Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu ; caver1 wrote: > Bill Baka wrote: >> caver1 wrote: >>> Bill Baka wrote: >>>> That went so far over your head did you even hear the "Swoosh"? >>>> I meant the **POWER** of one modern computer could control all >>>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 258

Thread: Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash.

  1. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>> That went so far over your head did you even hear the "Swoosh"?
    >>>> I meant the **POWER** of one modern computer could control all
    >>>> the plants in the country, not what would happen if it broke.
    >>>> I have worked with triple redundant systems so I think I have a
    >>>> clue or two.
    >>>> Bill Baka
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not that it is a good example but how would modern fighter pilots
    >>> control their craft without computers. How about the space
    >>> shuttle? caver1

    >>
    >> Some jets would be impossible due to the complexity. The flying
    >> wing stealth bomber absolutely can't be flown without many
    >> computers. The space shuttle is more 'ridden' than 'flown'.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    >
    > So then the space shuttle is a good case in point as to trusting
    > computers. caver1


    And they don't use only one. They have five!

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  2. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > "Mensa" Fred wrote:
    >
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd1rm3$n2q$2@registered.motzarella.org...

    >>
    >>>> Global warming is real and accepted by everyone except a
    >>>> few crazed
    >>>> petroleum industry executives and most of them are lying.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You are crazed if you believe that.

    >>
    >> It's called "reality." You should try it sometime.

    >
    > You really are silly!
    >
    > /If/ you have the mental capacity you claim to have, you wouldn't be
    > so
    > utterly stupid as to accept the nonsense spouted by politicians.


    I never do.

    > There are vested interests in /all/ quarters, but politicians
    > (usually) try not to make it too obvious.
    >
    > The "reality" is that the claimed "Global Warming" is simply bogus
    > nonsense, spouted in an effort to control populations.
    >

    Nope! That's a total lie.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  3. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gd38et$8h8$5@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >>> You lack facts and sense.

    >>
    >> You lie. Once you've made a few solar panels you start
    >> making the
    >> next ones from the energy you get from the first ones.

    >
    > You are being stupid.
    > If it takes 20 years to get the energy back from making a solar
    > panel then you aren't going to be able to make them without using
    > the carbon from elsewhere.


    Not true. It doesn't work that way. Read my post again. You stop
    using carbon when you have solar power. The new panels aren't made
    with carbon power they are made with the energy of previous panels.
    It takes zero time for them to "pay back their carbon footprint>
    because they never had a carbon footprint. Carbon is history by that
    time. You can forget about using carbon at all.

    > If what you say is true all the solar panel factories would be using
    > solar panels to make them and guess what, they aren't.


    Hence people are pushing for them to do that. We should convert
    totally away from petroleum products and use clean energy instead
    from as many clean sources as we can find. That includes solar and
    wind and geo-thermal and not carbon and not nuclear, because we'll
    kill the planet by using those.

    >
    > Just do the sums.. one panel allows you to save the energy to make
    > another in 20 years so you get two after 20 years then four after 40
    > years, ...
    >

    This must be "new math"."

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  4. Re: Hydrogen

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Fred who pretends to be in mensa" wrote
    >> in message news:gd380f$8h8$3@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>
    >>> If we switch to solar power, we don't use much carbon to
    >>> build it
    >>> at
    >>> all.

    >>
    >> Rubbish.
    >> As it is it takes as much carbon to build a photovoltaic solar
    >> panel as will be saved by the energy they are likely to produce in
    >> 20 years.

    >
    > You get those bull**** figures from where exactly? Out of your
    > nether orifices?
    >
    > Stick to MD5, dennis. That is something you also know nothing about.
    > No need to add more things you know nothing about as well


    He's either making it up or reading it from his handy-dandy
    rhetorical book on "bull****ting on Usenet" given to him by the oil
    companies.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  5. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48f5b3aa$0$16787$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    >> Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Evasion noted.
    >>>> In other words: You made up your "figures" out of full cloth
    >>>
    >>> Not entirely. "Dennis" may be a little out with "20 years", but
    >>> the energy required to manufacture photovoltaic cells far
    >>> outweighs their power output, so the time taken to cover the
    >>> energy expended to manufacture the
    >>> things is quite long. I vaguely recall an article on this topic
    >>> from International Rectifier which entirely dispelled the myth of
    >>> these solar
    >>> cells being "green". I'll have to Google and find it...

    >>
    >> Certainly...
    >>
    >>>> You have no numbers at all, you simply blubber something about
    >>>> "20 years", "massive use of carbon" and other bull****
    >>>> And when challenged about *your* idiotic figures, you try to
    >>>> place the burden of proof on others
    >>>
    >>> The numbers are a bit pessimistic, but not /entirely/
    >>> unreasonable.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The numbers are bull****.
    >>
    >> For example: I have a sailboat with 2 solar panels (to power the
    >> fridge and
    >> the microwave without constantly charging with motor).
    >> Those cells each provide around 100.000 w/hs per year. The mean
    >> lifetime of
    >> those panels is around 20-25 years. *Each* of those panels would
    >> provide *two* *million* w/hs in their lifetime. Do you actually
    >> claim that the power needed to produce them is *that* high?

    >
    > OK I will make you look stupid if you insist..
    >
    > 100,000 wh is 100 kwh or about £10 worth of electricity per year.
    > So about £200 in twenty years.
    > Not exactly generating much power are they?
    >
    > So now take the carbon needed to build the factory,


    You're counting tho whole factory's production against the
    manufacture of one solar cell? (:-O) Ha! Now we know how you get
    those figures.

    > the carbon used
    > by the workers to get to work,


    irrelevant. If they were running carbon based manufacturing they
    would have to get to work anyway. You're counting stuff that dosn't
    even figure in the production of solar cells.

    > the carbon needed to generate the
    > energy to refine the silicon, etc. and amortize that across the
    > cells and tell me exactly how much carbon you have saved.


    All of it... if it is not going to be used again.

    >
    > As you said you claim it is saving carbon now prove it.


    I don't think anybody needs to prove anything after that. You've
    already proven yourself wrong. Nothing more need be said.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  6. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Fred" wrote in message
    >> news:gd36cn$42k$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>> news:gd1rm3$n2q$2@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>> Global warming is real and accepted by everyone except a
    >>>>> few crazed
    >>>>> petroleum industry executives and most of them are lying.
    >>>>
    >>>> You are crazed if you believe that.
    >>> It's called "reality." You should try it sometime.

    >> Its called being a crazed nut to think only petroleum executives
    >> don't believe in GW.
    >> There are millions of non petroleum industry people that don't
    >> believe.

    >
    > Their religion makes no difference. This is science and not a
    > question of belief. There are a bunch of ignorant people who don't
    > believe in evolution either.
    >




    There is also a lot of "intelligent' people that believe in luck.
    caver1

  7. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>> caver1 wrote:
    >>>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>>> That went so far over your head did you even hear the "Swoosh"?
    >>>>> I meant the **POWER** of one modern computer could control all
    >>>>> the plants in the country, not what would happen if it broke.
    >>>>> I have worked with triple redundant systems so I think I have a
    >>>>> clue or two.
    >>>>> Bill Baka
    >>>>
    >>>> Not that it is a good example but how would modern fighter pilots
    >>>> control their craft without computers. How about the space
    >>>> shuttle? caver1
    >>> Some jets would be impossible due to the complexity. The flying
    >>> wing stealth bomber absolutely can't be flown without many
    >>> computers. The space shuttle is more 'ridden' than 'flown'.
    >>> Bill Baka

    >>
    >> So then the space shuttle is a good case in point as to trusting
    >> computers. caver1

    >
    > And they don't use only one. They have five!
    >



    Its not always the computers fault. Remember Humans controll them.
    caver1

  8. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> "Mensa" Fred wrote:
    >>
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>> news:gd1rm3$n2q$2@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>> Global warming is real and accepted by everyone except a
    >>>>> few crazed
    >>>>> petroleum industry executives and most of them are lying.
    >>>>
    >>>> You are crazed if you believe that.
    >>> It's called "reality." You should try it sometime.

    >> You really are silly!
    >>
    >> /If/ you have the mental capacity you claim to have, you wouldn't be
    >> so
    >> utterly stupid as to accept the nonsense spouted by politicians.

    >
    > I never do.
    >
    >> There are vested interests in /all/ quarters, but politicians
    >> (usually) try not to make it too obvious.
    >>
    >> The "reality" is that the claimed "Global Warming" is simply bogus
    >> nonsense, spouted in an effort to control populations.
    >>

    > Nope! That's a total lie.
    >



    Yes it is true. Yes the Earth at this time is warming up again. Do
    politicians use that to keep themselves in power? Most definitely!
    caver1

  9. Re: Hydrogen



    "Fred" wrote in message
    news:gd5leu$kie$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Fred" wrote in message
    >> news:gd38et$8h8$5@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>
    >>>> You lack facts and sense.
    >>>
    >>> You lie. Once you've made a few solar panels you start
    >>> making the
    >>> next ones from the energy you get from the first ones.

    >>
    >> You are being stupid.
    >> If it takes 20 years to get the energy back from making a solar
    >> panel then you aren't going to be able to make them without using
    >> the carbon from elsewhere.

    >
    > Not true. It doesn't work that way. Read my post again.


    Read mine again, very slowly if you need to.

    >You stop
    > using carbon when you have solar power.


    If you do that then a panel will take many years to produce enough energy to
    make another panel.

    >The new panels aren't made
    > with carbon power they are made with the energy of previous panels.
    > It takes zero time for them to "pay back their carbon footprint>


    It takes zero time if you wait 20 years for the panel to generate enough
    energy to make the new one.
    Then you can make a third.





  10. Re: Hydrogen



    "Fred" wrote in message
    news:gd5luh$kie$3@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48f5b3aa$0$16787$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    >>> Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Evasion noted.
    >>>>> In other words: You made up your "figures" out of full cloth
    >>>>
    >>>> Not entirely. "Dennis" may be a little out with "20 years", but
    >>>> the energy required to manufacture photovoltaic cells far
    >>>> outweighs their power output, so the time taken to cover the
    >>>> energy expended to manufacture the
    >>>> things is quite long. I vaguely recall an article on this topic
    >>>> from International Rectifier which entirely dispelled the myth of
    >>>> these solar
    >>>> cells being "green". I'll have to Google and find it...
    >>>
    >>> Certainly...
    >>>
    >>>>> You have no numbers at all, you simply blubber something about
    >>>>> "20 years", "massive use of carbon" and other bull****
    >>>>> And when challenged about *your* idiotic figures, you try to
    >>>>> place the burden of proof on others
    >>>>
    >>>> The numbers are a bit pessimistic, but not /entirely/
    >>>> unreasonable.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The numbers are bull****.
    >>>
    >>> For example: I have a sailboat with 2 solar panels (to power the
    >>> fridge and
    >>> the microwave without constantly charging with motor).
    >>> Those cells each provide around 100.000 w/hs per year. The mean
    >>> lifetime of
    >>> those panels is around 20-25 years. *Each* of those panels would
    >>> provide *two* *million* w/hs in their lifetime. Do you actually
    >>> claim that the power needed to produce them is *that* high?

    >>
    >> OK I will make you look stupid if you insist..
    >>
    >> 100,000 wh is 100 kwh or about £10 worth of electricity per year.
    >> So about £200 in twenty years.
    >> Not exactly generating much power are they?
    >>
    >> So now take the carbon needed to build the factory,

    >
    > You're counting tho whole factory's production against the
    > manufacture of one solar cell? (:-O) Ha! Now we know how you get
    > those figures.


    Are you sure your IQ was above average?
    Lookup amortized and stop being so bloody stupid.




  11. Re: Hydrogen



    "Fred" wrote in message
    news:gd5li8$kie$2@registered.motzarella.org...
    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred who pretends to be in mensa" wrote
    >>> in message news:gd380f$8h8$3@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>
    >>>> If we switch to solar power, we don't use much carbon to
    >>>> build it
    >>>> at
    >>>> all.
    >>>
    >>> Rubbish.
    >>> As it is it takes as much carbon to build a photovoltaic solar
    >>> panel as will be saved by the energy they are likely to produce in
    >>> 20 years.

    >>
    >> You get those bull**** figures from where exactly? Out of your
    >> nether orifices?
    >>
    >> Stick to MD5, dennis. That is something you also know nothing about.
    >> No need to add more things you know nothing about as well

    >
    > He's either making it up or reading it from his handy-dandy
    > rhetorical book on "bull****ting on Usenet" given to him by the oil
    > companies.


    If you are going to get chummy with that moron I will treat you with the
    same contempt not that you haven't earned it anyway.




  12. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gd5leu$kie$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd38et$8h8$5@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>
    >>>>> You lack facts and sense.
    >>>>
    >>>> You lie. Once you've made a few solar panels you start
    >>>> making the
    >>>> next ones from the energy you get from the first ones.
    >>>
    >>> You are being stupid.
    >>> If it takes 20 years to get the energy back from making a solar
    >>> panel then you aren't going to be able to make them without using
    >>> the carbon from elsewhere.

    >>
    >> Not true. It doesn't work that way. Read my post again.

    >
    > Read mine again, very slowly if you need to.
    >
    >> You stop
    >> using carbon when you have solar power.

    >
    > If you do that then a panel will take many years to produce enough
    > energy to make another panel.
    >
    >> The new panels aren't made
    >> with carbon power they are made with the energy of previous panels.
    >> It takes zero time for them to "pay back their carbon footprint>

    >
    > It takes zero time if you wait 20 years for the panel to generate enough
    > energy to make the new one.
    > Then you can make a third.
    >
    >
    >
    >




    I realize this is between you and Fred.
    When has man ever waited for to pay for itself before he makes another.
    Then on the other hand through new processes hopefully in 20 years those
    panels are several generations ahead so it is cheaper to manufacture
    them and they last longer and they are more efficient.
    That is what dennis is ignoring.
    caver

  13. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gd5luh$kie$3@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >>> news:48f5b3aa$0$16787$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    >>>> Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Evasion noted.
    >>>>>> In other words: You made up your "figures" out of full cloth
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not entirely. "Dennis" may be a little out with "20 years", but
    >>>>> the energy required to manufacture photovoltaic cells far
    >>>>> outweighs their power output, so the time taken to cover the
    >>>>> energy expended to manufacture the
    >>>>> things is quite long. I vaguely recall an article on this topic
    >>>>> from International Rectifier which entirely dispelled the myth of
    >>>>> these solar
    >>>>> cells being "green". I'll have to Google and find it...
    >>>>
    >>>> Certainly...
    >>>>
    >>>>>> You have no numbers at all, you simply blubber something about
    >>>>>> "20 years", "massive use of carbon" and other bull****
    >>>>>> And when challenged about *your* idiotic figures, you try to
    >>>>>> place the burden of proof on others
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The numbers are a bit pessimistic, but not /entirely/
    >>>>> unreasonable.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The numbers are bull****.
    >>>>
    >>>> For example: I have a sailboat with 2 solar panels (to power the
    >>>> fridge and
    >>>> the microwave without constantly charging with motor).
    >>>> Those cells each provide around 100.000 w/hs per year. The mean
    >>>> lifetime of
    >>>> those panels is around 20-25 years. *Each* of those panels would
    >>>> provide *two* *million* w/hs in their lifetime. Do you actually
    >>>> claim that the power needed to produce them is *that* high?
    >>>
    >>> OK I will make you look stupid if you insist..
    >>>
    >>> 100,000 wh is 100 kwh or about £10 worth of electricity per year.
    >>> So about £200 in twenty years.
    >>> Not exactly generating much power are they?
    >>>
    >>> So now take the carbon needed to build the factory,

    >>
    >> You're counting tho whole factory's production against the
    >> manufacture of one solar cell? (:-O) Ha! Now we know how you get
    >> those figures.

    >
    > Are you sure your IQ was above average?
    > Lookup amortized and stop being so bloody stupid.
    >
    >
    >




    To use your term. Do you have a love affair with the word stupid?
    caver1

  14. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd5nlb$1on$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "caver1" wrote in message
    >> news:gd5cjs$t9d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>
    >>>
    >>> You have to do the same calculations for non-renewable power sources
    >>> also. The problem is they continue to need that carbon usage through the
    >>> life of them whereas solar panels stop using carbon once they are out of
    >>> production and put into use.

    >>
    >> Yes you have to do total life calculations and solar panels don't cut it
    >> when you do.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>>> As you said you claim it is saving carbon now prove it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You could have used the same argument about computers. Look how much
    >>>>>>> room and costs they took up at first. with very little return for
    >>>>>>> the masses.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Rubbish.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Rubbish? How?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Look at them now.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Computers have nothing to do with solar panels (other than being
    >>>>>> silicon based.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well no they don't but it is the same type of argument you use against
    >>> solar panels.

    >>
    >> In what way?
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> Nobody said they did. But the same argument could have been used
    >>>>> against their development at the time. But many saw the promises held
    >>>>> out so strove to perfect them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Your argument while having some foundation in truth has no
    >>>>>>> foundation in reasonableness.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Your arguments is rubbish, you make comparisons with things that have
    >>>>>> zero relevance and expect people to argue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No they all have relevance.
    >>>>
    >>>> The one about computers doesn't.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Your opinion.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Your arguments are that solar panels, wind mills etc are a waste of
    >>>>> time
    >>>>
    >>>> I said they aren't the solution to carbon production.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> As their carbon pollution stops when the manufacturing process stops
    >>> then yes they are a step in the right direction towards the carbon
    >>> pollution problem.

    >>
    >> How?
    >> If they release more carbon than an alternative they are not a solution.

    >
    >
    > How do they release more carbon? and I do mean from inception to through
    > usage?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>> They are useful as a technology to generate power away from the grid.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Grids in themselves are problematic. So if you can get the majority,or
    >>> all, off grid there would be many fewer problems and less carbon
    >>> pollution.

    >>
    >> Rubbish.
    >> While individual faults may effect less people there are more of them.
    >> The total number with a problem will almost certainly go up and more
    >> resources will be employed to try and reduce that and hence waste more
    >> energy.

    >
    >
    >
    > How about all the pollution not on just the power plants their inception
    > and usage, but also the pollution of the power grids from inception on and
    > what it takes to maintain them.
    > Everytime you have a storm you have a problem with the grid. The more
    > major the storm the more wide spread the problems.
    > Everyone on their own energy production, while putting th hurt some of the
    > mega corps, less the outages over all. No power lines to upkeep.
    > ie. that power outage cause by downed limbs in Ohio disruppted a huge area
    > of the US and Canada.
    >
    >
    >>>> There cost and carbon pollution are secondary to having a reliable
    >>>> power source.

    >
    >
    >
    > The alternatives if developed can be a reliable power source. Already
    > proven.
    > And if comes between me having my cake or a safe place to live, I'll give
    > up the cake.
    > Alternative power sources give us the chance to give up a small portion of
    > that cake. Current power sources while giving us that cake today are
    > causing the spoilage of that cake. So you end up with less and you may
    > become very ill if you do continue to partake of it.
    >
    >>>
    >>> This engineer in New Jersey has already proven the reliability of solar
    >>> energy in non desert areas.

    >>
    >> He has not.
    >> That is like Ford running three cars around for 10 weeks and saying they
    >> are reliable.

    >
    >
    >
    > Tell me why you refuse to except what he has done? So far he has been
    > running for at least two years.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>> Solar panels are a good way to run a rural radio network especially in
    >>>> places like Africa.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Once some of the new manufacturing process are developed or materials or
    >>> designs. then they will also be a reliable source of energy with reduce
    >>> carbon pollution. As carbon pollution is used in the production of these
    >>> then through the life of it giving energy there is either a greatly
    >>> reduced of carbon pollution to none.

    >>
    >> Not ATM there isn't.

    >
    >
    >
    > Pove it.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Where as in non renewable sources there is carbon pollution to a greater
    >>> extent through the life of its operation.

    >>
    >> Just because it burns fuel and emits carbon doesn't make it worse than
    >> solar panels.
    >> It certainly isn't going to be worse than wind power.

    >
    >
    > How are pollution belching power plants, the mines or drilling to fuel
    > them. The pipe lines or rail lines to supply them. The power grid, pipe
    > lines, trucks to disperse their products. and the carbon pollution is the
    > least dangerous of the pollutants, ever going to be as safe as wind or
    > solar? Not to even take into account the dangers of trains derailing,
    > truck tankers getting into accidents, ship tankers grounding, power lines
    > falling giving the danger of electrocution, mine safety, etc, etc, etc.
    > Yes the energy supplied bt the present system boosted mankind but its days
    > are numbered and we must move on.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Being that the carbon pollution given off by the production of solar
    >>> panels or wind mills and non renewable power sources, coal etc, can
    >>> cancel each side out

    >>
    >> That is what this argument is about.. they don't!

    >
    >
    >
    > A solar cell or a wind turbine in their production do not cause anywhere
    > near the pollution that conventional power plants cause in their
    > production and usage. If you believe they do then you are blind or just
    > ignorant. Hell maybe both.


    Why don't they?
    You are using energy from the polluting power station to make them.
    If you don't then generate more energy you have polluted.

    >
    >
    >>> then you have to look at the carbon pollution given off by each side
    >>> after they are built and are now being used. Solar, wind, etc or most
    >>> renewable sources now win in that they don't give off more carbon
    >>> pollution through their use. Coal, etc, continue to give off mass
    >>> amounts of pollution through their use. Including the production of
    >>> their fuel sources. And that's only the carbon pollution. how about all
    >>> the other pollutants given off by them?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> because they will never be able to replace in energy the carbon used
    >>>>> in producing them. The same fact holds true of all energy sources that
    >>>>> are being used in the mainstream today except Hydopower.
    >>>>
    >>>> And nuclear and geothermal.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> nuclear has yet to be seen as carbon pollution is not its main problem
    >>> but the waste is. And that has not been solved yet.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> That doesn't stop us from using them and when they were first
    >>>>> developed they were even more inefficient than today. But they were
    >>>>> continued to be used and improved.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes well if you took them away and replaced them with solar panels you
    >>>> would release 20 years worth of carbon at a stroke and then you would
    >>>> have to do the same again in 20 years if the panels don't last, which
    >>>> they may not
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> But the old power system continue to produce large amounts of pollution
    >>> regardless of how long they last.

    >>
    >> However that is probably less than the solar panels produce in the same
    >> time period.

    >
    > No, no probables just facts. so if solar cells continue to produce as much
    > pollution after their manufacture prove it. How long will the waste from a
    > nuclear power plant be dangerous?


    You are confused, take a week off to think about it.




  15. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gd5nlb$1on$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "caver1" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd5cjs$t9d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You have to do the same calculations for non-renewable power sources
    >>>> also. The problem is they continue to need that carbon usage through
    >>>> the life of them whereas solar panels stop using carbon once they
    >>>> are out of production and put into use.
    >>>
    >>> Yes you have to do total life calculations and solar panels don't cut
    >>> it when you do.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>> As you said you claim it is saving carbon now prove it.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You could have used the same argument about computers. Look how
    >>>>>>>> much room and costs they took up at first. with very little
    >>>>>>>> return for the masses.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Rubbish.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Rubbish? How?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>> Look at them now.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Computers have nothing to do with solar panels (other than being
    >>>>>>> silicon based.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well no they don't but it is the same type of argument you use
    >>>> against solar panels.
    >>>
    >>> In what way?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>> Nobody said they did. But the same argument could have been used
    >>>>>> against their development at the time. But many saw the promises
    >>>>>> held out so strove to perfect them.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Your argument while having some foundation in truth has no
    >>>>>>>> foundation in reasonableness.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Your arguments is rubbish, you make comparisons with things that
    >>>>>>> have zero relevance and expect people to argue.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No they all have relevance.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The one about computers doesn't.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Your opinion.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Your arguments are that solar panels, wind mills etc are a waste
    >>>>>> of time
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I said they aren't the solution to carbon production.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> As their carbon pollution stops when the manufacturing process stops
    >>>> then yes they are a step in the right direction towards the carbon
    >>>> pollution problem.
    >>>
    >>> How?
    >>> If they release more carbon than an alternative they are not a solution.

    >>
    >>
    >> How do they release more carbon? and I do mean from inception to
    >> through usage?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> They are useful as a technology to generate power away from the grid.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Grids in themselves are problematic. So if you can get the
    >>>> majority,or all, off grid there would be many fewer problems and
    >>>> less carbon pollution.
    >>>
    >>> Rubbish.
    >>> While individual faults may effect less people there are more of them.
    >>> The total number with a problem will almost certainly go up and more
    >>> resources will be employed to try and reduce that and hence waste
    >>> more energy.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> How about all the pollution not on just the power plants their
    >> inception and usage, but also the pollution of the power grids from
    >> inception on and what it takes to maintain them.
    >> Everytime you have a storm you have a problem with the grid. The more
    >> major the storm the more wide spread the problems.
    >> Everyone on their own energy production, while putting th hurt some of
    >> the mega corps, less the outages over all. No power lines to upkeep.
    >> ie. that power outage cause by downed limbs in Ohio disruppted a huge
    >> area of the US and Canada.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> There cost and carbon pollution are secondary to having a reliable
    >>>>> power source.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The alternatives if developed can be a reliable power source. Already
    >> proven.
    >> And if comes between me having my cake or a safe place to live, I'll
    >> give up the cake.
    >> Alternative power sources give us the chance to give up a small
    >> portion of that cake. Current power sources while giving us that cake
    >> today are causing the spoilage of that cake. So you end up with less
    >> and you may become very ill if you do continue to partake of it.
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> This engineer in New Jersey has already proven the reliability of
    >>>> solar energy in non desert areas.
    >>>
    >>> He has not.
    >>> That is like Ford running three cars around for 10 weeks and saying
    >>> they are reliable.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Tell me why you refuse to except what he has done? So far he has been
    >> running for at least two years.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> Solar panels are a good way to run a rural radio network especially
    >>>>> in places like Africa.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Once some of the new manufacturing process are developed or
    >>>> materials or designs. then they will also be a reliable source of
    >>>> energy with reduce carbon pollution. As carbon pollution is used in
    >>>> the production of these then through the life of it giving energy
    >>>> there is either a greatly reduced of carbon pollution to none.
    >>>
    >>> Not ATM there isn't.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Pove it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Where as in non renewable sources there is carbon pollution to a
    >>>> greater extent through the life of its operation.
    >>>
    >>> Just because it burns fuel and emits carbon doesn't make it worse
    >>> than solar panels.
    >>> It certainly isn't going to be worse than wind power.

    >>
    >>
    >> How are pollution belching power plants, the mines or drilling to fuel
    >> them. The pipe lines or rail lines to supply them. The power grid,
    >> pipe lines, trucks to disperse their products. and the carbon
    >> pollution is the least dangerous of the pollutants, ever going to be
    >> as safe as wind or solar? Not to even take into account the dangers of
    >> trains derailing, truck tankers getting into accidents, ship tankers
    >> grounding, power lines falling giving the danger of electrocution,
    >> mine safety, etc, etc, etc.
    >> Yes the energy supplied bt the present system boosted mankind but its
    >> days are numbered and we must move on.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Being that the carbon pollution given off by the production of solar
    >>>> panels or wind mills and non renewable power sources, coal etc, can
    >>>> cancel each side out
    >>>
    >>> That is what this argument is about.. they don't!

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> A solar cell or a wind turbine in their production do not cause
    >> anywhere near the pollution that conventional power plants cause in
    >> their production and usage. If you believe they do then you are blind
    >> or just ignorant. Hell maybe both.

    >
    > Why don't they?
    > You are using energy from the polluting power station to make them.
    > If you don't then generate more energy you have polluted.




    As more are put in place then the old system is used less and once the
    panel is put in place then IT produces no carbon. Net less carbon
    produced. Eventually no old system.
    what is so difficult about that?




    >>>> then you have to look at the carbon pollution given off by each side
    >>>> after they are built and are now being used. Solar, wind, etc or
    >>>> most renewable sources now win in that they don't give off more
    >>>> carbon pollution through their use. Coal, etc, continue to give off
    >>>> mass amounts of pollution through their use. Including the
    >>>> production of their fuel sources. And that's only the carbon
    >>>> pollution. how about all the other pollutants given off by them?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> because they will never be able to replace in energy the carbon
    >>>>>> used in producing them. The same fact holds true of all energy
    >>>>>> sources that are being used in the mainstream today except Hydopower.




    There is no power source in the Universe that produces more power than
    it uses. ie the Sun. If it produced more power than it uses then we
    would have more time on the Earth than we do- or we would burn up. It
    also pollutes. Why do you think we need the ozone layer and the Earth's
    magnetic field?




    >>>>> And nuclear and geothermal.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> nuclear has yet to be seen as carbon pollution is not its main
    >>>> problem but the waste is. And that has not been solved yet.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> That doesn't stop us from using them and when they were first
    >>>>>> developed they were even more inefficient than today. But they
    >>>>>> were continued to be used and improved.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes well if you took them away and replaced them with solar panels
    >>>>> you would release 20 years worth of carbon at a stroke and then you
    >>>>> would have to do the same again in 20 years if the panels don't
    >>>>> last, which they may not




    But at the same time you have to minus the pollution the that the old
    power plants produce. Leaving the solar panels which produce non after
    they are produced. Outcome- less pollution. Check mate.



    >>>> But the old power system continue to produce large amounts of
    >>>> pollution regardless of how long they last.
    >>>
    >>> However that is probably less than the solar panels produce in the
    >>> same time period.




    You really deceive yourself.




    >> No, no probables just facts. so if solar cells continue to produce as
    >> much pollution after their manufacture prove it. How long will the
    >> waste from a nuclear power plant be dangerous?

    >
    > You are confused, take a week off to think about it.
    >
    >
    >




    I'm confused?
    Have you answered any of my questions?
    No typical Dennis.
    caver1

  16. Re: Hydrogen

    "Mensa" Fred wrote:

    > He's either making it up or reading it from his handy-dandy
    > rhetorical book on "bull****ting on Usenet" given to him by the oil
    > companies.


    Unfortunately, Dennis is mostly right in this instance. You need to switch off
    your prejudice and actually /use/ some of that intellect you claim to have!

    Photovoltaic cells are highly inefficient, and will remain so. The material
    science determines that. It uses /much/ more energy to manufacture a solar
    cell than it will /ever/ produce over its useful lifetime (which is limited).
    Solar cells can therefore never be described as "green".

    Don't get me wrong - solar cells have their place. I did a project many years
    ago for an African government, which used solar cells to charge lead-acid
    cells to power phone booths. They were a good, viable solution /in/ /that/
    environment, and continue to work well almost 20 years later.

    However, if you analyse the energy required to build the power systems of these
    phone booths, you'll quickly realise that they required /much/ more energy
    expended than they would ever consume - they show a net energy loss.

    Another case in point - I recently designed some power systems for illuminated
    road signs. The displays use LEDs and the units are (again) powered by
    lead-acid batteries charged by a combination of wind turbine and solar cell.
    The power systems for these things were more expensive than the signs
    themselves, but led to a significant cost saving in that it wasn't necessary
    to provide mains supply to the signs, which would be particularly expensive in
    rural areas.

    The local authorities loved these signs, because the little wind turbine and
    the solar cells were easily visible from the road, and lent the suggestion to
    the uneducated populace (completely erroneously) that the councils were
    using "green" equipment.

    In some instances, the cost of providing a mains supply (often from a nearby
    street light) would have been an order of magnitude cheaper than the solar /
    wind system, but the local authorities wanted these for /political/ reasons.

    There are ways of generating power with minimal environmental impact -
    hydro-electric is a particularly good option (I commissioned a number of small
    hydro plants in Guatemala), though the capital cost is high. Wave power is
    another under-utilised option, and can have a massive power output. In some
    places, geothermal power is a possibility, but it isn't a realistic option for
    almost 90% of the planet.

    Wind turbines are an expensive joke. They cost /much/ more to build and
    install than they will /ever/ earn over their lifespan, and suffer from
    sporadic output. Solar cells are a non-starter for a whole host of reasons.
    Coal, oil and gas are getting scarce and therefore expensive. Besides,
    they're /really/ dirty.

    The last remaining option that /works/ is nuclear. That's why the first world
    is rapidly building nuclear plants!

    C.


  17. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    > Yes it is true. Yes the Earth at this time is warming up again.


    Yes. However, *not* for the "reasons" advertised by the politicians.

    > Do politicians use that to keep themselves in power? Most definitely!


    Of course!

    C.


  18. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > "Mensa" Fred wrote:
    >
    >> He's either making it up or reading it from his handy-dandy
    >> rhetorical book on "bull****ting on Usenet" given to him by the oil
    >> companies.

    >
    > Unfortunately, Dennis is mostly right in this instance. You need to switch off
    > your prejudice and actually /use/ some of that intellect you claim to have!
    >
    > Photovoltaic cells are highly inefficient, and will remain so. The material
    > science determines that. It uses /much/ more energy to manufacture a solar
    > cell than it will /ever/ produce over its useful lifetime (which is limited).
    > Solar cells can therefore never be described as "green".




    At this time but if you do some research th e efficiency has been proven
    to be able to be tripled at this time.



    > Don't get me wrong - solar cells have their place. I did a project many years
    > ago for an African government, which used solar cells to charge lead-acid
    > cells to power phone booths. They were a good, viable solution /in/ /that/
    > environment, and continue to work well almost 20 years later.
    >
    > However, if you analyse the energy required to build the power systems of these
    > phone booths, you'll quickly realise that they required /much/ more energy
    > expended than they would ever consume - they show a net energy loss.




    No different than existing power sources.



    > Another case in point - I recently designed some power systems for illuminated
    > road signs. The displays use LEDs and the units are (again) powered by
    > lead-acid batteries charged by a combination of wind turbine and solar cell.
    > The power systems for these things were more expensive than the signs
    > themselves, but led to a significant cost saving in that it wasn't necessary
    > to provide mains supply to the signs, which would be particularly expensive in
    > rural areas.




    You have to take all parameters in.



    > The local authorities loved these signs, because the little wind turbine and
    > the solar cells were easily visible from the road, and lent the suggestion to
    > the uneducated populace (completely erroneously) that the councils were
    > using "green" equipment.




    As I stated earlier politicians will use anything to keep themselves in
    power.
    Also my Dad worked with ODOT, and not as a snowplow driver, and their
    are many solar powered signs and water level stations among other things
    that are solar powered that it was much cheaper than the attaching to
    the grid.
    There are no blanket statements when it comes to power. As gasoline will
    never be done away with it also has its limits.



    > In some instances, the cost of providing a mains supply (often from a nearby
    > street light) would have been an order of magnitude cheaper than the solar /
    > wind system, but the local authorities wanted these for /political/ reasons.
    >
    > There are ways of generating power with minimal environmental impact -
    > hydro-electric is a particularly good option (I commissioned a number of small
    > hydro plants in Guatemala), though the capital cost is high. Wave power is
    > another under-utilised option, and can have a massive power output. In some
    > places, geothermal power is a possibility, but it isn't a realistic option for
    > almost 90% of the planet.




    That is why a combination of all is needed.


    > Wind turbines are an expensive joke. They cost /much/ more to build and
    > install than they will /ever/ earn over their lifespan, and suffer from
    > sporadic output. Solar cells are a non-starter for a whole host of reasons.
    > Coal, oil and gas are getting scarce and therefore expensive. Besides,
    > they're /really/ dirty.



    This depends on where. The North sea is one place where they are close
    to breaking even. Texas is another big place at this point.
    And how about Bahrain(?) where on one building 3 wind turbines are
    suppling more power than is needed by that building. And it is not a one
    story house. The Dutch designed and installed the system if my memory
    serves me properly.



    > The last remaining option that /works/ is nuclear. That's why the first world
    > is rapidly building nuclear plants!
    >
    > C.




    No. not all systems work everywhere. They all have their place.


    The point with dennis is that all of these Technologies are progressing
    and getting better.

  19. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> Yes it is true. Yes the Earth at this time is warming up again.

    >
    > Yes. However, *not* for the "reasons" advertised by the politicians.
    >
    >> Do politicians use that to keep themselves in power? Most definitely!

    >
    > Of course!
    >
    > C.
    >



    Yes man pollutes and destroys his environment. But that has gone on ever
    since man has been on the Earth for various reasons.
    It is hopeful that we are finally intelligent enough to reverse that
    process. But that is also doubtful.
    caver1

  20. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    > Rubbish.
    > As it is it takes as much carbon to build a photovoltaic solar panel as
    > will be saved by the energy they are likely to produce in 20 years.


    They usually last more than 20 years with little loss in output.

    > So using solar panels to provide the energy to make solar panels doesn't
    > stack up.


    It stacks up better than making furnaces to burn more CO2 producing
    fuel. You can't wait forever and expect the problem to go away by doing
    nothing.

    > Just as a simple question.. if it did stack up why aren't the factories
    > producing solar panels powered by solar panels?
    > The fact is that if we all switched to solar panels now we would have to
    > release the next 20 years worth of CO2 now to do it.
    > Pretty much the same is true for wind power.
    >
    > Maybe in ten years time it will only release 15 years worth if they get
    > the efficiency up by another 20+% but unless someone develops a panel
    > that is five times as efficient it doesn't work.


    Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    Bill Baka

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast