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 ; "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message news:48f36ab8$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... > dennis@home wrote: > >> >> >> "Fred" wrote in message >> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org... >> >> >>> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high, >>> but >>> the cells last a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 258

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

  1. Re: Hydrogen



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48f36ab8$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Fred" wrote in message
    >> news:gcv6p2$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.

    >
    > 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


    You are a moron.
    You have just posted that we get 1Mw per sq meter of energy from the sun.
    It proves *you* don't have a clue.
    kw isn't even a measure of the energy but of the rate.

    As it appears you know nothing I suppose I should indicate where you are
    wrong so you can at least have a look.

    You will find that the energy delivered per sq meter is about 6.5 kwH per
    day or about 1000 kwH per year.
    The panels are about 15% efficient so you get about 100 kwH of useable
    electricity per sq meter per year.
    Converting that to hydrogen will be about 10% efficient so you get 10kwh of
    useable hydrogen.

    As for solar heating you may notice its colder in winter when there is less
    sun, just when you need more energy for heating so you need to store
    hydrogen for six months to use in the winter if that's how you are heating
    the place (not very sensible).

    >
    > < snip more MD5-dennis bull**** >


    I think you know about as much about md5 as you have shown you know here..
    zilch.

    So now sod off and stop looking like an idiot.




  2. Re: Hydrogen

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Around 20.000 people died.


    No. It was less than 20.

    > A whole region is no longer inhabitable, for a long time to come
    > And the Caesium is still there, half of it.


    Again, no. The releases were quite small, and the outstanding amounts are
    even smaller (half-life is a wonderful thing). You've been brainwashed by
    the "green" brigade.

    > You *still* have to be careful with mushrooms from the forest


    You have to be careful with /any/ mushrooms!

    > BTW, Three Mile Island happened, too


    I was there. It wasn't a particularly significant event. Much worse
    happened elsewhere in the USA (but they don't want you to know about it).

    C.


  3. Re: Hydrogen

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > 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
    >



    Why?

    Don't you think Alaskans should be able to do whatever they want with
    their Alaskan resources?

    Aren't they better equipped to make decisions concerning their state
    than the nut cases in Washington?

    --
    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.

  4. Re: Hydrogen

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > 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.



    It WAS used properly!

    It ended the war, and without it, the Japs would have drug it out
    forever, wasting oil and lives.

    The "testing" demonstrates what a big stick we have, and keeps the
    others at bay.

    I'm sorry we didn't nuke China when we had the chance. Now we and the
    rest of the world are paying (waste).

    Same goes for Iraq. Nuke 'em all, and be rid of them!

    --
    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.

  5. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    > 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


    No one is smart enough to play with nuclear energy. I'm in Mensa and
    I qualified with room to spare and I wouldn't mess with it myself.
    The fact that people with IQs some 60 points below mine are running
    nuclear power plants is a constant source of anxiety for me. Here in
    Canada politicians and their rich masters wanted to do away with
    regulations in some of the nuclear industry. They stopped following
    them and the head of the Nuclear regulatory agency shut down the
    reactor at Chalk River. This was the reactor that made nuclear
    isotopes for medical treatments, like the treatment of cancer. When
    things started to back up our Prime Minister fired the woman who was
    in charge of the nuclear regulatory agency and put in someone of his
    own choosing who was willing to allow the reactor to start up again
    without the safety regulations in place. They are now running an
    unsafe reactor at Chalk River and people are forgetting about it
    because as soon as it was over, the mainstream media acted in their
    usual fashion and stopped covering the story. Strange, but when the
    TV news stops covering a story, the vast majority of the people stop
    thinking about it.
    You put nuclear waste in a bottle and when it starts to leak you have
    to put it in a bigger bottle, all the time hoping that
    nobody "crazier than you" comes along and lets it out of the bottle.
    It's shear insanity to try to work with that stuff on a small planet,
    especially when it's the only planet we've got! If we mess this one
    up, there's no second chances. Shear Insanity!

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

  6. Re: Hydrogen

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    I can't believe how utterly stupid your statements are.

    I have better things to do than entertain a moron.

    --
    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

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > 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.


    Ahh. Now the truth begins to appear. It seems that the
    Republicans have been sneakily infiltrated by the Alaskan
    Independents, with ulterior motives, and that McCain et al are
    either co-operating or are sadly unaware. This requires proper
    correction, which involves the use of stakes, burning, etc.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.

