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: > The French have used nuclear for many years. Yes they have the same > waste disposal problems but how many French Chernobyl's > have you heard of? The French have a comprehensive nuclear reprocessing programme, so their ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 258

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

  1. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    > The French have used nuclear for many years. Yes they have the same
    > waste disposal problems but how many French Chernobyl's
    > have you heard of?


    The French have a comprehensive nuclear reprocessing programme, so their
    waste is low level and in small amounts. They are generating about 65% of
    their power with nuclear stations, and the rest are hydro-electric. They
    stopped using fossil fuels for electricity generation some years ago, and
    are a net /exporter/ of electricity.

    C.

  2. Re: Hydrogen

    On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:32:09 -0700, Bill Baka wrote:

    > Palin and that old guy want to rape Alaska


    Just a reminder, Todd Palin, was a member of the Alaskan Independence
    Party for 7 years, until 2002. For those of you that don't know the AIP
    is a secessionist group. They want Alaska to be an independent country.
    Then they can suck all the oil they want, and not follow USA regulations.

    Sarah supports this group. She needs to be stopped.


    stonerfish

  3. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:48:09 -0700, Bill Baka wrote:

    > Fred wrote:
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >> high, but
    >> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal and
    >> the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    >> Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.

    >
    > Sure does. Someone once said that if we could capture all the energy it
    > radiates the planet with in 1 day we could power mankind's stuff for
    > years. I read that so long ago (about 30 years) that I can't even begin
    > to give a reference. There was an experimental installation done about
    > 24 years ago and when the panels were offered for sale they still put
    > out at 95% of their brand new power. The oxygen could be saved as well
    > and put to some use.
    > Bill Baka
    >>


    If we are talking about wasted energy, lets not forget the atomic bombs
    we used in war, and in testing. If all of that energy was used
    properly.... Oh never mind.


  4. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:14:17 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Lionel B wrote:
    >
    >> There's the problem: one's enough. By which I mean that a single
    >> nuclear accident can have such horrendous consequences that you have to
    >> consider whether the enterprise is worth the risk. The French signed up
    >> big-time to that risk. Nice for them, well done the French. Problem is,
    >> they also unilaterally signed up the rest of the planet to participate
    >> in the possible consequences of that decision (particularly their near-
    >> neighbours, of whom I am currently one).

    >
    > You obviously have little or no knowledge or understanding of nuclear
    > power generation. Having worked extensively in that industry, I can
    > assure you that the scare stories promulgated by "Friends of the Earth"
    > and their political allies are just that - silly nonsense. None of it
    > is based on actual fact.
    >
    > Nuclear power is clean, relatively cheap, has little or no environmental
    > impact and entirely safe. To illustrate, get a Geiger Counter or other
    > Dosimeter of your choice, and check the background radiation at a few
    > places - you'll find that the radiation (for example) in Inverness far
    > exceeds that in close proximity to Sellafield, and it's /nothing/ to do
    > with atmospheric dispersal. "Friends of the Earth" and the other
    > "green" idiots can't understand that...


    I was explicitly talking about *nuclear accidents* (read the paragraph of
    mine that you quoted).

    Chernobyl happened. It was horrendous in terms of its impact on human
    populations and the environment.

    --
    Lionel B

  5. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Fred wrote:
    >
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high,
    >> but the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    >> Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>

    >
    > The output per square metre of the very best solar cells is disappointingly
    > poor. Calculate how many square metres of panel you'd need to just run
    > your house, and you'll discover you'll need a /very/ big backyard!


    Over here in Germany just the roof is enough.



    > The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    > unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green" idiots'
    > protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually the
    > cleanest, safest method of power production,


    Except you have to store radioactive waste on a safe place for some
    millions of years.


    > and it isn't controlled by the whims of third-world potentates!



    But there's no clear separation between civil and military usage
    nuclear technology. Quite a few of people aren't happy about Iran's
    nuclear power stations...


    > Newer nuclear technologies will make cheap power safely available to all
    > (fusion power is not too far away) and may go a long way to ending all the
    > strife on the planet...


    Would you build nuclear power stations in e.g. Afghanistan?


    Florian
    --

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  6. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Lionel B wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >>>> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >>>> idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's
    >>>> actually the cleanest,
    >>>>
    >>> ...apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste
    >>> disposal...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> safest
    >>>>
    >>> ... give or take the odd Chernobyl...
    >>>

    > It's just a matter of time, unless you are suggesting that there is a
    > gene in the French people that makes them smarter than everybody
    > else.


    I suspect it is from breeding with the Germans, eh?

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  7. Re: Hydrogen

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Well, it is about 1000kw per sqm per year in norther europe, about 2500kw in
    > the sahara. Even at just 15% conversion rate as of current masss production
    > cells it is easily enough
    >
    >
    >> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar cells
    >> even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>

    >
    > It is quite obvious that solar energy is yet another thing you know
    > absolutely nothing about
    >
    > < snip more MD5-dennis bull**** >
    >


    What does your "per year" have to do with the price of tea in China?

    Your one-megawatt (1000 kW) sounds like an unbelievable amount of power from one square meter of solar panel.

    You could operate hundreds of arc welders from that panel!

    Are you sure you don't mean 1000 kWh, since you did enter "per year" into the statement?

    That is 1 MWh, which is a lot of juice, but maybe obtainable. Around 114 watts output would be required.

    Another problem is most all household and commercial appliances, fluorescent lighting, motors, etc., operate on alternating current. Solar panels generate DC.

    Some method of conversion from DC to AC would be needed, unless all existing loads are replaced with DC loads. They would be more efficient (except for lighting), since there would be no reactive loss.

    Of course conversion to AC requires an inverter which has a low efficiency = more loss.

    Then consider you would not be able to switch back to commercial AC in an emergency, or at night. At a large bank of batteries would be required for nights, cloudy days, etc.

    Batteries take a lot of energy to manufacture, transport, install, ....

    Solar is good for slow "upgrades," but isn't a good idea for wholesale replacement.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  8. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:

    > "One Computer!?!?!" What dangerous crap.


    I /really/ hope that you never fly on a modern aeroplane, then.

    > Do you know how often computers crash?


    Yes. I design high reliability systems for a living.

    > Presumably you'll be running VISTA as an operating system on this
    > computer.


    Are you drunk or just stupid? Nobody would every consider running /any/
    Microsoft product where reliability matters.

    > You have no idea what you're talking about and no concept of reliable
    > control systems.


    See above. It's what I do. There are very effective means to monitor and
    maintain a single computer. Perhaps you should either learn about the
    principles of "points of failure" or you should just hang your head and
    slink away.

    > Even beyond the technical problems of reliability, (bearing in mind
    > the horrible consequences of failure), there is the administrative
    > and political environment to consider.


    What "horrible consequences"? I've been on a nuclear site during major
    containment failures, with no "horrible consequences" whatsoever. Again,
    you don't know what you're talking about.

    > The book of Official Explanations points out that ion the 24 hours after
    > the Three Mile Island meltdown, there were no less than *20* ...
    > *different* official explanations of what happened.


    What do you expect with a bunch of clueless bureaucrats trying to run a
    power station. Those wankers thought that they didn't need *engineers* and
    replaced them with useless paper-pushers. Disaster was guaranteed.

    C.




  9. Re: Hydrogen

    Lionel B wrote:

    > There's the problem: one's enough. By which I mean that a single nuclear
    > accident can have such horrendous consequences that you have to consider
    > whether the enterprise is worth the risk. The French signed up big-time
    > to that risk. Nice for them, well done the French. Problem is, they also
    > unilaterally signed up the rest of the planet to participate in the
    > possible consequences of that decision (particularly their near-
    > neighbours, of whom I am currently one).


    You obviously have little or no knowledge or understanding of nuclear power
    generation. Having worked extensively in that industry, I can assure you
    that the scare stories promulgated by "Friends of the Earth" and their
    political allies are just that - silly nonsense. None of it is based on
    actual fact.

    Nuclear power is clean, relatively cheap, has little or no environmental
    impact and entirely safe. To illustrate, get a Geiger Counter or other
    Dosimeter of your choice, and check the background radiation at a few
    places - you'll find that the radiation (for example) in Inverness far
    exceeds that in close proximity to Sellafield, and it's /nothing/ to do
    with atmospheric dispersal. "Friends of the Earth" and the other "green"
    idiots can't understand that...


    C.


  10. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:

    > Total crap! "Newer" nuclear reactors are cheaper because they've
    > simply deregulated the industry and there are fewer safety measures
    > in place making the industry even more insane than it was.


    You really have *no* *idea* whatsoever.

    C.


  11. Re: Hydrogen

    Lionel B wrote:

    > Chernobyl happened. It was horrendous in terms of its impact on human
    > populations and the environment.


    Actually, no it wasn't. What lasting damage has been done? The idiots who
    failed to monitor their reactor properly mostly suffered (several died) -
    the rest of us saw a slight background increase for a month or two.

    In the same way, you're going to die on the highway if you don't pay
    attention!

    C.


  12. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Lionel B wrote:
    >
    >> Chernobyl happened. It was horrendous in terms of its impact on human
    >> populations and the environment.

    >
    > Actually, no it wasn't. What lasting damage has been done? The idiots
    > who failed to monitor their reactor properly mostly suffered (several
    > died) - the rest of us saw a slight background increase for a month or
    > two.


    Around 20.000 people died. A whole region is no longer inhabitable, for a
    long time to come
    And the Caesium is still there, half of it.
    You *still* have to be careful with mushrooms from the forest

    > In the same way, you're going to die on the highway if you don't pay
    > attention!
    >
    > C.


    Well, you should show /some/ common sense now and then. Currently you don't

    BTW, Three Mile Island happened, too
    --
    All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
    parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
    can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means,
    do not use a hammer.


  13. Re: Hydrogen

    John F. Morse wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Well, it is about 1000kw per sqm per year in norther europe, about 2500kw
    >> in the sahara. Even at just 15% conversion rate as of current masss
    >> production cells it is easily enough
    >>
    >>
    >>> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar cells
    >>> even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It is quite obvious that solar energy is yet another thing you know
    >> absolutely nothing about
    >>
    >> < snip more MD5-dennis bull**** >
    >>

    >
    > What does your "per year" have to do with the price of tea in China?


    Learn to read

    > Your one-megawatt (1000 kW) sounds like an unbelievable amount of power
    > from one square meter of solar panel.


    Google is your friend

    > You could operate hundreds of arc welders from that panel!
    >
    > Are you sure you don't mean 1000 kWh, since you did enter "per year" into
    > the statement?


    Thats it

    > That is 1 MWh, which is a lot of juice, but maybe obtainable. Around 114
    > watts output would be required.


    Do you know how much energy the sun puts unto earth?
    About 10.000 times the energy all of humankind needs each year.

    > Another problem is most all household and commercial appliances,
    > fluorescent lighting, motors, etc., operate on alternating current. Solar
    > panels generate DC.
    >
    > Some method of conversion from DC to AC would be needed, unless all
    > existing loads are replaced with DC loads. They would be more efficient
    > (except for lighting), since there would be no reactive loss.
    >
    > Of course conversion to AC requires an inverter which has a low efficiency
    > = more loss.


    You are clueless. Even the worst inverters will operate with an efficiency
    of around 90%. Better ones are around 95% efficiency

    > Then consider you would not be able to switch back to commercial AC in an
    > emergency, or at night. At a large bank of batteries would be required for
    > nights, cloudy days, etc.
    >
    > Batteries take a lot of energy to manufacture, transport, install, ....
    >
    > Solar is good for slow "upgrades," but isn't a good idea for wholesale
    > replacement.
    >


    Nobody said it would. It will generate most power when the least of it is
    needed.
    Hence the conversion electricity->hydrogen.
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  14. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gcvmir$4ri$1@registered.motzarella.org...

    > His whole system is so expensive it will never see break even, but he has
    > reduced the costs by about 65% in two years for his second build. As
    > technology advances and production ramps up the costs will com down. And
    > so what if you never break even? At least as far as we know it is a much
    > less polluting energy source. You tell me you break even on your fuel
    > consumption now.
    >


    We know?
    No we don't know any such thing.
    There is a huge amount of carbon used to make the solar panels, probably
    more than they will save in twenty years.
    If they are still in use in twenty years then he may save something but not
    until then.
    As of now he has increased carbon emitted by a lot.




  15. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > Lionel B wrote:
    >
    >> Eh? We've never had a "Peanut-Farmer president" in the history of my
    >> country, as far as I recall.

    >
    > Selective memory? Carter was a stupid peanut farmer. He made "W" look
    > clever!
    >
    >>> and there hasn't been sufficient investment in the reprocessing plants
    >>> in this country.

    >> Um, which country is that?

    >
    > The UK.
    >
    >
    >> Eh? Nuclear fusion is safer than burning fossil fuels,

    >
    > Yes. The filth generated by burning fossil fuels is poisoning the whole
    > planet.
    >
    >> wind power,

    >
    > Uneconomical and unreliable. Those windmills you see on hilltops generating
    > electricity will /never/ generate enough power to even pay for their
    > capital cost. Over here in the UK, the stupid government are doling out
    > huge grants to people who want to build windmills because they are entirely
    > uneconomical, but the government wants to appear "green".
    >
    >> solar power,

    >
    > Again, totally useless. You can't get sufficient out of solar cells to do
    > much. In northern countries, you /might/ be able to heat enough water for
    > a shower or two per day, but you won't be able to heat your house, run your
    > appliances and power your car...



    That's where you need to think more.
    No solar in places like that won't work in itself. But how about solar
    over geothermal? Lot less electricity needed.
    The point is there are different solutions for different scenarios.
    If man keeps being a naysayer and never tries he might as well roll up
    and blow away.
    caver1

  16. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    > unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green" idiots'
    > protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually the
    > cleanest, safest method of power production, and it isn't controlled by the
    > whims of third-world potentates!



    Yes, I second that. We absolutely need nuclear power. Good idea!
    Especially third world and emerging countries should not go the way we
    have gone and burn fossile fuels or try and outsmart us by using
    regenerative energy.
    They *must* go nuclear. Let's encourage countries like North Korea,
    Lybia or Iran to use nuclear energy. Oh ... and by the way: don't let
    them think that *we* will solve their nuclear waste problems!

    Also, let's ship nuclear waste back and forth over the world. Maybe some
    of it will never reach its proposed destination and we luckily got rid
    of it!


    --
    Mails please to josef dot moellers
    and I'm on gmx dot de.

  17. Re: Hydrogen

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> Lionel B wrote:
    >>
    >>> Chernobyl happened. It was horrendous in terms of its impact on human
    >>> populations and the environment.

    >> Actually, no it wasn't. What lasting damage has been done? The idiots
    >> who failed to monitor their reactor properly mostly suffered (several
    >> died) - the rest of us saw a slight background increase for a month or
    >> two.

    >
    > Around 20.000 people died. A whole region is no longer inhabitable, for a
    > long time to come
    > And the Caesium is still there, half of it.
    > You *still* have to be careful with mushrooms from the forest
    >
    >> In the same way, you're going to die on the highway if you don't pay
    >> attention!
    >>
    >> C.

    >
    > Well, you should show /some/ common sense now and then. Currently you don't
    >
    > BTW, Three Mile Island happened, too



    That was more the Russians stupid greed than anything that caused
    Chernobyl. They built reactors that the rest of the world knew to be
    unsafe. They were warned but they ignored the warnings. Compare Three
    mile island. If it wasn't contained it could have been worse than
    Chernobyl. But it was due to better design and training. People in the
    US let TMI scare them to much. It showed that there were still things to
    learn and that with the proper safety measures in place accidents can be
    safely controlled.
    Has there been one since?
    caver1

  18. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gcvmir$4ri$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >> His whole system is so expensive it will never see break even, but he
    >> has reduced the costs by about 65% in two years for his second build.
    >> As technology advances and production ramps up the costs will com
    >> down. And so what if you never break even? At least as far as we know
    >> it is a much less polluting energy source. You tell me you break even
    >> on your fuel consumption now.
    >>

    >
    > We know?
    > No we don't know any such thing.
    > There is a huge amount of carbon used to make the solar panels, probably
    > more than they will save in twenty years.
    > If they are still in use in twenty years then he may save something but
    > not until then.
    > As of now he has increased carbon emitted by a lot.
    >
    >
    >




    Okay then Nothing will ever be possible so we might as well give up now.
    No he hasn't increased his carbon foot print. At the worse it stayed the
    same. With no more carbon usage for his power.
    Solar panel technology is advancing rapidly.
    In fact if you pay attention there is a 12 year old that just won awards
    awhile back (this year) in that he figured out how to triple the
    efficiency of solar cells.
    It amazes me that you don't still use a horse. After all automobiles use
    much more carbon than a horse, better yet wern't you the one that was
    scared to get on the horse in the first place?
    caver1

  19. Re: Hydrogen

    Josef Moellers wrote:
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >> idiots'
    >> protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually the
    >> cleanest, safest method of power production, and it isn't controlled
    >> by the
    >> whims of third-world potentates!

    >
    >
    > Yes, I second that. We absolutely need nuclear power. Good idea!
    > Especially third world and emerging countries should not go the way we
    > have gone and burn fossile fuels or try and outsmart us by using
    > regenerative energy.
    > They *must* go nuclear. Let's encourage countries like North Korea,
    > Lybia or Iran to use nuclear energy. Oh ... and by the way: don't let
    > them think that *we* will solve their nuclear waste problems!
    >
    > Also, let's ship nuclear waste back and forth over the world. Maybe some
    > of it will never reach its proposed destination and we luckily got rid
    > of it!
    >

    >



    That's why you don't give an infant a sharp knife to play with. But once
    that person is mature enough why he might even use a scalpel.
    caver1

  20. Re: Hydrogen



    "Fred" wrote in message
    news:gcvpfg$9a0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Fred" wrote in message
    >> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>
    >>
    >>> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >>> high,
    >>> but
    >>> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >>> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >>> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land
    >> and work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much
    >> energy to use.
    >>

    > More than I could ever want.
    >
    >
    >> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar
    >> cells even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>

    > Total fantasy. 5 or 6 panels could power most homes in conjunction
    > with other energy technologies like geo-thermal heating and solar
    > heat conversion panels... passive solar heating, better insolation,
    > wind power, etc.


    So your green solution is to spend lots of carbon to save a bit each year.
    Just how long does it take to save more carbon than you have used to build
    this *new* house?





+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast