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 in message news:gd7djv$ism$1@registered.motzarella.org... > Christopher Hunter wrote: >> caver1 wrote: >> >>>> Solar cells can therefore never be described as "green". >>> At this time but if you do some research th e efficiency has been proven >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13
Results 241 to 258 of 258

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

  1. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd7djv$ism$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>
    >>>> 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 hold your breath! Photovoltaic cells are /very/ inefficient, and
    >> remain
    >> so even if their efficiency is "tripled".

    >
    >
    >
    > Right that is why they are being used more and more.


    Just because they are used doesn't mean they save CO2.
    There are many reasons why you might want another energy source.
    In the UK for instance you can get a grant that pays 50% of the cost and
    then the electricity supply company has to purchase any spare energy at a
    higher price than they charge you.
    That is probably a good enough reason for the greedy to waste resources and
    make a bit of profit.

    Notice that I haven't done that as I understand the damage it can do.

    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> It's /entirely/ different. The power produced by a litre of oil far
    >> outweighs
    >> the energy needed to get it out of the ground, refine it and so on. In
    >> the
    >> case of "alternative" power sources, *none* of them is economically
    >> viable by
    >> this simple criterion.

    >
    >
    > You also have to take into account all the other costs derived from oil
    > usage. ie pollution, political strife, medical and the simple fact is that
    > at the present consumption rate oil coal and all other non-reneable fuel
    > sources will be deplete in the very near future. And the usage is growing
    > by leaps and bounds every day. All of that has to be considered in the
    > cost.


    As does the uses it is put to.
    You could waste even more of it by building stuff that doesn't work like
    Solar PV or wind turbines for instance.
    >
    >
    >> That's the unpalatable truth about "alternative" energy for the "hard of
    >> thinking".

    >
    >
    > That is the problem many who are totally against alternative power sources
    > and make their arguments unreasonable.
    > Just because they are not a total workable solution at this point in time
    > doesn't mean that they never will be.


    No but its wrong to claim they are the solution when they are not.
    That is just blatant lies.
    *If* solar PV panels can be made so that they save CO2 emissions then they
    will be part of the solution.
    Until then they are part of the problem.
    Its about as good as saying burning oil is a problem so we will burn all the
    rain forests instead.. an alternative energy source but just as destructive.

    > Who many other technologies that are now being used had to be put on the
    > back burner sometimes for decades until other technologies were developed
    > to take advantage of them?
    > As I stated earlier non-renewable fuel sources had their place in our
    > development but that time is rapidly coming to an end. So the cost is too
    > high not to develop alternative fuel sources.
    > The convenient solution is not always the best.


    And solar PV is a convenient already existing alternative technology that
    people can be conned into supporting even though it doesn't solve the
    problem.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>> 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.

    >
    >
    > Lead-acid batteries are a joke.


    They work and can be recycled many many times.

    >
    >
    >>> You have to take all parameters in.

    >>
    >> I did.
    >>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> That's /not/ the point.
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >> In only about 10% of the cases was it actually cheaper to use the wind /
    >> solar
    >> system to power there signs - in most cases it would be cheaper to dig a
    >> long
    >> trench and bury a mains supply cable.

    >
    >
    > That is at this point. And 10% is to low even though at this time the gap
    > is very wide.


    You miss the point.
    It was cheaper to wire to the mains and less polluting to wire to the mains.
    The alternative energy source was only fitted to look green not to be green.

    >
    >
    >>>> 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.

    >
    >
    > Geothermal can be used in 80-90% of the earth. The arctic and antarctic
    > most likely cannot be used but i am not sure what percentage of the Earth
    > they are. Granted some places would be way to costly and others their is
    > just too much population in too small an area. But it is still there to be
    > used.


    You are still confusing geothermal with ground sourced heat pump systems.
    You need a very deep borehole to get geothermal in most places not some 200m
    deep pipe to do GSHP systems.
    The density doesn't matter with geothermal only GSHP.
    The reason.. geothermal gets its energy from nuclear fission and
    gravitational tides.
    GSHP gets it from solar.
    One is limited by the area.


    >>> That is why a combination of all is needed.

    >>
    >> Granted, yes. But that /has/ to include nuclear power as a substantial
    >> part of
    >> the whole. The "greens" will hate /that/ truth!

    >
    >
    > I agree with nuclear. If you notice they only thing I said against it was
    > to point out the waste problem which is real. But until that problem has
    > been addressed then it is no better than if not worse than oil or coil.
    > Not insurmountable but real.
    > I don't like the greens either.
    > This argument over renewable and non renewable sources has become as
    > polarized ,if not more so, than US politics. The only thing that
    > accomplishes is making both sides wrong. The answer is somewhere in the
    > middle but both sides refuse to accept that.


    You may refuse to accept it but I don't.
    Renewable energy is fine provided it *is* renewable unlike solar PV panels.

    >
    >
    >>>> 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > wind turbines are noisy. The joke is at this time. At the same time they
    > are being improved.
    > Where you have expertise in one area develop that. Where another has it
    > somewhere else let them develop that. Learn to cooperate. Both sides loose
    > if they don't


    The joke is that wind turbines are almost certainly never going to generate
    as much energy as is used to build and maintain them.
    That and the fact that some people believe they work.
    Just look at the actual figures for power generated by wind farms vs. that
    predicted and you will see the joke.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> This depends on where. The North sea is one place where they are close
    >>> to breaking even.

    >>
    >> Nope - been there, priced that. They show a /massive/ loss!
    >>
    >>> Texas is another big place at this point.

    >>
    >> Perhaps, but it's /very/ unlikely.

    >
    >
    > See there is a perhaps. And at the current technology platform they are
    > good enough to put in place so the next generation can be developed.
    > Also as I have stated earlier just because something is more expensive
    > doesn't mean it is worse. We are paying more for our power all the time,
    > much of that because of greed, but if a source is better for your
    > environment and gives you what you need so what?


    There is always a perhaps, perhaps aliens will come and save us, its about
    as likely.

    >
    >
    >
    >>> 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 capital cost of the equipment will *never* be paid off by the power
    >> generated. Also, the building will require supplementary power for a
    >> significant proportion of the year when the wind is too low for any
    >> generation.

    >
    >
    > That's exactly the opposite of what the builders/developers state. In fact
    > they did state that once the get it up to full capacity it would generate
    > an excess of what they needed. True I am taking what they say at face
    > value but at the same time I can say the same for you. At the same time
    > ways to improve what they are starting to use will happen.


    Don't take it at face value, look at the figures.. none of them do what is
    claimed.
    Next you will start to believe you can run a car on water.


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

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

    >>
    >> Perhaps, but "green" propaganda needs to be recognised for what it is -
    >> just so
    >> much nonsense. Strangely, the /efficiency/ of the "alternative" power
    >> sources
    >> is of little consequence. It's the *energy* *cost* of the manufacture
    >> and
    >> installation, and the *capital* *cost* of the equipment that makes all of
    >> them "unsustainable" and *not* "green". Again, the hard of thinking
    >> can't
    >> understand that.
    >> C.

    >
    >
    >
    > For that matter hydro is one of the best less polluting energy sources we
    > have. But it also comes at a cost. Every developed country that has built
    > damns has realized that the short term benefits to man are small compared
    > to the long term damage done to his environment. Man cannot live without a
    > good environment. Yes those damages have been scoffed at and blown way out
    > of proportion but they are real.
    >
    >
    > At this point in time. The efficiency growth over the last 20-30 years has
    > grown by leaps and bounds. So that they are now starting to be usable. The
    > main times they get their largest growth spurts is when the fear of oil
    > shortages grows so interest once again comes to the forefront.
    > Most of man for most of his history has been very short sighted. He won't
    > look beyond his nose. what works today is good enough so looking into
    > anything else is a waste of time.
    > The hard of thinking on the opposite side cannot accept these facts.


    There are facts and there are facts.. the real ones show solar PV doesn't
    work.
    There are people working on reducing the energy used to make them but until
    they succeed anyone installing them is not green.
    It is doubtful that wind power will ever be green.
    If you don't believe me go and buy a wind turbine and try it.
    You have no hope of saving CO2 with one.

    > caver1



  2. Re: Hydrogen

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:53:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > "Christopher Hunter" wrote in message
    > news:6lop1sFd6sbdU2@mid.individual.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    >>> news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >>>
    >>>> Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial. Bill Baka
    >>>
    >>> Why do they do better education than imperial college London?

    >>
    >> Some of us from the UK went to /much/ better Universities (Cambridge,
    >> in my
    >> case). ;-)

    >
    > Cambridge wasn't or indeed isn't the best for science. ;-)


    Still rule at maths, though (or did in my day... Tripos Part III, '79 :-))

    --
    Lionel B

  3. Re: Hydrogen

    Lionel B wrote:

    > Still rule at maths, though (or did in my day... Tripos Part III, '79 :-))


    And mine (a few years before you).

    C.


  4. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gd7djv$ism$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>> caver1 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> 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 hold your breath! Photovoltaic cells are /very/ inefficient,
    >>> and remain
    >>> so even if their efficiency is "tripled".

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Right that is why they are being used more and more.

    >
    > Just because they are used doesn't mean they save CO2.
    > There are many reasons why you might want another energy source.
    > In the UK for instance you can get a grant that pays 50% of the cost and
    > then the electricity supply company has to purchase any spare energy at
    > a higher price than they charge you.
    > That is probably a good enough reason for the greedy to waste resources
    > and make a bit of profit.




    One thing that you never hear me say is "green" That is a political
    word. No basis in truth. Just a description of how extreme a person is
    in their beliefs.
    There are the same type of programs in the US. Even if you get a grant
    for something your costs may go down but the total costs stay the same.
    You do have to figure the damage done by them as part of their costs.




    > Notice that I haven't done that as I understand the damage it can do.
    >
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> It's /entirely/ different. The power produced by a litre of oil far
    >>> outweighs
    >>> the energy needed to get it out of the ground, refine it and so on.
    >>> In the
    >>> case of "alternative" power sources, *none* of them is economically
    >>> viable by
    >>> this simple criterion.




    I have had that same argument with others on other fuel sources. An The
    "Knowledgeable" ones always point out that you can never get more energy
    out of a source than the amount of energy that you put in. So no matter
    you always end up with less.
    The amount of energy produce by oil has a smaller net loss.
    You completely miss the point. At this point alternative power sources
    are falling short but with the advancements that are being made not all
    of the will at some point. If you add in the pollution that
    non-renewable sources produce through their use you actually narrow that
    gap in some cases and eliminate it in others.
    Alternative fuel sources must be developed. At some point they will all
    be economically viable.
    Oil is an the verge of being economically inviable and that is without
    even figuring in the pollution from its use.



    >>
    >> You also have to take into account all the other costs derived from
    >> oil usage. ie pollution, political strife, medical and the simple fact
    >> is that at the present consumption rate oil coal and all other
    >> non-reneable fuel sources will be deplete in the very near future. And
    >> the usage is growing by leaps and bounds every day. All of that has to
    >> be considered in the cost.

    >
    > As does the uses it is put to.
    > You could waste even more of it by building stuff that doesn't work like
    > Solar PV or wind turbines for instance.





    BS




    >>> That's the unpalatable truth about "alternative" energy for the "hard of
    >>> thinking".

    >>
    >>
    >> That is the problem many who are totally against alternative power
    >> sources and make their arguments unreasonable.
    >> Just because they are not a total workable solution at this point in
    >> time doesn't mean that they never will be.

    >
    > No but its wrong to claim they are the solution when they are not.
    > That is just blatant lies.
    > *If* solar PV panels can be made so that they save CO2 emissions then
    > they will be part of the solution.
    > Until then they are part of the problem.
    > Its about as good as saying burning oil is a problem so we will burn all
    > the rain forests instead.. an alternative energy source but just as
    > destructive.




    BS






    >> Who many other technologies that are now being used had to be put on
    >> the back burner sometimes for decades until other technologies were
    >> developed to take advantage of them?
    >> As I stated earlier non-renewable fuel sources had their place in our
    >> development but that time is rapidly coming to an end. So the cost is
    >> too high not to develop alternative fuel sources.
    >> The convenient solution is not always the best.

    >
    > And solar PV is a convenient already existing alternative technology
    > that people can be conned into supporting even though it doesn't solve
    > the problem.




    That is still being developed. You can use the same argument against
    sterling motors. As the stand now they aren't good enough so they never
    will be. BS
    Nuclear as it stands now is not good enough so you are a fool if you
    ever think that it will be. BS
    People can also deceive themselves so much that they will disbelieve
    anything.



    >>>>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Lead-acid batteries are a joke.

    >
    > They work and can be recycled many many times.




    To much pollution.
    There will be better alternative for batteries but lead acid arn't it.



    >>>> You have to take all parameters in.
    >>>
    >>> I did.
    >>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> That's /not/ the point.
    >>>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >>> In only about 10% of the cases was it actually cheaper to use the
    >>> wind / solar
    >>> system to power there signs - in most cases it would be cheaper to
    >>> dig a long
    >>> trench and bury a mains supply cable.

    >>
    >>
    >> That is at this point. And 10% is to low even though at this time the
    >> gap is very wide.

    >
    > You miss the point.
    > It was cheaper to wire to the mains and less polluting to wire to the
    > mains.
    > The alternative energy source was only fitted to look green not to be
    > green.




    Less polluting? BS.



    >>>>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Geothermal can be used in 80-90% of the earth. The arctic and
    >> antarctic most likely cannot be used but i am not sure what percentage
    >> of the Earth they are. Granted some places would be way to costly and
    >> others their is just too much population in too small an area. But it
    >> is still there to be used.


    > You are still confusing geothermal with ground sourced heat pump systems.



    No geothermal is any heat collected from the earth. Those Heat pumps are
    just on form of geothermal energy used.
    You are so narrow minded that you refuse to except anything but what you
    think you know.


    > You need a very deep borehole to get geothermal in most places not some
    > 200m deep pipe to do GSHP systems.
    > The density doesn't matter with geothermal only GSHP.
    > The reason.. geothermal gets its energy from nuclear fission and
    > gravitational tides.
    > GSHP gets it from solar.
    > One is limited by the area.




    That is another type or form of geothermal. But they are both geothermal.


    >>>> That is why a combination of all is needed.
    >>>
    >>> Granted, yes. But that /has/ to include nuclear power as a
    >>> substantial part of
    >>> the whole. The "greens" will hate /that/ truth!

    >>
    >>
    >> I agree with nuclear. If you notice they only thing I said against it
    >> was to point out the waste problem which is real. But until that
    >> problem has been addressed then it is no better than if not worse than
    >> oil or coil.
    >> Not insurmountable but real.
    >> I don't like the greens either.
    >> This argument over renewable and non renewable sources has become as
    >> polarized ,if not more so, than US politics. The only thing that
    >> accomplishes is making both sides wrong. The answer is somewhere in
    >> the middle but both sides refuse to accept that.

    >
    > You may refuse to accept it but I don't.
    > Renewable energy is fine provided it *is* renewable unlike solar PV panels.




    They are renewable. They can be replaced. The energy they collect is
    constantly renewed. Maybe you don't like them but that doen't mean they
    aren't getting better all the time.




    >>>>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> wind turbines are noisy. The joke is at this time. At the same time
    >> they are being improved.
    >> Where you have expertise in one area develop that. Where another has
    >> it somewhere else let them develop that. Learn to cooperate. Both
    >> sides loose if they don't

    >
    > The joke is that wind turbines are almost certainly never going to
    > generate as much energy as is used to build and maintain them.
    > That and the fact that some people believe they work.
    > Just look at the actual figures for power generated by wind farms vs.
    > that predicted and you will see the joke.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> This depends on where. The North sea is one place where they are close
    >>>> to breaking even.
    >>>
    >>> Nope - been there, priced that. They show a /massive/ loss!
    >>>
    >>>> Texas is another big place at this point.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps, but it's /very/ unlikely.

    >>
    >>
    >> See there is a perhaps. And at the current technology platform they
    >> are good enough to put in place so the next generation can be developed.
    >> Also as I have stated earlier just because something is more expensive
    >> doesn't mean it is worse. We are paying more for our power all the
    >> time, much of that because of greed, but if a source is better for
    >> your environment and gives you what you need so what?

    >
    > There is always a perhaps, perhaps aliens will come and save us, its
    > about as likely



    That is one place you show your ignorance. Just because you don't like
    the greens then you think that anything and everything the believe in is
    wrong. And you no longer believe in mans capabilities in solving
    problems. Most of them only take time. Except of course his greed I
    doubt that will ever be overcome.



    >>>> 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 capital cost of the equipment will *never* be paid off by the power
    >>> generated. Also, the building will require supplementary power for a
    >>> significant proportion of the year when the wind is too low for any
    >>> generation.

    >>
    >>
    >> That's exactly the opposite of what the builders/developers state. In
    >> fact they did state that once the get it up to full capacity it would
    >> generate an excess of what they needed. True I am taking what they say
    >> at face value but at the same time I can say the same for you. At the
    >> same time ways to improve what they are starting to use will happen.

    >
    > Don't take it at face value, look at the figures.. none of them do what
    > is claimed.
    > Next you will start to believe you can run a car on water.






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

    >>
    >>>> No. not all systems work everywhere. They all have their place.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps, but "green" propaganda needs to be recognised for what it is
    >>> - just so
    >>> much nonsense. Strangely, the /efficiency/ of the "alternative"
    >>> power sources
    >>> is of little consequence. It's the *energy* *cost* of the
    >>> manufacture and
    >>> installation, and the *capital* *cost* of the equipment that makes
    >>> all of
    >>> them "unsustainable" and *not* "green". Again, the hard of thinking
    >>> can't
    >>> understand that.
    >>> C.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> For that matter hydro is one of the best less polluting energy sources
    >> we have. But it also comes at a cost. Every developed country that has
    >> built damns has realized that the short term benefits to man are small
    >> compared to the long term damage done to his environment. Man cannot
    >> live without a good environment. Yes those damages have been scoffed
    >> at and blown way out of proportion but they are real.
    >>
    >>
    >> At this point in time. The efficiency growth over the last 20-30 years
    >> has grown by leaps and bounds. So that they are now starting to be
    >> usable. The main times they get their largest growth spurts is when
    >> the fear of oil shortages grows so interest once again comes to the
    >> forefront.
    >> Most of man for most of his history has been very short sighted. He
    >> won't look beyond his nose. what works today is good enough so looking
    >> into anything else is a waste of time.
    >> The hard of thinking on the opposite side cannot accept these facts.

    >
    > There are facts and there are facts.. the real ones show solar PV
    > doesn't work.
    > There are people working on reducing the energy used to make them but
    > until they succeed anyone installing them is not green.
    > It is doubtful that wind power will ever be green.
    > If you don't believe me go and buy a wind turbine and try it.
    > You have no hope of saving CO2 with one.
    >



    You can never say never. All the advancements are showing the opposite
    trend of what you believe. How long of mans history did he no know about
    nuclear energy. How short a period after that was it before he had the
    capability for total destruction with its use?
    You have no conceivable idea of what technologies are in the future. And
    which one of those will unlock that problem. But one thing we do know
    through the research being done is that it is possible. There are break
    throughs constantly that give the ability to do more than was thought
    even possible the day before.

  5. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>> 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

    >>
    >> Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    >> unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to happen
    >> before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    > That wasn't the point. The point was that man can trust computers as
    > much as he can trust himself.
    > And as far as being a joke they have performed reasonably well.
    > And yes it is time to move on.
    > The problem With NASA is they had something that work so they stopped.
    > caver1


    I still miss the Saturn V launches to the moon. Just think how much raw
    tonnage one of those could place in orbit at about 250 miles. Now think
    about having 4 of those SRB's from the shuttle on the first stage and
    replacing the kerosene they used with liquid Hydrogen. That much lifting
    power could probably out do 20 Joke launches with the space **** orbiter.
    Bill Baka

  6. Re: Hydrogen

    Esa Riihonen wrote:
    > Bill Baka kirjoitti:
    >
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>> 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

    >> Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    >> unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to happen
    >> before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    > Actually it did happen. The computers were replaced in the
    > beginning of 1990's.


    Still not exactly state of the art then. Did they use 486's or some
    other single sourced junk?
    Bill Baka
    >
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Esa(R)
    >
    >


  7. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    > news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >
    >
    >> Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    > Why do they do better education than imperial college London?


    If you are a sign of ignorance being taught, then I rest my case.
    Bill Baka

  8. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>> caver1 wrote:
    >>>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>>> 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
    >>> Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    >>> unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to happen
    >>> before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    >>> Bill Baka

    >> That wasn't the point. The point was that man can trust computers as
    >> much as he can trust himself.
    >> And as far as being a joke they have performed reasonably well.
    >> And yes it is time to move on.
    >> The problem With NASA is they had something that work so they stopped.
    >> caver1

    >
    > I still miss the Saturn V launches to the moon. Just think how much raw
    > tonnage one of those could place in orbit at about 250 miles. Now think
    > about having 4 of those SRB's from the shuttle on the first stage and
    > replacing the kerosene they used with liquid Hydrogen. That much lifting
    > power could probably out do 20 Joke launches with the space **** orbiter.
    > Bill Baka



    NASA has become boring. They got the shuttle which was good for its time
    but then they wanted to freeze time.
    Where's the excitement generated any more?
    caver1

  9. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd7f6k$rd6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "caver1" wrote in message
    >> news:gd5qmv$kom$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> What is so difficult to understand that if they take 20 years to produce
    >> more energy than it takes to make and maintain them then they have to be
    >> around for at least 20 years to save any carbon emissions.
    >> There is no evidence that they will be around for 20+ years to make that
    >> saving.
    >>
    >> Its really simple.. solar PV des not save carbon emissions at this time.
    >> It gives people a nice smug feeling about being green and that's about
    >> it.
    >>
    >>
    >> Micro generation using wind power will *never* generate more energy than
    >> used to produce the units using any known way of making stuff.
    >>
    >> Large scale generation using wind power is unlikely to ever generate
    >> enough energy to reduce the net carbon emissions.
    >>
    >> Well proven, old fashioned stuff like sterling engines may provide a way
    >> to generate using solar heat.

    >
    >
    >
    > I did read somewhere that NASA is going to start using Sterling engines.
    > Haven't heard anything since. So hopefully it wasn't a bogus report.
    > That is the problem with your arguments.
    > When I say that a technology has promise your proof is probably not.
    > Now that you "know" that your idea has promise your proof is - "may"
    > At this point we don't know. They all hold out promise. They all have
    > their short falls. They all must be developed. Non of them in themselves
    > will completely replace oil/coal.



    Nuclear could.
    Quite easily.

    > The ease of producing and transporting is just too easy compared with the
    > others. The problem is that Oil Coal are running out rapidly. No not in my
    > or my kids lifetime (maybe) but that is not a very long time.
    > Isn't it one of the gas companies that advertise- " don't worry we have 60
    > years worth natural gas supplies" What then? do we start worrying in 59
    > an 3/4 years?
    >
    >>>>>>> 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > Current energy systems are worse carbon users/polluters and always will
    > be. All energy sources operate at a net loss. Some worse than others. We
    > cannot get away from that fact. Remember Law of Thermodynamics?


    Why throw in irrelevant statements like that?

    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> What are you on about?
    >> If you want to get into a technical discussion about solar wind and
    >> magnetic fields and stuff like that I do know about them but it is
    >> irrelevant to a discussion about CO2 emissions.

    >
    >
    >
    > Why? This discussion is about new energy supplies.


    Its not actually, its about existing energy supplies that people are saying
    are green when they are not.

    > Your side states that the power sources you like are all good and the
    > others are all net carbon polluters.


    I don't have a side, just the truth, if someone makes a breakthrough and
    makes solar PV dirt cheap and/or carbon free then I will recommend them. As
    it is they are not green and someone building a house using them and then
    claiming its carbon free is mistaken. Selling systems based on it as carbon
    free is just lying to defraud the customer.

    > The other side goes to the other extreme and believes that their energy
    > supplies are the non carbon polluters.
    > You are both wrong. There are some that are inherently worse than others.
    > They all have their problems to overcome. They all hold future promise.
    > Because Its no totally practical at this point in time that doesn't mean
    > that with developments today and in the future they won't be.
    > In fact developments today are showing the opposite for many of them.
    > Sterling engines are a good choice but that is yet to be seen.



    > Magnetics
    > in theory are good, no carbon emissions once produced, but that has yet
    > proven to be even workable.


    You are going to have to explain what "magnetics" are.





  10. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gd7f6k$rd6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "caver1" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd5qmv$kom$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>
    >>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> What is so difficult to understand that if they take 20 years to
    >>> produce more energy than it takes to make and maintain them then they
    >>> have to be around for at least 20 years to save any carbon emissions.
    >>> There is no evidence that they will be around for 20+ years to make
    >>> that saving.
    >>>
    >>> Its really simple.. solar PV des not save carbon emissions at this time.
    >>> It gives people a nice smug feeling about being green and that's
    >>> about it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Micro generation using wind power will *never* generate more energy
    >>> than used to produce the units using any known way of making stuff.
    >>>
    >>> Large scale generation using wind power is unlikely to ever generate
    >>> enough energy to reduce the net carbon emissions.
    >>>
    >>> Well proven, old fashioned stuff like sterling engines may provide a
    >>> way to generate using solar heat.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I did read somewhere that NASA is going to start using Sterling
    >> engines. Haven't heard anything since. So hopefully it wasn't a bogus
    >> report.
    >> That is the problem with your arguments.
    >> When I say that a technology has promise your proof is probably not.
    >> Now that you "know" that your idea has promise your proof is - "may"
    >> At this point we don't know. They all hold out promise. They all have
    >> their short falls. They all must be developed. Non of them in themselves
    >> will completely replace oil/coal.

    >
    >
    > Nuclear could.
    > Quite easily.



    Only if other techs are improved at the same time. Such as batteries.
    Of course I would think it would be cool to have a Challenger with its
    own nuke power plant.



    >> The ease of producing and transporting is just too easy compared with
    >> the others. The problem is that Oil Coal are running out rapidly. No
    >> not in my or my kids lifetime (maybe) but that is not a very long time.
    >> Isn't it one of the gas companies that advertise- " don't worry we
    >> have 60 years worth natural gas supplies" What then? do we start
    >> worrying in 59 an 3/4 years?
    >>
    >>>>>>>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Current energy systems are worse carbon users/polluters and always
    >> will be. All energy sources operate at a net loss. Some worse than
    >> others. We cannot get away from that fact. Remember Law of
    >> Thermodynamics?

    >
    > Why throw in irrelevant statements like that?




    Took me a couple as to why. It was not in response to you but to
    Christopher when he stated that there was more energy produced than used
    in the production of oil.
    So you have to take it with the whole statement.



    >>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> What are you on about?
    >>> If you want to get into a technical discussion about solar wind and
    >>> magnetic fields and stuff like that I do know about them but it is
    >>> irrelevant to a discussion about CO2 emissions.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Why? This discussion is about new energy supplies.

    >
    > Its not actually, its about existing energy supplies that people are
    > saying are green when they are not.
    >
    >> Your side states that the power sources you like are all good and the
    >> others are all net carbon polluters.

    >
    > I don't have a side, just the truth, if someone makes a breakthrough and
    > makes solar PV dirt cheap and/or carbon free then I will recommend them.
    > As it is they are not green and someone building a house using them and
    > then claiming its carbon free is mistaken. Selling systems based on it
    > as carbon free is just lying to defraud the customer.




    All have a side and you can tell how biased they are when they refuse
    the facts and say never. Never is along time.
    To be honest with you the only ones I hear make statements like that are
    Al Gore and his followers. After all isn't it Al gore that wants carbon
    credits given to individuals. That way he can claim "green" even though
    He is a tremendous user.
    also don't think that anyone with a house with sq.feet in the
    thousands can claim being ecologically conscience either.



    >> The other side goes to the other extreme and believes that their
    >> energy supplies are the non carbon polluters.
    >> You are both wrong. There are some that are inherently worse than
    >> others. They all have their problems to overcome. They all hold future
    >> promise. Because Its no totally practical at this point in time that
    >> doesn't mean that with developments today and in the future they won't
    >> be.
    >> In fact developments today are showing the opposite for many of them.
    >> Sterling engines are a good choice but that is yet to be seen.

    >
    >
    >> Magnetics
    >> in theory are good, no carbon emissions once produced, but that has
    >> yet proven to be even workable.

    >
    > You are going to have to explain what "magnetics" are.
    >




    I thought you knew. At least you said you did.
    It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.
    In basic theory it may work but if it is possible than the tech hasn't
    arrived yet.
    don't get me wrong I do believe there are alot of dead ends out there ,I
    don't believe in "Green or nothing" nor do I believe as Limbaugh that
    man does not pollute.
    The answer is somewhere in the middle. I would not want to live on a
    planet where most of nature has been destroyed. But man does have the
    capability to have it both ,probably in smaller amounts, But his greed
    and will stop him and probably always will.

  11. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd8482$53b$1@registered.motzarella.org...


    >> You are going to have to explain what "magnetics" are.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > I thought you knew. At least you said you did.
    > It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.
    > In basic theory it may work but if it is possible than the tech hasn't
    > arrived yet.


    You can use it as an energy convertor, like an alternator.
    If you know a way to generate energy from it I am all ears.

    #


  12. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gd8482$53b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >
    >>> You are going to have to explain what "magnetics" are.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I thought you knew. At least you said you did.
    >> It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.
    >> In basic theory it may work but if it is possible than the tech hasn't
    >> arrived yet.

    >
    > You can use it as an energy convertor, like an alternator.
    > If you know a way to generate energy from it I am all ears.
    >
    > #



    There are those who think they do.
    To bad its not real.
    My main point is maybe.
    Enjoy this thread.
    caver1

  13. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >> I still miss the Saturn V launches to the moon. Just think how much raw
    >> tonnage one of those could place in orbit at about 250 miles. Now think
    >> about having 4 of those SRB's from the shuttle on the first stage and
    >> replacing the kerosene they used with liquid Hydrogen. That much lifting
    >> power could probably out do 20 Joke launches with the space **** orbiter.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    >
    > NASA has become boring. They got the shuttle which was good for its time
    > but then they wanted to freeze time.
    > Where's the excitement generated any more?
    > caver1


    Saturn launch == watchable, especially in July of 1969, real time.
    Shuttle == boring reruns except for the explosions.

    They actually had 4 more Saturns ready to go when Nixon the 'great'
    canceled the program because of 'Budget cuts.'.

    July 20, 1969 was the last day I had any real pride in this country.

    And now Bush (Jr. no less) has a 'vision' of putting a man on the moon
    by 2020. Didn't anybody tell him it's been done??

    Bill Baka

  14. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    > It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.


    HA! Caver1, have you ever heard of an "alternator". a "generator" or
    a "dynamo"? Magnetic conversion of motion to electricity has been well known
    for over 200 years!

    There is no magical way to "produce energy" using "magnetics".

    C.

  15. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd8e4p$mjl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "caver1" wrote in message
    >> news:gd8482$53b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>
    >>
    >>>> You are going to have to explain what "magnetics" are.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I thought you knew. At least you said you did.
    >>> It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.
    >>> In basic theory it may work but if it is possible than the tech hasn't
    >>> arrived yet.

    >>
    >> You can use it as an energy convertor, like an alternator.
    >> If you know a way to generate energy from it I am all ears.
    >>
    >> #

    >
    >
    > There are those who think they do.


    There are people that think they can run a car on water!
    They are wrong.

    > To bad its not real.


    So why include it?
    Is it something you heard about or something you made up?

    > My main point is maybe.


    Maybe is silly when it comes to such stuff.

    > Enjoy this thread.
    > caver1



  16. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka kirjoitti:

    > Esa Riihonen wrote:
    >> Bill Baka kirjoitti:
    >>
    >>> caver1 wrote:
    >>>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>>> 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
    >>> Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    >>> unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to
    >>> happen before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    >>> Bill Baka

    >>
    >> Actually it did happen. The computers were replaced in the beginning of
    >> 1990's.

    >
    > Still not exactly state of the art then. Did they use 486's or some
    > other single sourced junk?
    > Bill Baka


    Original IBM 4Pi/AP-101B computers were replaced by type AP-101S, no
    Intel involvement here.

    I really don't understand what the age of the H/W and S/W has to do with
    the reliability of the computer system. The investigation after the
    Challenger accident revealed that the flight software of the Shuttle
    was practically error free. Statistically software used in critical
    systems has about 1 errors per 100 lines of code. The IBM PASS-code had
    about 0.01.

    Btw, the shuttle is aerodynamically unstable and needs computer assistance
    for flying.

    Source:
    Dennis R. Jenkins, Space Shuttle, 3rd ed.

    Cheers,

    Esa(R)

    --
    If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and
    your friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag
    would be to pretend you were swimming.
    -- Deep Thoughts (#30) by Jack Handey

  17. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.

    >
    > HA! Caver1, have you ever heard of an "alternator". a "generator" or
    > a "dynamo"? Magnetic conversion of motion to electricity has been well known
    > for over 200 years!
    >
    > There is no magical way to "produce energy" using "magnetics".
    >
    > C.



    Never said there was. Just said that was possibly the only way it could
    happen according to some.
    caver1

  18. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gd8e4p$mjl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "caver1" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd8482$53b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> You are going to have to explain what "magnetics" are.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I thought you knew. At least you said you did.
    >>>> It is the theory of using magnetism of some sort as an energy producer.
    >>>> In basic theory it may work but if it is possible than the tech
    >>>> hasn't arrived yet.
    >>>
    >>> You can use it as an energy convertor, like an alternator.
    >>> If you know a way to generate energy from it I am all ears.
    >>>
    >>> #

    >>
    >>
    >> There are those who think they do.

    >
    > There are people that think they can run a car on water!
    > They are wrong.
    >
    >> To bad its not real.

    >
    > So why include it?
    > Is it something you heard about or something you made up?




    Not made up. It goes back at least to Tesla.


    >> My main point is maybe.

    >
    > Maybe is silly when it comes to such stuff.



    Only in your mind. Many things that were once thought "silly" actually
    came to be true. If a person wants to try things let him never know
    where a new thought might lead. Doesn't hurt.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13