  8. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> 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

    >
    > No one is smart enough to play with nuclear energy. I'm in Mensa and
    > I qualified with room to spare and I wouldn't mess with it myself.
    > The fact that people with IQs some 60 points below mine are running
    > nuclear power plants is a constant source of anxiety for me. Here in
    > Canada politicians and their rich masters wanted to do away with
    > regulations in some of the nuclear industry. They stopped following
    > them and the head of the Nuclear regulatory agency shut down the
    > reactor at Chalk River. This was the reactor that made nuclear
    > isotopes for medical treatments, like the treatment of cancer. When
    > things started to back up our Prime Minister fired the woman who was
    > in charge of the nuclear regulatory agency and put in someone of his
    > own choosing who was willing to allow the reactor to start up again
    > without the safety regulations in place. They are now running an
    > unsafe reactor at Chalk River and people are forgetting about it
    > because as soon as it was over, the mainstream media acted in their
    > usual fashion and stopped covering the story. Strange, but when the
    > TV news stops covering a story, the vast majority of the people stop
    > thinking about it.
    > You put nuclear waste in a bottle and when it starts to leak you have
    > to put it in a bigger bottle, all the time hoping that
    > nobody "crazier than you" comes along and lets it out of the bottle.
    > It's shear insanity to try to work with that stuff on a small planet,
    > especially when it's the only planet we've got! If we mess this one
    > up, there's no second chances. Shear Insanity!
    >



    Yes you are so smart. I really get tired of people like you setting
    themselves up as better than everyone else.
    You're in Mensa-So What?
    I am sure there are plenty of people in the nuclear fields that totally
    disagree with you.
    I agree the biggest hurdle to using nuclear power is the waste. And so
    far there are no answers that are good. But that doesn't mean that we
    don't research an find the answer.
    Hell maybe by the time they perfect the space elevator we can have the
    nuclear reactors in space and give the waste a gentle push.
    The power lines can run down along side the elevator.
    And I do believe we are already messing this one up.
    caver1

  9. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:47:14 -0400, John F. Morse
    wrote:

    > jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >> 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
    >>

    >
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Don't you think Alaskans should be able to do whatever they want with
    > their Alaskan resources?
    >
    > Aren't they better equipped to make decisions concerning their state
    > than the nut cases in Washington?


    Without meaning to quibble, I'd offer that Todd and Sarah, anyway are
    absolutely no better equipped ... than the nut cases in Washington --
    indeed perhaps rather worse so. Of course, they may not be typical.

    Cheers (and thanks again for Xanadu access :-) ), -- tlvp

  10. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > Fred wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    >> 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.


    He doesn't even need a failure for "horrible consequences". The
    mere fact of the fission reactions builds horrible byproducts,
    which cannot be reduced back to the original materials without
    horrible inputs of power using undiscovered techniques. I don't
    think even you will claim you can build a computer system that will
    operate accurately for 100 years, let alone 100 thousand, without
    continous monitoring, servicing, upkeep, etc. This is analagous to
    handline the nuclear waste.

    It's like wars - the safe way is not to begin.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.

  11. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48f36ab8$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>> news:gcv6p2$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.

    >>
    >> 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

    >
    > You are a moron.


    Not compares to you he isn't.

    > You have just posted that we get 1Mw per sq meter of energy from the
    > sun. It proves *you* don't have a clue.
    > kw isn't even a measure of the energy but of the rate.
    >

    The rate is what we need. We get that from the solar constant which
    is right around one kilowatt per square meter.
    an at least have a look.
    >
    > You will find that the energy delivered per sq meter is about 6.5
    > kwH per day or about 1000 kwH per year.


    Depending on where you are.

    > The panels are about 15% efficient


    Those would really be terrible panels to use. Solar panels today are
    much more efficient. You're fudging your figures to get the answer
    you want.

    > so you get about 100 kwH of
    > useable electricity per sq meter per year.
    > Converting that to hydrogen will be about 10% efficient so you get
    > 10kwh of useable hydrogen.


    I don't think all the electricity is converted to hydrogen. but in
    light of your wrong numbers for the efficiency of solar panels, we
    have to assume you're lying here as well about the 10%.

    >
    > As for solar heating you may notice its colder in winter when there
    > is less sun, just when you need more energy for heating so you need
    > to store hydrogen for six months to use in the winter if that's how
    > you are heating the place (not very sensible).
    >

    Fair enough. They don't work well in winter when you're above the
    arctic circle, but most of us don't live there and they can augment
    their power with wind generators.

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

  12. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "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?


    What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and carbon does
    not play any role in their fabrication
    Thermal heating has also nothing to do with "carbon". Solar heating
    likewise.
    Better insolation equally has nothing to do with carbon. Wind power has
    nothing to do with it

    So what are you blubbering about, MD5-dennis?
    --
    Warning: You have moved the mouse.
    Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent


  13. 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!
    >


    Carter was a nuclear engineer as well as a farmer and he was one of
    the smartest and most well educated of your presidents. He wasn't
    perfect, but the best of a bad lot.

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

  14. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > 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...


    Nonsense. Take your counter and wander about the fission plant.
    Investigate the areas marked with radiation signs, which are full
    of active isotopes with half-lives in the thousands of years (and
    more). Come back in 100, or 1000, years and note the radiation
    level.

    Fission power is dirty, expensive, has violent environmental
    impact, and is not in the least safe. Best of all its proponents
    have been hiding all its faults for years.

    I was heavily involved in nucleonics, including power generation,
    in the '50s and '60s.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.

  15. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > 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!
    >>

    >
    > Carter was a nuclear engineer as well as a farmer and he was one of
    > the smartest and most well educated of your presidents. He wasn't
    > perfect, but the best of a bad lot.
    >



    He was a bad president because he was the most honest.
    caver1

  16. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > We need a complete moratorium on nuclear power, or nuclear
    > anything except possibly for some very controlled small scale
    > research so that maybe we could learn to handle it more safely.
    > We need economic reform to go along with it and prevent
    > psychopathic capitalists from trying to take control of
    > centralized sources of power... and putting stooges on the
    > internet to pump their propaganda lies at unsuspecting people.


    Accurate. Now all you have to do is persuade everybody else.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.

  17. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:
    > Fred wrote:
    >> 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!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Carter was a nuclear engineer as well as a farmer and he was
    >> one of
    >> the smartest and most well educated of your presidents. He wasn't
    >> perfect, but the best of a bad lot.
    >>

    >
    >
    > He was a bad president because he was the most honest.
    > caver1


    And he didn't permit alcohol in the White House.

    --
    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.

  18. Re: Hydrogen

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >> Fred wrote:
    >>> 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!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Carter was a nuclear engineer as well as a farmer and he was
    >>> one of
    >>> the smartest and most well educated of your presidents. He wasn't
    >>> perfect, but the best of a bad lot.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> He was a bad president because he was the most honest.
    >> caver1

    >
    > And he didn't permit alcohol in the White House.
    >



    That was his home. His decision. Not that I agree.
    caver1

  19. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Consider that most reactors were built in the 50's to 70's and the
    >> state of electronics back then. Human error is a big factor in
    >> boringly repetitive tasks. Now it might take one computer and one
    >> human to watch the computer.

    >
    > "One Computer!?!?!" What dangerous crap. Do you know how often
    > computers crash? Presumably you'll be running VISTA as an operating
    > system on this computer. You'd have a meltdown inside of a week.
    > You have no idea what you're talking about and no concept of reliable
    > control systems.


    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
    > Even beyond the technical problems of reliability, (bearing in mind
    > the horrible consequences of failure), there is the administrative
    > and political environment to consider. 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. All the bureaucrats were scurrying
    > around trying to effect their own version of a coverup and lying
    > their heads off to curry favour with the powers that be. In an
    > environment like that, we have to try to make a safe nuclear reactor.
    > Impossible! Simply Impossible!
    >


  20. Re: Hydrogen



    "Fred" wrote in message
    news:gd0ekd$ee1$1@registered.motzarella.org...


    >> You are a moron.

    >
    > Not compares to you he isn't.


    Don't worry I have you down as more stupid than him.

    >
    >> You have just posted that we get 1Mw per sq meter of energy from the
    >> sun. It proves *you* don't have a clue.
    >> kw isn't even a measure of the energy but of the rate.
    >>

    > The rate is what we need. We get that from the solar constant
    > which
    > is right around one kilowatt per square meter.
    > an at least have a look.


    look at what?
    You have just posted the same figure that I did (approximately).

    >>
    >> You will find that the energy delivered per sq meter is about 6.5
    >> kwH per day or about 1000 kwH per year.

    >
    > Depending on where you are.
    >
    >> The panels are about 15% efficient

    >
    > Those would really be terrible panels to use. Solar panels today
    > are
    > much more efficient. You're fudging your figures to get the answer
    > you want.


    Go on then name one panel that is efficient.

    >
    >> so you get about 100 kwH of
    >> useable electricity per sq meter per year.
    >> Converting that to hydrogen will be about 10% efficient so you get
    >> 10kwh of useable hydrogen.

    >
    > I don't think all the electricity is converted to hydrogen. but in
    > light of your wrong numbers for the efficiency of solar panels, we
    > have to assume you're lying here as well about the 10%.


    No most of it is wasted as heat, that's why its not efficient.

    >
    >>
    >> As for solar heating you may notice its colder in winter when there
    >> is less sun, just when you need more energy for heating so you need
    >> to store hydrogen for six months to use in the winter if that's how
    >> you are heating the place (not very sensible).
    >>

    > Fair enough. They don't work well in winter when you're above the
    > arctic circle, but most of us don't live there and they can augment
    > their power with wind generators.


    On windy days.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast