>
> That solar cells always put out about the same voltage
> with any light intensity, allowing charging of batteries without
> direct sunlight.
How are they able to do that? Light with less intensity will result in a
lower voltage than light with more intensity.
>
>
>>> And with production increasing at 50 percent per year,
>>>it should not be long before PV begins to provide a substantial
>>>fraction of the electrical power, but better at the place of use,
>>>not by power companies.
>>
>>When do you think there will be photovoltaic cars?
>
>
> There already are some, I saw about 30 of them about
> 8 years ago in a race from Florida to Michigan on Dixie Highway.
>
> Seriously, the solar cells don't need to be on the car
> for many drivers, a Plug-in Electric Vehicle can be charged
> only at work if the employer will put in the facilities with grid
> power backup.
>
> A big drop in PV prices in the next year or so could
> make a big difference, especially if the material could be
> mass produced easier than single crystal silicon.
In space, could the charged particles emitted by the sun be used to
power the electric devices in the spacecraft?
Morris Dovey
| Great, but you should have bought a parabola protractor
| when I offered them for sale (1976).
Probably, but in '76 I was working >90 hr/wk on software for TIROS-N
(weather sat series) - with no time for much else. At that point I'd
only built two panels: one air-heating and one water-heating, and
didn't yet have a shop.
| I don't think there is any local solar energy sales
| stores here, and it is hard to sell without a showroom. There
| is lots of information, and not enough hardware, more energy is
| needed more where there is less sun.
It's easy to agree on this one.
| A horn-o-plenty energy information site, I didn't look at
| all of it, are you listed there?
|
| http://builditsolar.com/NewsLetter/newsletter.htm
Actually, yes. You'll probably spot a reference there. Gary is doing a
great job providing info for the DIYers, and beside the BIS website
he's written articles for print media. I try to encourage those who
can to build their own panels (and I'm not hesitant to refer them to
BIS), but my primary focus is on selling to those who want an
off-the-shelf product.
V-for-Vendicar
"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote
> In the news yesterday there was a mention that over 500,000 homes were
> without electricity following ice storms through the central USA. The
> commentator noted that meant large numbers of homes would be without
> heat in freezing weather. An excellent argument for incorporating at
> least some passive solar heating into residential architecture.
Absolutely. In addition even 50 to 100 watts of electric power would
provide enough air flow to move air over the furnace heat exchanger and
through the homes ductwork.
The furnace in my home is designed to work strictly on convection if
necessary so a power failure does not reduce significantly alter my ability
to stay warm.
I have some battery backed up power - in the form of two UPS systems for
my computer equipment, and these can provide 24 hours of emergency lighting.
Once that runs out, I go to candles, and past that to cooking oil lamps.
Should the water supply be disrupted, I have 180 litres of water stored in
the hot water tank, waiting to be exploited.
For cooking, I have a propane torch and a couple of can's of sterno.
Suitable for a few days, and if the duration is longer, I have a litre of
isopropal alcohol which will last another couple of days. Past that, I
start burning a huge pile of dead wood kept on the lot.
With rationing I have over a month of food in the house, and in the winter,
refrigeration can be provided by outside. I used that method a few years
ago when my refrigerator died one winter. Worked fine.
So why are so many AmeriKKKants abandoning their homes after a couple of
days without power?
Stupidity.
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>Whata Fool wrote:
>>>> Photovoltaic is a process in which efficiency is not important
>>>>other than the initial cost for equipment.
>>>
>>>How is efficiency not important?
>>
>> In fuel cost, most energy devices rate energy cost,
>> not life cycle costs.
>
>Okay.
>
>>>> It is free energy, and efficiency is only important if
>>>>fuel is used that costs money.
>>>
>>>What about the cost to design, built, and maintain the photovoltaic devices?
>>
>> Too much for anyplace but the sunbelts at present.
>
>Why?
Payback time, if people don't have the cash to pay for the
equipment, they have to borrow it, and it has to pay for itself if
they don't have excess income.
>>>Continued intense heat from the sun can damage photovoltaic panels. A
>>>natural disaster can damage them.
>>>
>>>So it does cost a lot of money.
>>
>> That cost should be much less than the equivalent cost
>> of fossil fuel eventually.
>
>Hopefully.
There are lots of people that could buy a car now and
have it pay for itself in fuel savings, over 20 or 30 thousand
miles a year might be enough for some cars.
And there are places where the added cost of a passive
solar home would cost less than the energy to heat it, but not
many builders are doing it, looks and convention seem more
important than saving energy.
>>>> The only reason that PV hasn't already become
>>>>a larger source of electricity is the production capacity, for
>>>>electricity, but not heat, PV works on cloudy days provided
>>>>there are enough panels.
>>>
>>>Huh? What are you saying here?
>
>> That solar cells always put out about the same voltage
>> with any light intensity, allowing charging of batteries without
>> direct sunlight.
>
>How are they able to do that?
It is a natural characteristic of the solar cell.
>Light with less intensity will result in a
>lower voltage than light with more intensity.
No, almost the same voltage, but more watts or amps.
This is why concentrators can be used on high temperature
solar cells, but still get the same voltage, only more watts from the
same cell.
There was supposed to be some concentrating assemblies
with a glass front and molded plastic backs come on the market,
I haven't kept up with it though, I think it was a company partnered
with Boeing.
I applied for a patent in 1979 to use transformer oil as a
coolant for solar cells used with concentrating mirrors, but there
was two patents already issued for essentially the same thing,
and the thermal energy absorbed by the oil could be used for
space or process heat or just dissipated away if not needed.
>>>> And with production increasing at 50 percent per year,
>>>>it should not be long before PV begins to provide a substantial
>>>>fraction of the electrical power, but better at the place of use,
>>>>not by power companies.
>>>
>>>When do you think there will be photovoltaic cars?
>>
>> There already are some, I saw about 30 of them about
>> 8 years ago in a race from Florida to Michigan on Dixie Highway.
>>
>> Seriously, the solar cells don't need to be on the car
>> for many drivers, a Plug-in Electric Vehicle can be charged
>> only at work if the employer will put in the facilities with grid
>> power backup.
>>
>> A big drop in PV prices in the next year or so could
>> make a big difference, especially if the material could be
>> mass produced easier than single crystal silicon.
>
>In space, could the charged particles emitted by the sun be used to
>power the electric devices in the spacecraft?
I don't think so, gee, isn't 1300 watts per square meter
enough?
The ISS will have 50 or 100 KW electric when they get
the other panels working, the problem is getting rid of the heat
from the devices that use that energy, how do you radiate away
heat from a radiator at lower temperature than the suns rays
would cause.
This is different than the Earth's energy transfers, the
Earth can radiate from the surface and various levels of the
atmosphere at the same time, the space station can only
radiate from a small surface area.
And frankly, I am not sure how the space station will
get rid of that heat.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>|| ... Direct conversion to heat is still very much more efficient
>|| (and still works well on cloudy days!)
>|
>| Less well than PVs, with a minimum usable temperature.
>
>I'm not following. In what way less well than PVs?
PVs can still produce usable energy on cloudy days, esp with an MPPT, but
a solar heater that makes 60 F air or water on a 30 F cloudy day would
likely be useless.
>|| ... large numbers of homes would be without heat in freezing weather.
>|| An excellent argument for incorporating at least some passive solar
>|| heating into residential architecture.
>|
>| Or low-power active solar, or cogeneration.
>
>Of course, but in my poverty-stricken condition I tend to think in
>terms of lower-cost solutions than those...
Less costly than $2/ft^2 polycarbonate glazing and a $35 car radiator
with 20 watt fans and a $200 plywood tank, and a few more cheap parts?
If cloudy days are like coin flips, a house that can only store heat
for 1 cloudy day can be at most 50% solar-heated.
Nick
Solar Flare
your tank?
You ever been in a disaster area? Ever see frozen dead bodies?
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:oso8j.29667$9F1....@read1.cgocable.net...
Morris Dovey
I guess that would depend on how you're powering the 20 watt fans.
You're forgetting that a solar heating panel doesn't just "make 60F
air on a 30F day" - it _raises_ the temperature of its input air by an
amount determined by the amount of energy it absorbs and transfers to
the air - and it does (or should do) that pretty much independently of
the outdoor temperature.
Assume for the sake of simplicity that a space to be heated is
extremely well insulated and not leaky. If the incoming energy is only
enough to raise the temperature of the incoming air by 30F, then 40F
input air will be discharged at 70F - and when all of the air in the
heated space has been passed through the collector _once_, enough
energy will have been added to the space to raise the temperature of
the space to 70F.
You, of course, are eager to remind me that I've just described an
unreal and impossiblely well-insulated space, yes?
Can we imagine that by the time all that air has been passed through
the collector, there've been enough losses that we've only achieved a
60F room temperature? The amount and method of loss will depend on the
structure...
But I'm equally eager to point out that even though all of the air in
the space has been passed through the collector, the sun is still
shining and there are still six hours of heating time remaining in the
day - so now let's pass the 60F air through the panel to be warmed up
by that same 30F delta, and lets also continue the assumption that the
effective gain is only 20F. This time the air temperature of the space
goes to 80F (rather than the no-loss 90F).
By the time the air in the space has been passed through the
collector, say four times, most of us will be feeling a bit roasty and
will be thinking of opening a window to let some of the heat _out_.
Storing some of that heat would, as you point out, be a Good
Thing(tm) - but storage doesn't make sense until the immediate
requirement has been met. What you suggested was _substituting_ a
collector of questionable efficiency that probably won't meet the
immediate requirement together with inexpensive storage (based on what
can be built using your materials list) - for a collector that can not
only meet, but exceed, the basic requirement - and to such an extent
that consideration of storage becomes meaningful.
AFAICT, there is _no_ really cheap solution. All workable solution
strategies must begin with a structure that minimizes losses. With
that requirement met, there must be sufficient energy input to
maintain a comfortable temperature while solar energy is available
_plus_ sufficient energy input to compensate for the losses while
solar energy is not available. Until those requirements are met, all
discussion of storage is meaningless. When those requirements _are_
met, /then/ storage becomes important to maximize comfort when solar
input isn't available.
We've both used assumptions that haven't been well-stated in our
arguments, but I think that the answer to your question (assuming
'good' collector efficiency and 'good' insulation) is: "Yes, less
costly - as in more favorable cost/benefit ratio."
V-for-Vendicar
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote
> PVs can still produce usable energy on cloudy days, esp with an MPPT, but
> a solar heater that makes 60 F air or water on a 30 F cloudy day would
> likely be useless.
Whatever the input temperature of the water is, whatever heat you pump in
from solar is heat you don't have to pump in via gas or electric.
V-for-Vendicar
"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> What will you do with 180 litres of frozen water breaking holes in your
> tank?
It won't be frozen because my furnace continues to run without
electricity. And if it got that cold I wouild drain it into the bath tub.
"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> You ever been in a disaster area? Ever see frozen dead bodies?
Only the ones I've disected. But they were just cold. On ice so to
speak.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
Sounds like you'll never understand this either :-)
Nick
Morris Dovey
| This means that as the outside air temperature drops, more of the
| heat collected goes to heating the outdoors and less to any useful
| heating. It's possible that if the temperature outside gets low
| enough that all the heat collected goes to the outside. It's even
| possible that the air (or water) circulating through the collector
| will come out colder than it goes in.
|
| That is to say, these collectors work only down to some minimum
| outside temperature.
|
| Of course, you can always use double or triple panes of glass to
| insulate your collector from the outside air. This will make them
| useful down to lower outdoor temperatures. Some solar water heaters
| use glass tubes with a vacuum inside. They're more expensive but
| they work better in low temperature conditions.
Hmm. What you're talking about just /can't/ be a solar collector!
I built a 4'x4' panel glazed with only a single sheet of ordinary
window glass and that panel was adequate to maintain above-freezing
temperatures in a reasonably "tight" but uninsulated 16'x16' building
(milkhouse) through -30F temperature with 25-35 mph wind in Minnesota.
To have conditions so adverse that solar panels don't work at all, I
think you'd need to be in a location where the sun doesn't shine at
all during the heating season.
B'ware the polar bears. :-)
Whata Fool
>I built a 4'x4' panel glazed with only a single sheet of ordinary
>window glass and that panel was adequate to maintain above-freezing
>temperatures in a reasonably "tight" but uninsulated 16'x16' building
>(milkhouse) through -30F temperature with 25-35 mph wind in Minnesota.
>
>To have conditions so adverse that solar panels don't work at all, I
>think you'd need to be in a location where the sun doesn't shine at
>all during the heating season.
In 1977, I built a large garage-workshop 32 x 28 feet, with two
overhead doors facing south, a 3 x 5 foot window plus a standard
door facing south, and four 3 x 32 foot windows in a sawtooth roof
configuration facing south. There was a 4 x 22 foot window facing
east.
It was all masonry, I laid the "Brickrete" myself, and built the
roof, with two I beams and the roof sections were 2 inches higher
in the center than the ends for drainage.
I got all the glass in, but before I could finish sealing it all
to the weather, I began having spine problems from piano moving
during the 1960s, and never finished it, and moved in 1981,
to Texas.
With that much glass, it should have worked pretty good,
but I doubt if the buyer understood passive solar to do anything
with it.
But it was at 2500 feet where winters were mostly cloudy,
I will never know how it turned out.
Natural gas was in short supply in the late 1970s, but
became plentiful a couple of years later, and cheaper.
V-for-Vendicar
> V-for-Vendicar <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>>
>><nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote
>>> PVs can still produce usable energy on cloudy days, esp with an MPPT,
>>> but
>>> a solar heater that makes 60 F air or water on a 30 F cloudy day would
>>> likely be useless.
>>
>> Whatever the input temperature of the water is, whatever heat you pump
>> in
>>from solar is heat you don't have to pump in via gas or electric.
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote
> Sounds like you'll never understand this either :-)
Well lets see. The water leaves the exchanger warmer than when it came in.
Hence there is a net transfer of energy to the water and a net reduction in
the energy needed to br purchased to heat it to the same degree.
You ain't very bright are you?
Solar Flare
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:MJJ8j.23955$xa2....@read2.cgocable.net...
V-for-Vendicar
"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> Does your furnace run on magic too?
It runs off of natural gas, and those line stay pressureized even during a
power failure, and this furnace needs no electricity, reverting to
convection heating should the power go out.
Now if <BOTH> the gas and the electric heat were to go out, I would go out
and purchase 8 bags of fiberglass insulation and affix them to the interior
walls of the house. At that point there would be sufficient insulation to
heat the house via sunlight from the windows and body temperature. Although
it would still get quite cold at night. But it wouldn't freeze.
Solar Flare
just a good comforter on your bed.
Good warm clothes and something to cut the wind is usually enough.
Showers become a problem with no hot water. Solar bags come to mind.
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:cVi9j.30097$9F1....@read1.cgocable.net...
V-for-Vendicar
"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> You must have a warm climate then which would probably satisfied with just
> a good comforter on your bed.
There are 10 inches of snow outside at the moment.
"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> Good warm clothes and something to cut the wind is usually enough. Showers
> become a problem with no hot water. Solar bags come to mind.
Well if I was planning to live in the wilderness then showers wouldn't be
much of an issue during winter. Since I would either forgo them in lue of
other methods of bathing or find a way to implement them. I would probably
chose to use a small cook stove to heat water for bathing, while at the same
time providing some heat for the living structure.
Morris Dovey
for a "heat storage closet" immediately behind the collector
panel(s)...
My notion is to stack pairs of 55-gallon barrels filled with water
across the width of the panel(s) and put a movable "lid" on the closet
to control the flow of heated air in bypass, deposit, or withdrawl
modes.
Bypass mode would be used whenever there's solar input and the air
temperature of the space is below the lower limit of a comfort range.
Deposit mode would be used whenever there's solar input and the air
temperature of the space is above the upper limit of a comfort range.
Withdrawl mode would be used when there's no solar input and the air
temperature of the space is below the lower limit of the comfort
range.
I've posted a sketch/schematic of the closet at
<http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/ThermStore/ThermStor.jpg> (the
panels are left of the closet and the heated space is to the right),
and would like to invite your thoughts as to any low-cost
improvements/methods that might help this work well.
Solar Flare
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:3ho9j.30137$9F1....@read1.cgocable.net...
Whata Fool
>I thought about the storage issue a bit more, and came up with an idea
>for a "heat storage closet" immediately behind the collector
>panel(s)...
Have you worked out the stats for 12 hours of usable storage
on a 32 F night?
I think there needs to be more emphasis on local installers,
even if off the shelf plans and hardware are available.
I haven't done anything to my house yet, but I can tell
that the temperature stabilizes in the late afternoon when the
sun is directly on my southwest facing wall, and I am sure the
heat thermostats all but shut all heat off, just from the heat
infiltrating through the uninsulated wall.
>My notion is to stack pairs of 55-gallon barrels filled with water
>across the width of the panel(s) and put a movable "lid" on the closet
>to control the flow of heated air in bypass, deposit, or withdrawl
>modes.
>
>Bypass mode would be used whenever there's solar input and the air
>temperature of the space is below the lower limit of a comfort range.
>
>Deposit mode would be used whenever there's solar input and the air
>temperature of the space is above the upper limit of a comfort range.
>
>Withdrawl mode would be used when there's no solar input and the air
>temperature of the space is below the lower limit of the comfort
>range.
>
>I've posted a sketch/schematic of the closet at
><http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/ThermStore/ThermStor.jpg> (the
>panels are left of the closet and the heated space is to the right),
>and would like to invite your thoughts as to any low-cost
>improvements/methods that might help this work well.
I think a pilot installation and performance stats would
mean more than opinions.
Have you checked price and availability on eutectic
salts that melt at 75 degrees?
Morris Dovey
| I think there needs to be more emphasis on local
| installers, even if off the shelf plans and hardware are available.
I won't disagree, but would most like to see the emphasis placed on
architectural design and contractor education. IMO, homeowners
shouldn't have to cobble together these solutions.
| I haven't done anything to my house yet, but I can tell
| that the temperature stabilizes in the late afternoon when the
| sun is directly on my southwest facing wall, and I am sure the
| heat thermostats all but shut all heat off, just from the heat
| infiltrating through the uninsulated wall.
I solar heated a shop in southern Minnesota and during the winter had
to prop a door open with a 2x4 about 1pm on sunny winter days because
the temperature went over 90F.
| I think a pilot installation and performance stats would
| mean more than opinions.
Agreed. Probably a good idea to get a little peer review before
subjecting a customer to all this, though...
| Have you checked price and availability on eutectic
| salts that melt at 75 degrees?
Nope. I hope you're inviting me to ask you to tell me all you know
('cause that's what I'm doing :-D
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>| Have you checked price and availability on eutectic
>| salts that melt at 75 degrees?
>
>Nope. I hope you're inviting me to ask you to tell me all you know
>('cause that's what I'm doing :-D
I don't know much about them, except there is a lot
of storable energy in the phase change if at the right temperature,
it can be tailored to the installation.
I think it might provide 3 or 4 times as much storage
as water for the same volume, but that is just a guess.
http://www.allanstime.com/SolarHome/#5.
http://www.enviroalternatives.com/earthtunnel.html
http://www.uppco.com/business/eba_28.asp
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/AE_eutectic_salts.html
Sorry I can't find a place to buy the salts mixed to melt someplace
between 75 and 90 F.
The salt has a smaller specific heat than water (water is tops),
but if it melts at the right temperature, 83 calories per gram (I think
that is about 110 BTU per pound, maybe NOT), so a lot more heat
can be stored at a reasonable temperature.
That would be about as much heat as heating water to 180 F,
which may not be possible in winter.
Morris Dovey
| I think it might provide 3 or 4 times as much storage
| as water for the same volume, but that is just a guess.
|
| http://www.allanstime.com/SolarHome/#5.
|
| http://www.enviroalternatives.com/earthtunnel.html
|
| http://www.uppco.com/business/eba_28.asp
|
| http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/AE_eutectic_salts.html
|
| Sorry I can't find a place to buy the salts mixed to melt
| someplace between 75 and 90 F.
Not a problem. I can do a bit of research - but if you run across
something that you recognize as a really good price, a "heads up"
would be appreciated.
| The salt has a smaller specific heat than water (water is
| tops), but if it melts at the right temperature, 83 calories per
| gram (I think that is about 110 BTU per pound, maybe NOT), so a lot
| more heat can be stored at a reasonable temperature.
|
| That would be about as much heat as heating water to 180
Thanks! I'll investigate further - and the links are a
much-appreciated starting-point.
Bill Ward
A few years ago I had some handwarmers consisting of a sealed 3"x5" vinyl
bag containing a saturated salt (ammonium acetate, IIRC) solution and a
little dished steel disk "clicker". When the bag was heated to >130F, the
salt dissolved, but when it cooled, the solution stayed supersaturated.
The heat of crystallization was trapped until the "clicker" was
manually actuated. The shock wave from the click seeded crystallization,
releasing the stored heat to keep the bag at 130F for several hours. The
process could be repeated simply by reheating the packet in hot water to
redissolve the salt.
I haven't run the numbers, but it might be worthwhile checking to see if
it would be practical to store latent heat in that manner to handle
several days of cloudy weather. Piezo crystals could likely replace the
steel clicker to remotely initiate the crystallization of individual
containers.
Just a wild idea...
Dan Bloomquist
Come on Bill. Phase change storage is simple. I will do it with wax. But
with 3000 lb.s of wax, I only hope to store a day if conditions are not
extreme. It so, I'll have a couple of fires a day. Being comfortable is
not a piece of cake.......
Morris Dovey
| A few years ago I had some handwarmers consisting of a sealed 3"x5"
| vinyl bag containing a saturated salt (ammonium acetate, IIRC)
| solution and a little dished steel disk "clicker". When the bag
| was heated to >130F, the salt dissolved, but when it cooled, the
| solution stayed supersaturated. The heat of crystallization was
| trapped until the "clicker" was
| manually actuated. The shock wave from the click seeded
| crystallization, releasing the stored heat to keep the bag at 130F
| for several hours. The process could be repeated simply by
| reheating the packet in hot water to redissolve the salt.
|
| I haven't run the numbers, but it might be worthwhile checking to
| see if it would be practical to store latent heat in that manner to
| handle several days of cloudy weather. Piezo crystals could likely
| replace the steel clicker to remotely initiate the crystallization
| of individual containers.
|
| Just a wild idea...
I'll check it out. I used to have a couple of those things, but think
they may have "gone traveling" with the kids...
Not long ago, I was up late sketching by the fireplace and either Bill
Nye(sp?) or Wired Science came on and they concocted something like in
a beaker. I'm not sure, but I think they used sodium acetate and
water.
Yes on the piezo xtals! I have a couple of Sonalert-type beepers
somewhere that might do the trick if I can figure out how to immerse
them without shorting the circuit. A cheap piezo cigarette lighter
might provide a usable crystal, too.
Thanks!
Bill Ward
The difference is the ability to trigger the phase change at will.
Without a shock, the salt solution is stable at fairly low temperatures
for long periods (weeks, at least), ready to heat up with a click. Wax is
always cooling, it never increases in temperature, AFAIK.
But I haven't run the numbers, and I don't know quantitatively how the
energy storage compares to wax on a volume or cost basis.
Like I said, a wild idea...
Dan Bloomquist
>
> The difference is the ability to trigger the phase change at will.
> Without a shock, the salt solution is stable at fairly low temperatures
> for long periods (weeks, at least), ready to heat up with a click. Wax is
> always cooling, it never increases in temperature, AFAIK.
>
> But I haven't run the numbers, and I don't know quantitatively how the
> energy storage compares to wax on a volume or cost basis.
If you can keep it stable at low temperature. But then you would need
multiple containers so you don't release the heat at one time. Once it
is seeded it will stay at the phase change temperature. So with a salt
it may be more of an issue to insulate the storage and draw the heat as
needed. I looked at Glauber's salt as an option. It has twice the latent
heat of fusion of wax. But at a much lower temperature. I figured it
would not be practical for base board heating. I bought hurricane wax,
IGI 1260. It melts at over 160f.
I didn't get so far as to check the conductance of salt. But if is
anything like wax, it would take some kind of infrastructure to get the
heat moved out as you are working with a much lower differential. This
assumes you can't pull some trick and keep the solid front away from
your heat exchangers so convection currents can come into play.
Best, Dan.
Bill Ward
Yeah, that's the problem with the heat of solidification - it wants to
solidify at the coolest spot, the heat exchanger. I haven't seriously
looked at any of the energy storage schemes since the mid-70s, so I'm not
really current enough to be much help. Sounds like you're having fun,
though. Good luck with your project.
Regards,
Bill Ward
sno
If I remember correctly the problem with phase change materials has been
over time they settle out of solution and stratify. The
solution needs to be mixed occasionally to keep the mixture correct.
have fun....sno
--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???
Nuclear power is the only proven technology that
can solve our energy problems.....
This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)
Dan Bloomquist
>>
> Sounds like you're having fun,
> though. Good luck with your project.
Thanks Bill,
My son came up to the mountain weekend after thanksgiving and we worked
on the boiler, then took it around the block. When things were clicking,
we were moving a pound of steam a minute. Not bad for the first time out
and considering how retarded some of the stuff was.
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward
Best, Dan.
V-for-Vendicar
"Solar Flare" <solar...@hotmale.invalid> wrote
> Mexico?
Russia?
Solar Flare
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:VR1aj.163$fr2...@read2.cgocable.net...
beber
wrote:
An excellent argument for incorporating at
>least some passive solar heating into residential architecture.
I was one of those people. Doubt if it would have done me much good
at night. BTW, what I did was use a small propane non-vented space
heater to keep one room warm. We did quite well. Used the great
outdoors to replace our deepfreeze. However, if it had been really
cold, especially with wind, a lot of people would have been in deep
trouble.
Oh by the way, we weren't to worry. FEMA was coming with blankets,
ready to eat meals and generators. A few weeks after we had solved our
own problems FEMA did arrive and put some brochurs in the post office.
Morris Dovey
| On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:46:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
|
|| An excellent argument for incorporating at
|| least some passive solar heating into residential architecture.
| I was one of those people. Doubt if it would have done me much good
| at night. BTW, what I did was use a small propane non-vented space
| heater to keep one room warm. We did quite well. Used the great
| outdoors to replace our deepfreeze. However, if it had been really
| cold, especially with wind, a lot of people would have been in deep
| trouble.
You might be surprised. Your home would have cooled down at night, but
with any reasonable heat input during the day, I'd be very surprised
if indoor temperatures would have dropped anywhere near the freezing
point overnight in a reasonably tight, reasonably insulated home.
| Oh by the way, we weren't to worry. FEMA was coming with blankets,
| ready to eat meals and generators. A few weeks after we had solved
| our own problems FEMA did arrive and put some brochurs in the post
| office.
Of course. It's the old "I'm from the government and I'm here to help
you" routine - same deal as we experienced with the floods of '93,
after the Northridge quake, and with Katrina.
Save the brochures to burn for warmth the next time around. :-)
V-for-Vendicar
"beber" <bupl...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Oh by the way, we weren't to worry. FEMA was coming with blankets,
> ready to eat meals and generators. A few weeks after we had solved our
> own problems FEMA did arrive and put some brochurs in the post office.
FEMA doesn't appear to have improved at all after being gutted in the
first few years of the Bush Administration and then rolled into the office
of HomeLand Security.
Yet White House press releases paint a very rosy picture of the FEMA's
improvements after the Katrina Fiasco.
But I suppose that's what you asked for when you elected a congential liar
and imbecile into the White House.
It is what you asked for isn't it?
Arnold Walker
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
that last statement .
And maybe see if she returned the dishes ,etc. ....she took the first time.
Or able to return to Arkansas as a political figure for that state.
>
>
>
>
>
>
V-for-Vendicar
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Actually Hillary has not made the white House,yet
Which is why you still have an imbecile in the place.
Is it possible that the Scum Sucking brainless twat that AmeriKKKans call
"president" could be smarter then the KKKonservative morons who put him
there?
If so then some national culling to raise AmeriKKKan IQ's is needed.