QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 12:17 AM)
But I will say it. Because roofs need to be replaced anyway; so why not replace regular tiles with PV tiles?
PV tiles aren't designed to be roof tiles.
Why? Well a lot of reasons, but the most obvious is that to be most efficient they have to be facing South, but most roofs aren't facing South. Thus you install them on the roof that is closest to facing South and offset them.
Which means you can't use them to keep rain out.
But this is not going to happen as their cost is still way too high.
The 107 million homes in the US use an AVERAGE of 10,000 kWh per year.
This is 30 kilowatts per day.
An AVERAGE solar system to supply that amount of power in a Southern State on a South facing roof with NO obstructions costs well over $30,000 (and that's a grid tie system with no storage)
Let's say the govt subsidized 1/2 the cost and spread the installations out over 25 years.
That would cost ~ 65 Billion each year (and this cost would never end, because the life expectancy of the systems is ~ 30 years)
By the way, as to an "Apollo Program", the cost of the Apollo program was ~ $26 Billion, which is ~ $135 billion today.
So to put it in perspective this solar installation subsidy outlined above would cost the same as the 12 year Apollo program EVERY YEAR for 25 years, at which point we would just start over, since the first installed panels would be reaching their life expectancy.
Of course, even with this level of expenditure and if ALL the generation capacity replaced was from fossil fuels, over half of our electricity would STILL be based on fossil fuels as only 1/3 of our electricity is used by residential customers.
Arthur
PV tiles aren't designed to be roof tiles.
Why? Well a lot of reasons, but the most obvious is that to be most efficient they have to be facing South, but most roofs aren't facing South. Thus you install them on the roof that is closest to facing South and offset them.
Which means you can't use them to keep rain out.
But this is not going to happen as their cost is still way too high.
The 107 million homes in the US use an AVERAGE of 10,000 kWh per year.
This is 30 kilowatts per day.
An AVERAGE solar system to supply that amount of power in a Southern State on a South facing roof with NO obstructions costs well over $30,000 (and that's a grid tie system with no storage)
Let's say the govt subsidized 1/2 the cost and spread the installations out over 25 years.
That would cost ~ 65 Billion each year (and this cost would never end, because the life expectancy of the systems is ~ 30 years)
By the way, as to an "Apollo Program", the cost of the Apollo program was ~ $26 Billion, which is ~ $135 billion today.
So to put it in perspective this solar installation subsidy outlined above would cost the same as the 12 year Apollo program EVERY YEAR for 25 years, at which point we would just start over, since the first installed panels would be reaching their life expectancy.
Of course, even with this level of expenditure and if ALL the generation capacity replaced was from fossil fuels, over half of our electricity would STILL be based on fossil fuels as only 1/3 of our electricity is used by residential customers.
Arthur
Late edit to last post:
So yes, this $65 billion each year for 25 years would have a substantial effect, BUT even in just the electrical sector (and at today's consumption rates) you are HARDLY anywhere close to the 80% below 2000 levels that article suggested as necessary. To do that you HAVE to switch MOST of the oil consumption to electricity as well.
Still don't think you need Nuclear?
Arthur
So yes, this $65 billion each year for 25 years would have a substantial effect, BUT even in just the electrical sector (and at today's consumption rates) you are HARDLY anywhere close to the 80% below 2000 levels that article suggested as necessary. To do that you HAVE to switch MOST of the oil consumption to electricity as well.
Still don't think you need Nuclear?
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jul 13 2007, 01:41 PM)
Forgive the jump in but wouldn't these do?
photovoltaic shingles
Yes, but again, how many have the proper south facing roof?
I, like most of the houses on my street, have East/West oriented roofs.
Secondly, very few houses would require ALL their roof area to be this shingle, so its not like you save a lot in shingles or gettin a roof that looks particularly better.
Third, their price, at $165 per 17 watts is about TWICE as expensive as top of the line Shell solar panels.
Fourth, Shell's solar panels have a longer warranty (25 years vs these with their limited 5 year system/20 year power output warranty) and the Shell ones are also rated up to 125 mph wind vs only 80 for these and the Shell are also rated against 1.25" hail.
By the way, they really aren't shingles, their dimensions are 12" x 86" and require each "shingle" to run a wire through your roof and then be connected to the other shingles inside the house. A typical house would require drilling ~ 300 holes.
Arthur
photovoltaic shingles
Yes, but again, how many have the proper south facing roof?
I, like most of the houses on my street, have East/West oriented roofs.
Secondly, very few houses would require ALL their roof area to be this shingle, so its not like you save a lot in shingles or gettin a roof that looks particularly better.
Third, their price, at $165 per 17 watts is about TWICE as expensive as top of the line Shell solar panels.
Fourth, Shell's solar panels have a longer warranty (25 years vs these with their limited 5 year system/20 year power output warranty) and the Shell ones are also rated up to 125 mph wind vs only 80 for these and the Shell are also rated against 1.25" hail.
By the way, they really aren't shingles, their dimensions are 12" x 86" and require each "shingle" to run a wire through your roof and then be connected to the other shingles inside the house. A typical house would require drilling ~ 300 holes.
Arthur
There was a study published recently that compared the net effects of solar panels on roofs to just painting the roofs white.
Turns out, painting the roofs white is more cost-effective and increases the earth's albedo (fraction of light reflected from the earth), which attacks global warming directly.
Turns out, painting the roofs white is more cost-effective and increases the earth's albedo (fraction of light reflected from the earth), which attacks global warming directly.
QUOTE (dachpy arvile+Jul 13 2007, 09:38 AM)
Translation: Decreased albedo and increased heat radiation into the atmosphere.
Assuming reasonable efficiency, a lot of the incident radiation would be converted into electricity, rather than heat (as is currently the case with ordinary roofing.)
Also, I'd say the impact of our total road surface (typically, of quite dark variety) is much higher than total roof surface.
In short, the effect you are talking about is minuscule to the point of being insignificant.
QUOTE
On the PV tiles on the roof, we are not there technologically. They still are quite fragile and I pity the poor fool who needs to get up on his roof to repair it. Crunch...crunch...crunch...there goes thousands of dollars and all because someone needed to patch a leaking roof....
First of all, there are solar tiles that are already developed and practical. They exist TODAY. Secondly, the current state of the art is not the state of the art in 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, or 2050. It is silly to apply current technological constraints to a 2050 scenario.
QUOTE (rethinker+Jul 13 2007, 10:49 AM)
The cost of shingles per sq.ft. is much less than PV per sq. ft.
The premise is that any product, when mass-produced and mass-adopted, would see a drastic reduction in price. Using today's prices is inappropriate in this forward-looking scenario.
QUOTE
The map of snow shows thousands of inefficient areas.
The study and simple fact that someone next door blocks the south view may cover a large percentage of homes.
Granted; one would have to allow for snow over winter, as well as bad weather. This isn't supposed to be a complete solution; it's merely supposed to get us a lot closer to independence from fossil fuels.
all I have to say is desalinization and hydrogen....
well okay www.focusfusion.org as well
well okay www.focusfusion.org as well
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jul 13 2007, 12:41 PM)
Forgive the jump in but wouldn't these do?
photovoltaic shingles
My south facing roof is in the shade of two beautiful oak trees. In fact, my neighborhood is in a forest. I barely get enough sunlight to grow tomatos. Solar is not very practical in my neck of the woods.
photovoltaic shingles
My south facing roof is in the shade of two beautiful oak trees. In fact, my neighborhood is in a forest. I barely get enough sunlight to grow tomatos. Solar is not very practical in my neck of the woods.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 13 2007, 01:38 PM)
Only kids talk about Neocons so I'm betting my kids (who also think they know it all) are probably your age.
You might not have a clue about it, but it was the neocons who invented that term in the first place. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, and Libby are the well-known ones, but there are others like Kristol and Abrams for example. You can still observe for yourself the continuing neocon stream of consciousness on the PNAC website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), where you will also find a more complete and refined list than I can provide from memory (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)
QUOTE
Bush is still in power yet there is a Democratic Congress.
Is he really?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Bush is still in power yet there is a Democratic Congress. |
Is he really?
The FACTS are that the Repbulican Congress pulled out of the BLOATED ITER project but they ALSO increased funding for domestic fusion research by $223 million. (There was a strong feeling that the US should 'go it alone' on this)
And here's the spin-free version, from an article dating to the period (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa36...707/ai_n8762556):
QUOTE
The United States has not only failed to build new tokamak experiments, it has also not adequately supported the operation of the experiments it did build or the complementary parts of the fusion program. After peaking at about $600 million (in 1995 dollars) in the late 1970s, the annual U.S. fusion budget has declined to $232 million this year. As a result, fusion researchers had to abandon many worthwhile efforts. Concentrating on the tokamak configuration has paid off in terms of scientific advancement, but it has substantially narrowed the scientific and institutional bases of the U.S. fusion program. Several experimental facilities intended to explore alternative magnetic-confinement concepts were shut down prematurely. The fusion technology program was reduced drastically. The broader objectives and the schedule associated with the former goal of practical fusion energy have recently been delayed, replaced by the more limited objective of exploring the underlying science.
If the United States does not support ITER, it will be abandoning the centerpiece of its program and the tokamak concept at a time when advanced operating modes for achieving enhanced performance and more attractive reactor prospects are rapidly developing. By necessity, the emphasis would shift to alternative confinement concepts for which a state-of-the art facility is more affordable. Unfortunately, the reason that the cost is lower is that these concepts are at least 20 years behind the tokamak.
So, with that cleared up, let's address this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The United States has not only failed to build new tokamak experiments, it has also not adequately supported the operation of the experiments it did build or the complementary parts of the fusion program. After peaking at about $600 million (in 1995 dollars) in the late 1970s, the annual U.S. fusion budget has declined to $232 million this year. As a result, fusion researchers had to abandon many worthwhile efforts. Concentrating on the tokamak configuration has paid off in terms of scientific advancement, but it has substantially narrowed the scientific and institutional bases of the U.S. fusion program. Several experimental facilities intended to explore alternative magnetic-confinement concepts were shut down prematurely. The fusion technology program was reduced drastically. The broader objectives and the schedule associated with the former goal of practical fusion energy have recently been delayed, replaced by the more limited objective of exploring the underlying science. If the United States does not support ITER, it will be abandoning the centerpiece of its program and the tokamak concept at a time when advanced operating modes for achieving enhanced performance and more attractive reactor prospects are rapidly developing. By necessity, the emphasis would shift to alternative confinement concepts for which a state-of-the art facility is more affordable. Unfortunately, the reason that the cost is lower is that these concepts are at least 20 years behind the tokamak. |
So, with that cleared up, let's address this:
The pull out of the US from ITER and the increased funding forced them to REWRITE the ITER plan to something more doable, at which point the Republican Congress rejoined the ITER but DIDN'T cut funding on domestic fusion research.
From http://www.provence-pad.com/iter/rub_01_en.htm:
1998 : end of the first phase of the detailed engineering study. The United States withdraws from the co-operation. The remaining partners define a new strategy with the aim of reducing project cost but all the while maintaining scientific objectives.
2001 : handing over the final report and commitment to the process of international negotiation.
January 2003 : The United States and China join the negotiation table, followed by South Korea.
As you can see, the project reached the final phase without US participation. You can argue that they cut costs because US withdrew its support; but the Europeans will tell you they cut costs by going over the detailed design produced by the first phase of engineering analysis -- as was planned all along. Also, as you can see the US didn't rejoin the process until 2 years after the final plan was produced. Trying to paint the US as some sort of a driver in this, is a good example of political spin.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 13 2007, 02:17 PM)
We have 104 nukes now, but most are much smaller than 2,000 MW so my suggested 20 very large plants would produce about half as much as the 104 mostly smaller plants we have now, or roughly 10% of our current electrical needs.
And my point was (which you would have gotten, if only you weren't trying SO HARD to push your nuke idea), that replacing a measly 10% of our current generation capacity with other technologies (non-nuclear) should be equally feasible in the short term. Yes it would require more effort (and probably more money), but it would be the more sustainable solution in the long run.
QUOTE
I'm suggesting that other countries don't care what we think about installing Nuclear power.
Then why are we trying to get North Korea and Iran to shut down their "civilian" nuclear programs?
I don't know what you thought I was saying, but I never suggested that we try to impose our will upon the rest of the world. Personally, I think the world has had just about enough of American hegemony as-is. Rather, I see the only real solution to the problem, as us developing the technologies and products for alternative energy production, and then disseminating them throughout the world via the normal market-driven mechanisms. And by the way, we stand to benefit greatly from such an approach in the long term.
Regarding the PV roof/wall/window idea, let's do a quick-and-dirty calculation.
107 million homes in the States, as stated by adoucette (today; don't know about 2050...)
I got a map of average solar power at earth surface, from this website:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/
For parameters, I entered:
date type: average
month: annual
instrument orientation: Horizontal Flat Plate
The map shows that, with the exception of Alaska, the minimum (in northern states) is approximately 3-4 KWh/day/m^2 ranging up to 5-6 KWh/day/m^2 in the south-southwest, with the vast majority in the middle getting 4-5 (so let's take 4 as the average.)
Let's assume that of those 107 million homes, only half (50 million) either have a reasonably unobstructed view of the sky from the roof, or are participating in the program. You will also note that I assumed no tilted-south orientation, either (I'm using horizontal-flat numbers) -- which does not account for any current or future construction that would presumably be more environmentally sound. You should also keep in mind that I'm using historical solar irradiance data, not accounting for reduced cloud cover during severe droughts forecast as one of the side-effects of global warming.
Average house in the States is currently 2,349 square feet (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283), which rounds down into roughly 200 square meters. Let's adjust for 2-story houses (let's assume 50% are two-story), and thus use 3/4 of that figure (150 square meters) as the average roof area. But let's further suppose that during winter months (1/3 of the year), in about half the US landmass the roof surface is unavailable; so let's say the total available surface per house is 75 + 75 * 2/3 = 125 square meters per house.
I think I've been fairly conservative with my figures so far, no?
Ok then, let's see: 50 million homes * 125 square meters/home * 4 KWh/day/square meter * 365 days/year gives us... approximately 9 trillion KWh/year.
Let's say our PV elements are only ~15% efficient on average, so of that available energy we're only capturing 1/7th. This gives us over 1 trillion KWh/year in generated energy.
The total energy generated in the United States in 2000 (a banner year for the economy), was 3.8 trillion KWh. Thus, we could easily generate about 1/4 of our total energy demand from quite inefficient roofs, using quite inefficient PV technology, and from single-family homes alone.
This is before we ponder the potential contribution from various business premises such as gas stations, stores, offices, factories, storage depots, etc etc etc. And then let's also include apartment buildings into the mix.
And this is just talking about friggin' shingles on friggin' roofs. This is even before considering any dedicated solar plants out in the Arizona desert.
And then let's consider the possibility of PV window glass, and PV wall siding...
Now allow for more efficient PV technology going forward (let's say average 30% instead of <15%....)
And this is without considering wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, biomass, thermocouple, and hydroelectric energy sources.
And furthermore, this is without considering energy efficiency improvements, such as going to LED lighting and LED television/display technologies for example.
Now, with all of the above in mind, go and tell me it's impossible to satisfy the energy demand in the States exclusively with renewable energy sources.
107 million homes in the States, as stated by adoucette (today; don't know about 2050...)
I got a map of average solar power at earth surface, from this website:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/
For parameters, I entered:
date type: average
month: annual
instrument orientation: Horizontal Flat Plate
The map shows that, with the exception of Alaska, the minimum (in northern states) is approximately 3-4 KWh/day/m^2 ranging up to 5-6 KWh/day/m^2 in the south-southwest, with the vast majority in the middle getting 4-5 (so let's take 4 as the average.)
Let's assume that of those 107 million homes, only half (50 million) either have a reasonably unobstructed view of the sky from the roof, or are participating in the program. You will also note that I assumed no tilted-south orientation, either (I'm using horizontal-flat numbers) -- which does not account for any current or future construction that would presumably be more environmentally sound. You should also keep in mind that I'm using historical solar irradiance data, not accounting for reduced cloud cover during severe droughts forecast as one of the side-effects of global warming.
Average house in the States is currently 2,349 square feet (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283), which rounds down into roughly 200 square meters. Let's adjust for 2-story houses (let's assume 50% are two-story), and thus use 3/4 of that figure (150 square meters) as the average roof area. But let's further suppose that during winter months (1/3 of the year), in about half the US landmass the roof surface is unavailable; so let's say the total available surface per house is 75 + 75 * 2/3 = 125 square meters per house.
I think I've been fairly conservative with my figures so far, no?
Ok then, let's see: 50 million homes * 125 square meters/home * 4 KWh/day/square meter * 365 days/year gives us... approximately 9 trillion KWh/year.
Let's say our PV elements are only ~15% efficient on average, so of that available energy we're only capturing 1/7th. This gives us over 1 trillion KWh/year in generated energy.
The total energy generated in the United States in 2000 (a banner year for the economy), was 3.8 trillion KWh. Thus, we could easily generate about 1/4 of our total energy demand from quite inefficient roofs, using quite inefficient PV technology, and from single-family homes alone.
This is before we ponder the potential contribution from various business premises such as gas stations, stores, offices, factories, storage depots, etc etc etc. And then let's also include apartment buildings into the mix.
And this is just talking about friggin' shingles on friggin' roofs. This is even before considering any dedicated solar plants out in the Arizona desert.
And then let's consider the possibility of PV window glass, and PV wall siding...
Now allow for more efficient PV technology going forward (let's say average 30% instead of <15%....)
And this is without considering wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, biomass, thermocouple, and hydroelectric energy sources.
And furthermore, this is without considering energy efficiency improvements, such as going to LED lighting and LED television/display technologies for example.
Now, with all of the above in mind, go and tell me it's impossible to satisfy the energy demand in the States exclusively with renewable energy sources.
Well that's your problem then.
You realize that it would take 20 2,000 MW plants to replace 10% of our electrical generation and yet you think the output of 20 2,000 MW plants is MEASLY.
Now I get it.
You have lost touch with REALITY.
10 % of our electricity is what it takes to supply the needs for 30 MILLION people (~ 10 million homes) as well as 10% of our INDUSTRIAL and COMMERCIAL electrical use.
So, NO, the output of 20 2,000 MW plants CAN NOT in any way shape or form be described as measly.
It takes many BILLIONS of dollars and many YEARS of effort to build just ONE nuclear plant, but still they are FOUR times cheaper per kw produced than PV or Wind.
In fact it would take over 300 BILLION dollars in PV or Wind just to handle the 10% of RESIDENTAL usage.
It would require THREE times the MW capacity of PV or Wind to equal the capacity of the 20 nukes and even then it WOULD STILL require either an EXPENSIVE storage system of BACK UP power plants to handle low sun/wind days.
Arthur
You realize that it would take 20 2,000 MW plants to replace 10% of our electrical generation and yet you think the output of 20 2,000 MW plants is MEASLY.
Now I get it.
You have lost touch with REALITY.
10 % of our electricity is what it takes to supply the needs for 30 MILLION people (~ 10 million homes) as well as 10% of our INDUSTRIAL and COMMERCIAL electrical use.
So, NO, the output of 20 2,000 MW plants CAN NOT in any way shape or form be described as measly.
It takes many BILLIONS of dollars and many YEARS of effort to build just ONE nuclear plant, but still they are FOUR times cheaper per kw produced than PV or Wind.
In fact it would take over 300 BILLION dollars in PV or Wind just to handle the 10% of RESIDENTAL usage.
It would require THREE times the MW capacity of PV or Wind to equal the capacity of the 20 nukes and even then it WOULD STILL require either an EXPENSIVE storage system of BACK UP power plants to handle low sun/wind days.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 05:55 PM)
I think I've been fairly conservative with my figures so far, no?
Ok then, let's see: 50 million homes * 125 square meters * 4 KWh/day * 365 days/year gives us... approximately 9 trillion KWh/year.
Ooh boy, YOU'VE convinced me.
Lets get started tomorrow.
Arthur
PS 150 sq meters of PV would cost more than $100,000 for JUST the panels.
http://www.solarexpert.com/CatShell.html
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 13 2007, 11:06 PM)
It takes many BILLIONS of dollars and many YEARS of effort to build just ONE nuclear plant, but still they are FOUR times cheaper per kw produced than PV or Wind.
As I've shown above, those many years and billions of dollars would be better spent generating new renewable technologies (other than nuclear), and incubating the industry to mass-manufacture them.
QUOTE
PS 150 sq meters of PV would cost more than $100,000 for JUST the panels.
You refuse to admit that mass-production lowers costs to a point drastically below what they are today.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
PS 150 sq meters of PV would cost more than $100,000 for JUST the panels. |
You refuse to admit that mass-production lowers costs to a point drastically below what they are today.
Ooh boy, YOU'VE convinced me.
I think it's safe to conclude that YOU will never be convinced. Apparently you are either brainwashed, or bought (or both?) on the nuclear power idea, and you are utterly incapable of considering alternatives.
At this point, I'm speaking to anyone else who might read these posts.
From http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html:
QUOTE
All of California's electricity can be produced from 200 square miles of sunshine; 128,000 acres of desert land. Lake Mead, behind Hoover Dam, covers more than 200 square miles. Given an area the size of Lake Mead, for the production of electricity from solar energy, California would be energy independent.
CSP plants seem to use a lot of land, but in reality, they use less land than hydroelectric dams for generating an equivalent electricity output, if the size of the lake behind the dam is considered. The same is true for coal plants. A CSP plant will not use any more land than a coal power plant if the amount of land required for mining and excavation of the coal is taken into consideration.
If the sunshine radiating on the surface of an area 100 miles wide by 100 miles long would provide all of the electricity that America needs, every day, why would Americans hesitate to use it? There are millions of open acres in the deserts of America, where the sun’s energy does nothing more than heat rocks and sand everyday.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 05:14 PM)
Then why are we trying to get North Korea and Iran to shut down their "civilian" nuclear programs?
We are trying to get them to quit making enriched materials for WEAPONS.
Big difference.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 13 2007, 11:47 PM)
We are trying to get them to quit making enriched materials for WEAPONS.
Big difference.
But I thought nobody in the world gives a damn about what WE want???
Make up your mind, Arthur.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 06:22 PM)
As I've shown above, those many years and billions of dollars would be better spent generating new renewable technologies (other than nuclear), and incubating the industry to mass-manufacture them.
Actually you haven't shown that at all.
All we've seen so far is a lot of handwaving
What you don't get is that they already ARE mass produced.
There is no significantly higher economy of SCALE.
Example, Sharp recently spent 30 million dollars to increase the capacity of their existing Katsuragi Plant from 500 MW to 600 MW of solar panels per year.
600 MW equals over 5 million panels
But their solar panels are made up LOTS of small STANDARD solar cells. (i.e a 160 watt panel is made up of 72 - 132x132 mm cells)
So the creation of the 5 million panels is done though the AUTOMATED assembly of of almost 300 million individual cells (i.e. 1 million cells per day are turned into ~15,000 panels each day for 350 days per year).
So, NO, making 10 million or 20 million panels at a plant will NOT significantly lower costs.
What WILL lower costs is not production efficiency but advances in MATERIALS and increases in SOLAR CELL EFFICIENCY.
Unfortunately there is NO guarantee that existing PV plants can take advantage of advances in MATERIALS or FABRICATION techniques related to efficiency, in fact its probably more likely they won't be able to.
Arthur
Actually you haven't shown that at all.
All we've seen so far is a lot of handwaving
QUOTE
You refuse to admit that mass-production lowers costs to a point drastically below what they are today.
What you don't get is that they already ARE mass produced.
There is no significantly higher economy of SCALE.
Example, Sharp recently spent 30 million dollars to increase the capacity of their existing Katsuragi Plant from 500 MW to 600 MW of solar panels per year.
600 MW equals over 5 million panels
But their solar panels are made up LOTS of small STANDARD solar cells. (i.e a 160 watt panel is made up of 72 - 132x132 mm cells)
So the creation of the 5 million panels is done though the AUTOMATED assembly of of almost 300 million individual cells (i.e. 1 million cells per day are turned into ~15,000 panels each day for 350 days per year).
So, NO, making 10 million or 20 million panels at a plant will NOT significantly lower costs.
What WILL lower costs is not production efficiency but advances in MATERIALS and increases in SOLAR CELL EFFICIENCY.
Unfortunately there is NO guarantee that existing PV plants can take advantage of advances in MATERIALS or FABRICATION techniques related to efficiency, in fact its probably more likely they won't be able to.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 06:51 PM)
But I thought nobody in the world gives a damn about what WE want???
Make up your mind, Arthur.
They don't, in regard to Iran it is the IAEA.
The I stands for INTERNATIONAL
http://www.iaea.org/
Arthur
Before I say anything else, let me clarify a few things.
1. I'm against the idea of nuclear power.
2. I live in a country where the majority of the population is against the idea of Nuclear power.
Having said both of those things, I will now say this.
Adoucette is right.
At this point, the only viable alternative the US has when it comes to generating enough power, and lowering CO2 production is through Nuclear Power, there just isn't really a viable alternative yet.
Pink Elephant: How many Manufacturers do you know of that are going to take the risk of what you're talking about?
Having said all of that, I also believe that Fission based technology should only ever be considered a short term solution (and I know i've stated this several times in this thread). I also happen to believe that there will come a time in the near future, as populations continue to grow, and economies continue to expand that we're going to need something with a higher power density then the current generation of fission reactors. This may be an improved design, it may come from fusion technology, or it may come from some other source, or maybe some sort of international effort. Ultimately, I believe that we're going to have to get over nationalism, and do things like - put a bunch of Solar Power Plants in Sub-sharan, and Saharan Africa, and find a way of exporting unused power to places that need it.
I know that at this point, that's nothing more then a pipe dream, but...
Being able to do things like that will enable us to do things like... Harness some of the energy that is currently going to 'waste' in the southern ocean (the circumpolar current, the roaring fourties), or set up some wind generators in Antarctica. But before w can do any of that (well, NZ could, after all, some of what i'm talking about is within our territorial waters, and economic zone, same goes for Argentina) we need to work on transmission technologies, and get a damn site more co-operation between countries then we currently have.
And I would like to point something else ou while i'm at it.
Last time I checke dthe news, the US administration wasn't objecting primarily to Civillian nuclear power plants in Iran, or North Korea (although I can see how some of the American news agencies might have given it that twist). What they're objecting to is a specific kind of Nuclear Reactor. These Nuclear reactors are called fast breeder reactors, and as a part of their normal day to day power generation capabilities, the generate fast neutrons. Those fast neutrons react with Uranium-238, which then decays to Plutonium-239, which just happens to be Weapons grade plutonium. The US and the former soviet union used fast breeder reactors for a time for exactly this purpose during the cold war. It's the fact that these reactors are so easily capable of generating weapons grade plutonium while generating civilian electricity that has the US administration up in arms (Bare in mind that reactor grade Uranium only contains 3-4% U-235, and most of the remaining 96-97% of the material is U-238 which is unusable in a normal reactor).
1. I'm against the idea of nuclear power.
2. I live in a country where the majority of the population is against the idea of Nuclear power.
Having said both of those things, I will now say this.
Adoucette is right.
At this point, the only viable alternative the US has when it comes to generating enough power, and lowering CO2 production is through Nuclear Power, there just isn't really a viable alternative yet.
Pink Elephant: How many Manufacturers do you know of that are going to take the risk of what you're talking about?
Having said all of that, I also believe that Fission based technology should only ever be considered a short term solution (and I know i've stated this several times in this thread). I also happen to believe that there will come a time in the near future, as populations continue to grow, and economies continue to expand that we're going to need something with a higher power density then the current generation of fission reactors. This may be an improved design, it may come from fusion technology, or it may come from some other source, or maybe some sort of international effort. Ultimately, I believe that we're going to have to get over nationalism, and do things like - put a bunch of Solar Power Plants in Sub-sharan, and Saharan Africa, and find a way of exporting unused power to places that need it.
I know that at this point, that's nothing more then a pipe dream, but...
Being able to do things like that will enable us to do things like... Harness some of the energy that is currently going to 'waste' in the southern ocean (the circumpolar current, the roaring fourties), or set up some wind generators in Antarctica. But before w can do any of that (well, NZ could, after all, some of what i'm talking about is within our territorial waters, and economic zone, same goes for Argentina) we need to work on transmission technologies, and get a damn site more co-operation between countries then we currently have.
And I would like to point something else ou while i'm at it.
Last time I checke dthe news, the US administration wasn't objecting primarily to Civillian nuclear power plants in Iran, or North Korea (although I can see how some of the American news agencies might have given it that twist). What they're objecting to is a specific kind of Nuclear Reactor. These Nuclear reactors are called fast breeder reactors, and as a part of their normal day to day power generation capabilities, the generate fast neutrons. Those fast neutrons react with Uranium-238, which then decays to Plutonium-239, which just happens to be Weapons grade plutonium. The US and the former soviet union used fast breeder reactors for a time for exactly this purpose during the cold war. It's the fact that these reactors are so easily capable of generating weapons grade plutonium while generating civilian electricity that has the US administration up in arms (Bare in mind that reactor grade Uranium only contains 3-4% U-235, and most of the remaining 96-97% of the material is U-238 which is unusable in a normal reactor).
Riven
Member # 1495
posted 07-13-2007 01:12 AM
Atlantis Rising Magazine
Academy of Risen Atlanteans
TOA - Tribes of Atlantis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, basicaly, Heka is to bind or trap like a mirror.
Or Chains of Cain.Such as Two I's represent Two Pillars.
Bind the Pillars across and you have an H,trapped.
Bind the ^ across, and you have an A,
like the Neck brace they use to enslave people by the symbolism of this heiroglyph in Egypt, where we see the slanted A we think is an agricultural implement.
You'll see this in the movie Apocolypto.
Peculiar, because as you see, it seems we may now know the truth of this 11:11 for the binding of The King for our Earth, for 11, is a Kings number like 10,the perfect
number that we shifted from.
Or 10:10 of Unison as cleverly dispalyed on many watch commercials also,ironicaly.
As if they know.
No doubt from the Secrets of Mirrors and whispers.
Not only does 11:11 reflect the trapped Kings like The O symbol of Trapped Chimaeras on the Narmer Hathor palette, but also the Family of Time.1111.
We know .111.(Our Sacred Trinity), for the Daughter is Hidden like the Ipse Mother, also is.
But goddesses are not, nor gods because in truth gods or goddesses are just princes and princesses wanting to be adults.
As the Daughters truth is also hidden of her real temptations which were torturations of rape and harlotries for the seeds of evil Hellions.
And the murder of Her Brother. The Son (Sun)
And the Subjugations of The Father and Mother Eternities.
Peculiar also these simplest of words as follows.
With identification of undivine mergers or mirrors of whispers.
H - Umans
H - Eavan
H - Ell
Pretty much sums up our 6000 year old war that continues today,still,atrociously and hideously for the East Vs West.
As the Stitch of The Nile separates The Greatest Divide.
The outer side of the Gardens border river,where men feared to cross from Father's kingdom.
But they did, and faded in time from Father for Vanity like HaTupTaH, the mirror of Self Hatred.
So in trut, we understand why we became H-Umans from our true selves as Risen A's or Twin Falcons / Eagles.
For Twin Falcons are Twin Pillars of Earth and Eternal Father with Eternal Mother, Aer and Aer AeJon.
The Risen AA's of The Twin AA's who came after for the purpose of AeJon's First Eternal Garden which The Hellions destroyed when they landed at Richat and conducted
by Candlelight with the Dogones, for God is the chosen name of Satan's Hellion understanding encoded into our structures of Ipse.
As you see, the mirror is Dog as Evil is Live.
So too was their purpose embedded into the deepest recesses of our minds.
Better known as Corruption which they trie to accelerate on a daily basis in our medias...no doubt for childrens rotted shows of mentality and grey cartoons.
No need to spoil the fun with violence or perversions of horrendous thoughts.We know the couple kissing in the movie is going to have sex, we don't need to ruin the movie
with perversions and loose our Ipse.
Meaning is everything as knowing is immortal.
So it is, we understand letters and numbers with greater vigor than before.
For the purpose is Ten or TENT as You See of Eternal Father Creator of Umans...JA-Mn.
For truly the letter J was and is Hidden as Y is glorified for harlotries of money and lusts.
As Za (H) was also the Obsidian son of The Evil Eye, for as Their is Father, so their is Father of Darkness in our Universe and perils.
The Evil Eye as Twin to our Pure Eye of Avila. Some realms theirs, some realms ours.
This Earth, as you know it, and our Galaxy, is a Gift for Eternal Father's Wife.
Like The Taj Mahal for the love of purity and exhaltations of animosities.
Our Northern Pole Star reminds us of this Gift to always see Ipse or Leucippe as our Atlantean legend of UadJAor Resne and Solon discussed with King Amasis II ca
570.bC.
As you can see, Humans, Heavan and Hell is the Great Nile Divide.
Eavan as we know is King Evanor of Atlantis which also reflects our Pole Star.As the history teaches us through evolvment,this name was from father JA Mn as was JAvan
or DJeT.
AEJANOR.
So it is peculiar that Eternal Father's Kingdom should be named Heavan for Evanor's kingdom of Atlanteans and Atlantis.
The Mid Atlantic Jewel.
The Westward Land of The Nile.
Where it is that since The White Lord El of The East, was infected by the Stain, he became HELL of The East.
The Eastward Land of The Nile.
For the purpose of Za, the Dark Lord of The H in Eart.
For it is a bound letter as 8 is also a trapped number.
So it is the number of the Hermaphrodite.
Restored a Man with Wings of Mercury upon his heels.
Let us never to revert the Golden Orus of Umans.
For Black is Sealed in The Obsidian PitH of PtaH.
In Khem's Bottomless YA.
Separated from the Unison.
For when our Tri-Caria Merit System becomes enstated...
No longer will we need or be hindered of Ipse.
For when we say:
"We cannot continue our Space Station for lack of funds or approval"
Let us say, How many Space Stations do you want us to make?
For we can, but money cannot.
So, let us build our prosperity for All to be Fed the Setaria Grass and Chestnuts.
And sleep under the sunny Olive Tree.
No longer will you say why not, but when can we do!
For we do For Each other.
And All will Have Sustenance,Preservation and Top Securities of TAT.
For the time is 10:10.
Aeeee Ipse,AeIpse, I thought I heard ATENA say.
ATATANA.
AAAA-TATANA > ^^^^
Atlantis Lives AeJon and AeJon Aer.
Follow The North Star to Leucippes Kingdom.
For it is Centered at Ipse.
I tired of Evil, for it bored me. After all, it was senseless and childish.
Now, we are Kindred Folk without charred Xild of Hell and El will shine with Ipse for the East.
Of TAT and TOA.
To know is Immortal
To gain in wisdom is perfection.
To grow in strength is unity
To lend a hand is compassion
To til the soil is...
AeJons ago.
Then again, I doubt you would believe I have a natural large circle of a Sun on my right leg.
And chest hairs that look like a Falcon or Eagle.
Covering this Lions CoreSon.
As I have Eternal Father's Written name seen on Top of The Great Pyramid of Cairo...
So it is written between my forebrow...JA.
One Seen,One not.
Remember, the newer updated Google Earth programs have more light added around the Great pyramids, where as you can see, with older programs...
the written letters stand out...
and for a purpose of Eternal Father's Will.
For I never knew their was letters up there and his face and name inside on the airshaft stone plug.
Did you?
Timing is of the utmost Essence between the Black and The White Mirrors.
The Snake charmers in India toot their horns so the cobras will rise.
But the Serpents will lie still for them to know that Father has returned.
Just as they were signaled with fireballs of the Fallen Dark Prince...Zathanel Hathuptah.
And the "Boom" in the realm of immateria was heard around this earth.
----------------------------------------------
So now you know the Forbidden name of Satan;
the Fallen Dark Prince...Zathanel Hatuptah.
Nathan
Nathan (God-given), the name of several Israelites mentioned in the Old Testament.
(1) Nathan, successor of Samuel and prophet in the times of David and Solomon
No indication is given as to his origin, and he appears in the narrative for the first time when David is contemplating the erection of a house to the Lord (2 Samuel 7). He
assures the monarch of the Lord's support and of the divinely ordained establishment of his kingdom for all time, but dissuades him from the idea of building the proposed
temple, stating that this honour was reserved for his son and successor (2 Samuel 7:13; 1 Chronicles 17:1-15). Nathan appears later to reproach David in the name of the Lord
for his crime of adultery and murder narrated in 2 Samuel 11, and, after skilfully proposing the allegory of the poor man's little ewe lamb, surprises the king with the words:
"Thou art the man". He then declares the anger of the Lord and the punishments that are to fall upon David, although in view of the latter's repentance his sin is pronounced
forgiven, for his crimes had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (2 Samuel 12:1-15). The prophet next appears on the scene when it is question of securing
to Solomon the succession to the throne of his father. Adonias, abetted by Joab and the high priest Abiathar, made an attempt to have himself proclaimed king. The plan was
frustrated by Nathan who, first through Bethsabee and later in a personal interview, informed David as to the doings of Adonias, and persuaded the aged monarch to
confirm his promise in favour of Solomon and have him proclaimed king at the fountain of Gihon (1 Kings 1:8-45). In this instance Nathan served the interests of the country
as well as those of David and Solomon by averting a civil war. He is credited by the Chronicler with having written a part of the history of David, together with Samuel the
seer and Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 29:25). The time of Nathan's death is not given, but his name is mentioned in Ecclus., xlvii, 1.
(2) Nathan, son of David and Bethsabee (2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 3:5, 14:4)
The name Nathan augmented by the theophorous prefix or suffix is borne by other members of the family of David. Thus one of his brothers was Nathanael (1 Chronicles
2:14), and one of his nephews, Jonathan (2 Samuel 21:21).
(3) Nathan, father of Azarias and Zabud, important functionaries of the court of Solomon (1 Kings 4:5)
By some scholars he is identified with Nathan the prophet (1), and by others with Nathan the son of David (2). Both opinions are merely conjectural. His son Zabud is
designated as "priest", this being an indication, among many others, that the functions of the priesthood were not at that period exercised exclusively by the descendants of
Aaron.
(4) Nathan, son of Ethei and father of Zabad (1 Chronicles 2:36), of the tribe of Juda and of the branch of Caleb
His grandfather Jeraa was an Egyptian slave to whom Sesan gave one of his daughters in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35).
(5) Nathan, one of the prominent Jews of the time of the Captivity
Chosen by Esdras together with several others to find levites for the temple service when the Jews were camped on the banks of the Ahava preparing to return to Palestine
(Ezra 8:16).
(6) Nathan, one of the sons of Bani mentioned in I Esdras 10:39
He was among those who, at the command of Esdras, put away the foreign wives they had married.
newadvent.org/cathen/10711a.htm
As I said,Temple of The Sole of No Man and The Devils Star where whores fornicated with men in front of the Tabernacle of Satan.
As it is written by those of Heli or Hillel 88 in their belial book of black bretherens of brine, your Un-Holy Bible.
On the Hill (Gad) of Gnols and Ghouls of ZA.
ScRivened by:
Atlantean
AeJor Mn.
Your rightful Aeir of Ae.
Ipse cum unum infinitum.
8489.aJA.
2007 Anno Do Mn of Lions.
Armoured Rogue Knight.
Sword of Avila.
Royal Lion Family of Mn. - mts.net/~perasa1 - to Witness TOA - Our Truts of AeJon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3813 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003 |
Member # 1495
posted 07-13-2007 01:12 AM
Atlantis Rising Magazine
Academy of Risen Atlanteans
TOA - Tribes of Atlantis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, basicaly, Heka is to bind or trap like a mirror.
Or Chains of Cain.Such as Two I's represent Two Pillars.
Bind the Pillars across and you have an H,trapped.
Bind the ^ across, and you have an A,
like the Neck brace they use to enslave people by the symbolism of this heiroglyph in Egypt, where we see the slanted A we think is an agricultural implement.
You'll see this in the movie Apocolypto.
Peculiar, because as you see, it seems we may now know the truth of this 11:11 for the binding of The King for our Earth, for 11, is a Kings number like 10,the perfect
number that we shifted from.
Or 10:10 of Unison as cleverly dispalyed on many watch commercials also,ironicaly.
As if they know.
No doubt from the Secrets of Mirrors and whispers.
Not only does 11:11 reflect the trapped Kings like The O symbol of Trapped Chimaeras on the Narmer Hathor palette, but also the Family of Time.1111.
We know .111.(Our Sacred Trinity), for the Daughter is Hidden like the Ipse Mother, also is.
But goddesses are not, nor gods because in truth gods or goddesses are just princes and princesses wanting to be adults.
As the Daughters truth is also hidden of her real temptations which were torturations of rape and harlotries for the seeds of evil Hellions.
And the murder of Her Brother. The Son (Sun)
And the Subjugations of The Father and Mother Eternities.
Peculiar also these simplest of words as follows.
With identification of undivine mergers or mirrors of whispers.
H - Umans
H - Eavan
H - Ell
Pretty much sums up our 6000 year old war that continues today,still,atrociously and hideously for the East Vs West.
As the Stitch of The Nile separates The Greatest Divide.
The outer side of the Gardens border river,where men feared to cross from Father's kingdom.
But they did, and faded in time from Father for Vanity like HaTupTaH, the mirror of Self Hatred.
So in trut, we understand why we became H-Umans from our true selves as Risen A's or Twin Falcons / Eagles.
For Twin Falcons are Twin Pillars of Earth and Eternal Father with Eternal Mother, Aer and Aer AeJon.
The Risen AA's of The Twin AA's who came after for the purpose of AeJon's First Eternal Garden which The Hellions destroyed when they landed at Richat and conducted
by Candlelight with the Dogones, for God is the chosen name of Satan's Hellion understanding encoded into our structures of Ipse.
As you see, the mirror is Dog as Evil is Live.
So too was their purpose embedded into the deepest recesses of our minds.
Better known as Corruption which they trie to accelerate on a daily basis in our medias...no doubt for childrens rotted shows of mentality and grey cartoons.
No need to spoil the fun with violence or perversions of horrendous thoughts.We know the couple kissing in the movie is going to have sex, we don't need to ruin the movie
with perversions and loose our Ipse.
Meaning is everything as knowing is immortal.
So it is, we understand letters and numbers with greater vigor than before.
For the purpose is Ten or TENT as You See of Eternal Father Creator of Umans...JA-Mn.
For truly the letter J was and is Hidden as Y is glorified for harlotries of money and lusts.
As Za (H) was also the Obsidian son of The Evil Eye, for as Their is Father, so their is Father of Darkness in our Universe and perils.
The Evil Eye as Twin to our Pure Eye of Avila. Some realms theirs, some realms ours.
This Earth, as you know it, and our Galaxy, is a Gift for Eternal Father's Wife.
Like The Taj Mahal for the love of purity and exhaltations of animosities.
Our Northern Pole Star reminds us of this Gift to always see Ipse or Leucippe as our Atlantean legend of UadJAor Resne and Solon discussed with King Amasis II ca
570.bC.
As you can see, Humans, Heavan and Hell is the Great Nile Divide.
Eavan as we know is King Evanor of Atlantis which also reflects our Pole Star.As the history teaches us through evolvment,this name was from father JA Mn as was JAvan
or DJeT.
AEJANOR.
So it is peculiar that Eternal Father's Kingdom should be named Heavan for Evanor's kingdom of Atlanteans and Atlantis.
The Mid Atlantic Jewel.
The Westward Land of The Nile.
Where it is that since The White Lord El of The East, was infected by the Stain, he became HELL of The East.
The Eastward Land of The Nile.
For the purpose of Za, the Dark Lord of The H in Eart.
For it is a bound letter as 8 is also a trapped number.
So it is the number of the Hermaphrodite.
Restored a Man with Wings of Mercury upon his heels.
Let us never to revert the Golden Orus of Umans.
For Black is Sealed in The Obsidian PitH of PtaH.
In Khem's Bottomless YA.
Separated from the Unison.
For when our Tri-Caria Merit System becomes enstated...
No longer will we need or be hindered of Ipse.
For when we say:
"We cannot continue our Space Station for lack of funds or approval"
Let us say, How many Space Stations do you want us to make?
For we can, but money cannot.
So, let us build our prosperity for All to be Fed the Setaria Grass and Chestnuts.
And sleep under the sunny Olive Tree.
No longer will you say why not, but when can we do!
For we do For Each other.
And All will Have Sustenance,Preservation and Top Securities of TAT.
For the time is 10:10.
Aeeee Ipse,AeIpse, I thought I heard ATENA say.
ATATANA.
AAAA-TATANA > ^^^^
Atlantis Lives AeJon and AeJon Aer.
Follow The North Star to Leucippes Kingdom.
For it is Centered at Ipse.
I tired of Evil, for it bored me. After all, it was senseless and childish.
Now, we are Kindred Folk without charred Xild of Hell and El will shine with Ipse for the East.
Of TAT and TOA.
To know is Immortal
To gain in wisdom is perfection.
To grow in strength is unity
To lend a hand is compassion
To til the soil is...
AeJons ago.
Then again, I doubt you would believe I have a natural large circle of a Sun on my right leg.
And chest hairs that look like a Falcon or Eagle.
Covering this Lions CoreSon.
As I have Eternal Father's Written name seen on Top of The Great Pyramid of Cairo...
So it is written between my forebrow...JA.
One Seen,One not.
Remember, the newer updated Google Earth programs have more light added around the Great pyramids, where as you can see, with older programs...
the written letters stand out...
and for a purpose of Eternal Father's Will.
For I never knew their was letters up there and his face and name inside on the airshaft stone plug.
Did you?
Timing is of the utmost Essence between the Black and The White Mirrors.
The Snake charmers in India toot their horns so the cobras will rise.
But the Serpents will lie still for them to know that Father has returned.
Just as they were signaled with fireballs of the Fallen Dark Prince...Zathanel Hathuptah.
And the "Boom" in the realm of immateria was heard around this earth.
----------------------------------------------
So now you know the Forbidden name of Satan;
the Fallen Dark Prince...Zathanel Hatuptah.
Nathan
Nathan (God-given), the name of several Israelites mentioned in the Old Testament.
(1) Nathan, successor of Samuel and prophet in the times of David and Solomon
No indication is given as to his origin, and he appears in the narrative for the first time when David is contemplating the erection of a house to the Lord (2 Samuel 7). He
assures the monarch of the Lord's support and of the divinely ordained establishment of his kingdom for all time, but dissuades him from the idea of building the proposed
temple, stating that this honour was reserved for his son and successor (2 Samuel 7:13; 1 Chronicles 17:1-15). Nathan appears later to reproach David in the name of the Lord
for his crime of adultery and murder narrated in 2 Samuel 11, and, after skilfully proposing the allegory of the poor man's little ewe lamb, surprises the king with the words:
"Thou art the man". He then declares the anger of the Lord and the punishments that are to fall upon David, although in view of the latter's repentance his sin is pronounced
forgiven, for his crimes had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (2 Samuel 12:1-15). The prophet next appears on the scene when it is question of securing
to Solomon the succession to the throne of his father. Adonias, abetted by Joab and the high priest Abiathar, made an attempt to have himself proclaimed king. The plan was
frustrated by Nathan who, first through Bethsabee and later in a personal interview, informed David as to the doings of Adonias, and persuaded the aged monarch to
confirm his promise in favour of Solomon and have him proclaimed king at the fountain of Gihon (1 Kings 1:8-45). In this instance Nathan served the interests of the country
as well as those of David and Solomon by averting a civil war. He is credited by the Chronicler with having written a part of the history of David, together with Samuel the
seer and Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 29:25). The time of Nathan's death is not given, but his name is mentioned in Ecclus., xlvii, 1.
(2) Nathan, son of David and Bethsabee (2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 3:5, 14:4)
The name Nathan augmented by the theophorous prefix or suffix is borne by other members of the family of David. Thus one of his brothers was Nathanael (1 Chronicles
2:14), and one of his nephews, Jonathan (2 Samuel 21:21).
(3) Nathan, father of Azarias and Zabud, important functionaries of the court of Solomon (1 Kings 4:5)
By some scholars he is identified with Nathan the prophet (1), and by others with Nathan the son of David (2). Both opinions are merely conjectural. His son Zabud is
designated as "priest", this being an indication, among many others, that the functions of the priesthood were not at that period exercised exclusively by the descendants of
Aaron.
(4) Nathan, son of Ethei and father of Zabad (1 Chronicles 2:36), of the tribe of Juda and of the branch of Caleb
His grandfather Jeraa was an Egyptian slave to whom Sesan gave one of his daughters in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35).
(5) Nathan, one of the prominent Jews of the time of the Captivity
Chosen by Esdras together with several others to find levites for the temple service when the Jews were camped on the banks of the Ahava preparing to return to Palestine
(Ezra 8:16).
(6) Nathan, one of the sons of Bani mentioned in I Esdras 10:39
He was among those who, at the command of Esdras, put away the foreign wives they had married.
newadvent.org/cathen/10711a.htm
As I said,Temple of The Sole of No Man and The Devils Star where whores fornicated with men in front of the Tabernacle of Satan.
As it is written by those of Heli or Hillel 88 in their belial book of black bretherens of brine, your Un-Holy Bible.
On the Hill (Gad) of Gnols and Ghouls of ZA.
ScRivened by:
Atlantean
AeJor Mn.
Your rightful Aeir of Ae.
Ipse cum unum infinitum.
8489.aJA.
2007 Anno Do Mn of Lions.
Armoured Rogue Knight.
Sword of Avila.
Royal Lion Family of Mn. - mts.net/~perasa1 - to Witness TOA - Our Truts of AeJon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3813 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003 |
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 14 2007, 12:03 AM)
But their solar panels are made up LOTS of small STANDARD solar cells. (i.e a 160 watt panel is made up of 72 - 132x132 mm cells)
So the creation of the 5 million panels is done though the AUTOMATED assembly of of almost 300 million individual cells (i.e. 1 million cells per day are turned into ~15,000 panels each day for 350 days per year).
You are limited by a lack of imagination, a lack of information, and a lack of perspective. Even today, in the year 2007, I can offer you the following after 30 minutes of searching:
Here's an alternative to the Shell manufacturing method:
http://www.evergreensolar.com/app/en/home/
And here's what's coming down the pipe:
http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2007.04.18.n.php
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...solarcells.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...olar-cells.html
http://www.lbl.gov/msd/PIs/Walukiewicz/02/...r_Spectrum.html
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/nsolcel.htm
What would I be able to find you in the year 2010, 2020, 2030?
QUOTE
So, NO, making 10 million or 20 million panels at a plant will NOT significantly lower costs.
I do not believe the current generation of silicon-based polycrystalline solar cells is the answer. Acting as if it were, is like pretending that the 1920-era biplanes are going to be the long-term solution for public air travel. We must look to newer technologies, which must be:
1) Researched and Developed
2) Mass-produced
There is no fundamental theoretical obstacle here; the problem requires a practical assault of the Edissonian variety. Hence, the suggested "Apollo project". Am I getting through to you, yet?
As for silicon-based PV, one of the main reasons for the high cost is that the raw material (polycrystalline silicon) has been quite expensive, and has grown even more expensive of late. And that is due to the fact that this raw material isn't being produced in sufficient quantities to satisfy the escalating demand. To put it plainly, the producers of polysilicon have been caught with their pants down, and are now scrambling to catch up. This is just another example where mass-production will solve a cost problem (at least to an extent.)
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/03/67013
Nevertheless, I strongly believe the future of PV is in plastics and nanomaterials, not silicon.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So, NO, making 10 million or 20 million panels at a plant will NOT significantly lower costs. |
I do not believe the current generation of silicon-based polycrystalline solar cells is the answer. Acting as if it were, is like pretending that the 1920-era biplanes are going to be the long-term solution for public air travel. We must look to newer technologies, which must be:
1) Researched and Developed
2) Mass-produced
There is no fundamental theoretical obstacle here; the problem requires a practical assault of the Edissonian variety. Hence, the suggested "Apollo project". Am I getting through to you, yet?
As for silicon-based PV, one of the main reasons for the high cost is that the raw material (polycrystalline silicon) has been quite expensive, and has grown even more expensive of late. And that is due to the fact that this raw material isn't being produced in sufficient quantities to satisfy the escalating demand. To put it plainly, the producers of polysilicon have been caught with their pants down, and are now scrambling to catch up. This is just another example where mass-production will solve a cost problem (at least to an extent.)
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/03/67013
Nevertheless, I strongly believe the future of PV is in plastics and nanomaterials, not silicon.
What WILL lower costs is not production efficiency but advances in MATERIALS and increases in SOLAR CELL EFFICIENCY.
See above.
QUOTE
Unfortunately there is NO guarantee that existing PV plants can take advantage of advances in MATERIALS or FABRICATION techniques related to efficiency, in fact its probably more likely they won't be able to.
And precisely what relationship does this have with the price of tea in China?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Unfortunately there is NO guarantee that existing PV plants can take advantage of advances in MATERIALS or FABRICATION techniques related to efficiency, in fact its probably more likely they won't be able to. |
And precisely what relationship does this have with the price of tea in China?
The I stands for INTERNATIONAL
Oh, you mean, kind of like the Kyoto Protocol?
But pray tell, what would make any nation around the world opposed to investing in (say) 30% efficient solar cells that go for (say) $20 per square meter (here, I'm imagining ones built primarily from plastic, with perhaps some nanoparticles)? I KNOW they don't exist right now. But are you going to tell me they will NEVER exist??? (in which case, I would LOVE to hear your theoretical proof...)
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 14 2007, 02:30 PM)
You are limited by a lack of imagination, a lack of information, and a lack of perspective. Even today, in the year 2007, I can offer you the following after 30 minutes of searching:
Here's an alternative to the Shell manufacturing method:
http://www.evergreensolar.com/app/en/home/
And here's what's coming down the pipe:
http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2007.04.18.n.php
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...solarcells.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...olar-cells.html
http://www.lbl.gov/msd/PIs/Walukiewicz/02/...r_Spectrum.html
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/nsolcel.htm
And yet none of that changes the fact that even using the ribbon technology Solar PANELS are STILL constructed by assembling several solar CELLS together.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 09:30 PM)
You are limited by a lack of imagination, a lack of information, and a lack of perspective. Even today, in the year 2007, I can offer you the following after 30 minutes of searching:
Here's an alternative to the Shell manufacturing method:
http://www.evergreensolar.com/app/en/home/
You'll note that Evergreen's LATEST plant is 1/10th the size of the plant I referenced.
QUOTE
Thalheim, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, June 19, 2007 – EverQ, a manufacturer of Evergreen Solar-branded solar panels, today marked another milestone in its rapid growth with the opening of a second factory in Thalheim, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. The new 60-MW facility began operations just one year after the opening of the first EverQ production plant at the same location.
The expansion increases the joint venture's manufacturing capacity of 30MW by another 60 MW. By the end of the year, the workforce at the new plant will number 450,
The expansion increases the joint venture's manufacturing capacity of 30MW by another 60 MW. By the end of the year, the workforce at the new plant will number 450,
Note that the workforce is 450 for 60 MW or 7.5 people per MW per year output.
So to put it in perspective.
What you think is the 'state of the art' would, to manufacture the equiv amount of PV to provide 10% of our electricity, would take 900,000 man years.
To put that in perspective, GM has 120,000 workers.
I'm NOT against expansion of PV or Wind, in fact I'm all for it.
And while I don't believe that I lack neither imagination, information or perspective.
I AM realistic about what these alternative energy sources can provide now and how fast they can be ramped up.
Still, I don't accept any solution that has a key section titled "and then a miracle occurs"
What YOU seem to lack is an appreciation for the MAGNITITUDE of the problem.
Which is what led you to make the quip about 10% of our Electrical output as being MEASLY.
Once you get a better handle on how much electricity we currently produce you might have a better appreciation for what it will take to replace JUST the coal portion of it.
Personally I think its A MONUMENTAL problem.
Which will require AS MUCH PV as we can afford and AS MUCH WIND as we can install and AS MUCH GEO as we can drill and AS MUCH SOLAR as we can site.
But even WITH all that PV, WIND, SOLAR and GEO, it will be almost impossible to keep our CO2 level steady (let alone 80% below 2000) given our PROJECTED INCREASE in electrical demand over the next 40 years as our population soars by ANOTHER 120 MILLION people.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimpro...tprojtab01a.xls
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 14 2007, 03:12 AM)
You'll note that Evergreen's LATEST plant is 1/10th the size of the plant I referenced.
Note that the workforce is 450 for 60 MW or 7.5 people per MW per year output.
That's because Evergreen is a STARTUP.
And see above regarding what I said about the relationship between mass-production and cost (as well as how it applies to the cost and supply of polysilicon.)
http://www.plentymag.com/features/2006/11/sand_trap.php
QUOTE
What you think is the 'state of the art' would, to manufacture the equiv amount of PV to provide 10% of our electricity, would take 900,000 man years.
To put that in perspective, GM has 120,000 workers.
I beg your pardon, but Evergreen is not the be-all and end-all of PV technology. They are merely yet another milestone along the road to cheap, widespread PV products. As for man-years, perhaps you might have heard of an exotic concept called "robotics"? In Evergreen's defense, you can't possibly expect a small startup company to magically overnight attain the level of automation typically exhibited by large, established manufacturers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What you think is the 'state of the art' would, to manufacture the equiv amount of PV to provide 10% of our electricity, would take 900,000 man years. To put that in perspective, GM has 120,000 workers. |
I beg your pardon, but Evergreen is not the be-all and end-all of PV technology. They are merely yet another milestone along the road to cheap, widespread PV products. As for man-years, perhaps you might have heard of an exotic concept called "robotics"? In Evergreen's defense, you can't possibly expect a small startup company to magically overnight attain the level of automation typically exhibited by large, established manufacturers.
But even WITH all that PV, WIND, SOLAR and GEO, it will be almost impossible to keep our CO2 level steady (let alone 80% below 2000) given our PROJECTED INCREASE in electrical demand over the next 40 years as our population soars by ANOTHER 120 MILLION people.
Sorry, but I don't see it as impossible. Difficult, certainly. But definitely doable. There is no law of physics that says you can't make a cheap 50% efficient solar collector. Just because the technology isn't there yet, does not mean it can not EVER get there. And I'd think that if any nation can pull off something like that in a mere 2 or 3 decades, it would be the USA!
Incidentally, here's a curious little snippet regarding rates of growth:
QUOTE
The production of solar energy grew by 152 percent in Germany last year, compared with 27 percent growth in the United States, according to a report issued earlier this month by consulting firm Solarbuzz.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/03/67013
And more:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The production of solar energy grew by 152 percent in Germany last year, compared with 27 percent growth in the United States, according to a report issued earlier this month by consulting firm Solarbuzz. |
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/03/67013
And more:
Renewable energy technologies, such as wind, geothermal, photovoltaic, and biomass have made major advances in the past decade. With forward-looking policies, they could play a larger role in meeting future U.S. energy needs. Renewable energy costs have dropped while reliability and performance have improved dramatically. The cost of wind power, for example, dropped from 25 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1980 to below 5 cents today. Wind is now competitive with natural gas and coal power. Increased production would further reduce costs, creating substantial economic, environmental, and national security benefits. Wind power is already emerging as an important source of rural economic development in many parts of the country. The modular nature of wind power makes it possible for farmers and ranchers to own wind farms, resulting in energy becoming a form of value-added agriculture.
Energy-efficient alternatives in this sector are also particularly compelling. Utility energy efficiency investments around the country prove that energy can be saved for much less than the cost of generating that electricity. Efficiency efforts in California, for example, have cut demand by one-fifth over the last 20 years, avoiding the need for 20 large power plants and saving consumers billions of dollars. Over time, between one-third and one-half of current U.S. electricity consumption could be saved through energy efficiency.
Now I'm real confused but I do know for fact that I was the one who pushed the governing body in New Jersey to get back to funding a positive program like nuclear power that will be able to not make nuclear weapons from is a very good idea with pointing out the relationship of Cook Nuclear plant being related to Chernobyle... Or however you spell that and the ease of pointing a laser at that type of Nuclear situation...
I have thought this over a lot and basically brow beat that toward the New Jersey People who were supposed to be supporting this after I was contacted by Focus Fusion's Board of Directors. as a good alternative fuel source.
I'd like to see the Desalinization plants across our oceans started almost immediatly so that we not only start getting the Hydrogen needed, but also water production for those states that need it.
I guess I could just sit here and watch wildfires burn the U.S. away and not make the Desalinization project produced and implemented near to immediatly. I would think this would be the smartest move and our country knows how this is needed after who explains it as Bush was out there toting Hydrogen now... Funny he does listen if nothing else...
Many good places to look at me from. I wodered if my intimidation wrap was from a Congressman or Senator hehe so I guess I just have to take a comical role toward this situation. Harassment of a doctor amuses me really...
I have thought this over a lot and basically brow beat that toward the New Jersey People who were supposed to be supporting this after I was contacted by Focus Fusion's Board of Directors. as a good alternative fuel source.
I'd like to see the Desalinization plants across our oceans started almost immediatly so that we not only start getting the Hydrogen needed, but also water production for those states that need it.
I guess I could just sit here and watch wildfires burn the U.S. away and not make the Desalinization project produced and implemented near to immediatly. I would think this would be the smartest move and our country knows how this is needed after who explains it as Bush was out there toting Hydrogen now... Funny he does listen if nothing else...
Many good places to look at me from. I wodered if my intimidation wrap was from a Congressman or Senator hehe so I guess I just have to take a comical role toward this situation. Harassment of a doctor amuses me really...
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 13 2007, 10:24 PM)
That's because Evergreen is a STARTUP.
And see above regarding what I said about the relationship between mass-production and cost (as well as how it applies to the cost and supply of polysilicon.)
http://www.plentymag.com/features/2006/11/sand_trap.php
Evergreen isn't a start up.
The company was started way back in 94 and had over $5 million in sales in 02. (PS: Evergreen has YET to show a profit, losing 30 million last year on sales of 102 million for a total loss of ~ 100 million in the last 5 years, the REASON is that their cells, while using less Silicon have not been as EFFICIENT as other companies polycrystaline cells, so they have not been able to reduce the INSTALLED cost to the customer. Their stated goal is to get to 18% efficiency by 2010)
But the point is simply that PV cells, whether the silicon is grown in ribbons or in blocks, are already produced in MASS and in HIGHLY AUTOMATED factories, in factories 10 times the size of Evergreens.
So, no you are not likely to get significant cost reductions just from scale.
Yes, we MAY eventually get improvements that make PV generated electricity cheap enough to generate our BASE load requirements, it may come, as you say by 2020 or 2030, but you can't COUNT on that happening, furthermore, considering the massive quantities you need to manufacture and install it certainly is not prudent to WAIT until 2020 or 2030.
QUOTE (Pink+)
There is no law of physics that says you can't make a cheap 50% efficient solar collector. Just because the technology isn't there yet, does not mean it can not EVER get there. And I'd think that if any nation can pull off something like that in a mere 2 or 3 decades, it would be the USA!
Which is the 'and then a miracle occurs' part of your proposed solution.
I guess I prefer to go with what we know will work while WORKING on creating your miracle.
Arthur
Which is the 'and then a miracle occurs' part of your proposed solution.
I guess I prefer to go with what we know will work while WORKING on creating your miracle.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 14 2007, 04:35 AM)
Evergreen isn't a start up.
The company was started way back in 94 and had over $5 million in sales in 02.
For crying out loud.... They ARE a startup. What part of building only their second major factory in as many years, don't you understand??
ESLR stock didn't even exist until the end of 2001!
FYI, I'm currently working at a STARTUP that has been in startup mode (i.e. venture-capital financed) for the last 12 years! The product (a medical one, in our case) is finally entering market readiness, after a long and arduous R&D phase, and is expected to go commercial 2 years from now. That means the company would have been a 14-year-old startup prior to its first sale!!
QUOTE
But the point is simply that PV cells are already produced in MASS and in HIGHLY AUTOMATED factories, in factories 10 times the size of Evergreens.
So, no you are not likely to get significant cost reductions just from scale.
TECHNOLOGY as well as scale (ESLR's manufacturing TECHNOLOGY being one example of such.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But the point is simply that PV cells are already produced in MASS and in HIGHLY AUTOMATED factories, in factories 10 times the size of Evergreens. So, no you are not likely to get significant cost reductions just from scale. |
TECHNOLOGY as well as scale (ESLR's manufacturing TECHNOLOGY being one example of such.)
Yes, we MAY get improvements that make PV generated electricity cheap enough to generate our BASE load requirements, but you can't COUNT on that happening.
Yes, I CAN.
http://www.plentymag.com/features/2006/11/sand_trap.php
http://www.epia.org/09newsletter/newslette...nth=07&c_cat=11
http://www.epia.org/09newsletter/newslette...nth=07&c_cat=17
http://www.epia.org/09newsletter/newslette...nth=07&c_cat=18
The truly SAD (for me) thing is, most of that innovation and expansion is happening outside of North America...
By contrast, with your kind of attitude, the Apollo program would have never gotten off the ground. (What? You don't ALREADY have the technology to land people on the moon? Well forget it then, since we can't COUNT on it happening...)
QUOTE (Pink+)
QUOTE
Yes, we MAY get improvements that make PV generated electricity cheap enough to generate our BASE load requirements, but you can't COUNT on that happening.
Yes, I CAN.
Well no wonder your start up has been in start up mode for 12 years, your Business plan probably requires miracles as well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, we MAY get improvements that make PV generated electricity cheap enough to generate our BASE load requirements, but you can't COUNT on that happening. |
Yes, I CAN.
Well no wonder your start up has been in start up mode for 12 years, your Business plan probably requires miracles as well.
What part of building only their second major factory in as many years, don't you understand??
The part YOU didn't understand. The part about that being the second factory in two years with their JOINT PARTNER, EverQ. They already had another factory in Marlboro and their joint partner had a factory in Thalheim. So with EverQ1 and EverQ2 together they now have FOUR factories. They are NO LONGER what anyone would consider a start-up. As if that matters, the point is, if you read their Financial Report both of their last two factories are HIGHLY AUTOMATED.
QUOTE (Pink+)
By contrast, with your kind of attitude, the Apollo program would have never gotten off the ground. (What? You don't ALREADY have the technology to land people on the moon? Well forget it then, since we can't COUNT on it happening...)
Nope, apples and oranges. The Apollo program wasn't a SURE THING either, BUT according to YOU, GW is DEADLY SERIOUS, so unlike Apollo there IS a DOWNSIDE to NOT MAKING it.
Arthur
Nope, apples and oranges. The Apollo program wasn't a SURE THING either, BUT according to YOU, GW is DEADLY SERIOUS, so unlike Apollo there IS a DOWNSIDE to NOT MAKING it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 14 2007, 05:05 AM)
Well no wonder your start up has been in start up mode for 12 years, your Business plan probably requires miracles as well.
Oh, what an excellently made point, Arthur. I'm reeling from the sheer force of your argument.
QUOTE
Nope, apples and oranges. The Apollo program wasn't a SURE THING either, BUT according to YOU, GW is DEADLY SERIOUS, so unlike Apollo there IS a DOWNSIDE to NOT MAKING it.
Except there is absolutely a 0% chance of NOT MAKING it. Unless you are aware of some law of physics, that says otherwise?
But then again, if green plants can be 95% efficient at converting sunlight into usable energy (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/30130), the physics must be legit....
There's definitely a way; all that's needed is the will.
QUOTE
Except there is absolutely a 0% chance of NOT MAKING it. Unless you are aware of some law of physics, that says otherwise?
We can do 50% now, but we can't do it economically.
You can't separate the two.
So, yes of course higher efficiencies are possible, but economical costs per watt are not guaranteed, nor is the time line.
But your willing to Gamble says a LOT about how "deadly serious" of a problem you think GW is.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 14 2007, 05:27 AM)
So, yes of course higher efficiencies are possible, but economical costs per watt are not guaranteed, nor is the time line.
Long-term, rest assured the economical costs per watt are guaranteed. For the short-term, increased energy and fuel efficiency (a.k.a. "conservation") is the best and cheapest answer anyway. As for the time line: hence the need for urgency of action. Delay tactics only serve to affect the time line negatively (and not just for PV tecnnologies, but for all renewable technologies.)
The Europeans and the Japanese, at least, understand this. That's why we will get cheap PV anyway -- just no thanks to America (does that remind anyone of fuel-efficient cars?) And instead of having something to export, for a change, our trade balance will be even more negative than it is already...
QUOTE
But your willing to Gamble says a LOT about how "deadly serious" of a problem you think GW is.
R&D of a proven phenomenon is not a gamble. It's called an investment. And like any investment, it produces a profit in the end. This applies not only to PV, but to all renewable energy technologies.
And whatever the case may be, my strategy surely beats the socks off doing nothing at all: which is precisely what the current federal policy of "voluntary reductions" in the USA is all about -- doing NOTHING.
But enough of me: you appear to have stopped, on this thread, injecting FUD into the global warming phenomenon. So since you now accept its abject reality, how come you are so flippantly hee-hawing its "deadly seriousness"?
Because it seems as if that's what is the correct path due to over population and bad thought....
Oh wait that wasn't directed at me was it...
Or maybe it was....
Remember every good turn has a good turn waiting for it and every bad has a bad... More than willing to share the good... But if you refuse the good when offered then not truely sure what exactly would be the outcome and to know what you see on so many a paths in so many a direction is something that could mind boggle even the best of quantum physicists...
Oh wait that wasn't directed at me was it...
Or maybe it was....
Remember every good turn has a good turn waiting for it and every bad has a bad... More than willing to share the good... But if you refuse the good when offered then not truely sure what exactly would be the outcome and to know what you see on so many a paths in so many a direction is something that could mind boggle even the best of quantum physicists...
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 14 2007, 12:52 AM)
But enough of me: you appear to have stopped, on this thread, injecting FUD into the global warming phenomenon. So since you now accept its abject reality, how come you are so flippantly hee-hawing its "deadly seriousness"?
Nope, I'm just pointing out your hypocritical stance.
It is YOU who claims that GW is DEADLY SERIOUS while YOU are also rejecting the ONE source of proven technology that could drastically cut CO2 emissions.
Which implies to me that you have a HIDDEN agenda.
Arthur
Nope, I'm just pointing out your hypocritical stance.
It is YOU who claims that GW is DEADLY SERIOUS while YOU are also rejecting the ONE source of proven technology that could drastically cut CO2 emissions.
Which implies to me that you have a HIDDEN agenda.
Arthur
As far as trends:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_3.pdf
The table is in Primary energy in Quadrillion BTUs
In this case Other includes: Wood, Bio, GeoThermal, Solar, PV and Wind
(Wood and BIO are by far the largest contributors to the category).
Still, while Total Energy increased by 46 Quads, OTHER didn't increase by even ONE Quad.
Year Coal Gas Oil Gas Liq Nuke Hydro Other Total
2000 91.36 91.34 146.55 9.87 25.66 27.01 5.35 397.13
2001 96.89 93.74 145.32 10.32 26.39 26.39 5.25 404.30
2002 97.05 96.72 143.11 10.53 26.68 26.44 5.58 406.12
2003 104.61 98.93 147.97 11.02 26.45 26.83 5.90 421.71
2004 113.30 102.19 154.79 11.48 27.47 27.53 6.33 443.10
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_3.pdf
The table is in Primary energy in Quadrillion BTUs
In this case Other includes: Wood, Bio, GeoThermal, Solar, PV and Wind
(Wood and BIO are by far the largest contributors to the category).
Still, while Total Energy increased by 46 Quads, OTHER didn't increase by even ONE Quad.
CODE
Year Coal Gas Oil Gas Liq Nuke Hydro Other Total
2000 91.36 91.34 146.55 9.87 25.66 27.01 5.35 397.13
2001 96.89 93.74 145.32 10.32 26.39 26.39 5.25 404.30
2002 97.05 96.72 143.11 10.53 26.68 26.44 5.58 406.12
2003 104.61 98.93 147.97 11.02 26.45 26.83 5.90 421.71
2004 113.30 102.19 154.79 11.48 27.47 27.53 6.33 443.10
As far as Japan, they continue to get FAR more energy from Nuclear and the growth of Nuclear far outpaces Other (in Japan, Other is mainly Geothermal)
CODE
Japan - primary energy use
Fuel 1988 2001
Coal 18.1% 16.8%
Hydro 4.6% 4.0%
Oil 57.3% 50.2%
Natural gas 10.1% 13.6%
Nuclear 9.0% 14.4%
Other 1.3% 1.0%
Re Japan:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip79.htm
Meanwhile
http://www.uic.com.au/nip79.htm
Meanwhile
The Advisory Committee for Energy has set as its goal that by 2010, 3.1% of the domestic energy supply will be provided by new energy sources (exclusive of geothermal energy). In 1996, the corresponding figure was only approximately 1.1%.
Clearly Japan is putting more faith in Nuclear than "Other"
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9781&size=A
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9781&size=A
Japan plans reactor that can reduce nuclear waste by 40 pct - report
QUOTE
In March 2002 the Japanese government announced that it would rely heavily on nuclear energy to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. A 10-year energy plan, submitted in July 2001 to the Minister of Economy Trade & Industry (METI), was endorsed by cabinet. It called for an increase in nuclear power generation by about 30 percent (13,000 MWe), with the expectation that utilities would have 9 to 12 new nuclear plants operating by 2011.
At present Japan has 54 reactors totalling 45,520 MWe on line, with 3 (3300 MWe) under construction and 12 (14,400 MWe) planned.
At present Japan has 54 reactors totalling 45,520 MWe on line, with 3 (3300 MWe) under construction and 12 (14,400 MWe) planned.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip79.htm
Meanwhile
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In March 2002 the Japanese government announced that it would rely heavily on nuclear energy to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. A 10-year energy plan, submitted in July 2001 to the Minister of Economy Trade & Industry (METI), was endorsed by cabinet. It called for an increase in nuclear power generation by about 30 percent (13,000 MWe), with the expectation that utilities would have 9 to 12 new nuclear plants operating by 2011. At present Japan has 54 reactors totalling 45,520 MWe on line, with 3 (3300 MWe) under construction and 12 (14,400 MWe) planned. |
http://www.uic.com.au/nip79.htm
Meanwhile
The Advisory Committee for Energy has set as its goal that by 2010, 3.1% of the domestic energy supply will be provided by new energy sources (exclusive of geothermal energy). In 1996, the corresponding figure was only approximately 1.1%.
Clearly Japan is putting more faith in Nuclear than "Other"
QUOTE
Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) – The nuclear race is Asia is well and truly on. A study has revealed that 17 of the 28 nuclear power plants under construction around the world are in Asia. All the states have declared that their nuclear programmes are for civilian purposes. Asia’s two giants, India and China are constantly on the lookout for the energy necessary to fuel their rapid development and even Japan, the world’s third largest home to nuclear plants after the United States and France, has declared that it will boost generation of power from nuclear sources from 30 to 40 percent in the next 10 years.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9781&size=A
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) – The nuclear race is Asia is well and truly on. A study has revealed that 17 of the 28 nuclear power plants under construction around the world are in Asia. All the states have declared that their nuclear programmes are for civilian purposes. Asia’s two giants, India and China are constantly on the lookout for the energy necessary to fuel their rapid development and even Japan, the world’s third largest home to nuclear plants after the United States and France, has declared that it will boost generation of power from nuclear sources from 30 to 40 percent in the next 10 years. |
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9781&size=A
Japan plans reactor that can reduce nuclear waste by 40 pct - report
I do think humans have had an effect on the global temp, however one or two good burps from the oceans sub floor methane hydrates would just trash any thing we did. whats the trigger? Even though the atmospheric record indicates frequent releases of methane from sub-sea floor deposits, we don't know the cause.And we better find out...
QUOTE (Sage of The Blue Sash+Jul 14 2007, 01:43 PM)
blah despamedy blah blah
I see troll lord of Atlantis Paulo Riven is back. I hear he briefly appeared with a new sockpuppet for the weekend, but his posts have been removed as the mods don't seem to like his spam.
What a loser.
I see troll lord of Atlantis Paulo Riven is back. I hear he briefly appeared with a new sockpuppet for the weekend, but his posts have been removed as the mods don't seem to like his spam.What a loser.
QUOTE (hawksecho+Jul 15 2007, 03:05 PM)
I do think humans have had an effect on the global temp, however one or two good burps from the oceans sub floor methane hydrates would just trash any thing we did. whats the trigger? Even though the atmospheric record indicates frequent releases of methane from sub-sea floor deposits, we don't know the cause.And we better find out...
So, Silly question? would burning it off as it escapes be better?
So, Silly question? would burning it off as it escapes be better?
No you'd do that outside the atmosphere right.....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jul 25 2007, 05:04 PM)
So, Silly question? would burning it off as it escapes be better?
No, actually that is not a silly question at all. If such a thing did happen (you would have to be ready for it) you could ignite the gas as it rises from the sea floor. Burning it into CO2 would be the better course. Leaving it as Methane is alright in smaller amounts (which would decay into CO2 anyway over a few years) but in such large quantities, detonation would be better as Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 any day of the week.
No, actually that is not a silly question at all. If such a thing did happen (you would have to be ready for it) you could ignite the gas as it rises from the sea floor. Burning it into CO2 would be the better course. Leaving it as Methane is alright in smaller amounts (which would decay into CO2 anyway over a few years) but in such large quantities, detonation would be better as Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 any day of the week.
So then floating 'sparkers' over sites where it is believed to be, or going to be, out-gassing?
Along the lines of those flashlights you only need to shake to get them to work as that principal could be used to charge a capacitor and then discharge a regular spark - simply as a result of wave activities.
But first we need figure out why they would suddenly dissolve, probably something like a slight earth interior temperature change (rise) coming through to the Surface.....
Along the lines of those flashlights you only need to shake to get them to work as that principal could be used to charge a capacitor and then discharge a regular spark - simply as a result of wave activities.
But first we need figure out why they would suddenly dissolve, probably something like a slight earth interior temperature change (rise) coming through to the Surface.....
You know. I really can't help but feel that deprioving ourselves of that much oxygen so quickly is a bad idea - it's been proven that the earths atmospheric oxygen is highly variable, and that lows tend to coincide with extinction events.
Besides, think, for a minute about some of the side effects, like the damage the shockwaves would cause, and the amount of NOx that would be produced as well as the CO2.
Besides, think, for a minute about some of the side effects, like the damage the shockwaves would cause, and the amount of NOx that would be produced as well as the CO2.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 14 2007, 02:03 PM)
Nope, I'm just pointing out your hypocritical stance.
It is YOU who claims that GW is DEADLY SERIOUS while YOU are also rejecting the ONE source of proven technology that could drastically cut CO2 emissions.
Does that mean YOU do not think GW is "DEADLY SERIOUS"? Because if you do, then why keep pointing to me as the "hypocrite"?
As far as "ONE source of proven technology", in the short term conservation and efficiency are the way to go. In the long term, it would be moronic to commit ourselves to another century full of nuclear plants (because each one is a VERY long-term investment), when ever more efficient and practical renewable technologies are coming online. It is a much smarter long-term play, to accelerate the evolution of those renewables, and to lead in their adoption and dissemination. It is also a far more universal solution, addressing the GLOBAL problem of both population and emissions growth. Nuclear plants, in contrast, are only feasible in first- and second-world countries to begin with -- never mind that world-wide spread of nuclear technology is only the second stupidest thing we can do, aside from simply doing nothing.
Which implies to me that you have a HIDDEN agenda.
That is possibly the most hilarious thing anyone's ever accused me of.
But if I am to be accused of such a thing, then perhaps I'd best state what it is. I want a redundant, distributed, diverse, affordable power grid based on renewable (solar) energy that does not pollute, does not involve militarily dangerous technology, and can be easily disseminated to every country in the world without a second thought.
That is possibly the most hilarious thing anyone's ever accused me of.
But if I am to be accused of such a thing, then perhaps I'd best state what it is. I want a redundant, distributed, diverse, affordable power grid based on renewable (solar) energy that does not pollute, does not involve militarily dangerous technology, and can be easily disseminated to every country in the world without a second thought.
As far as trends:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_3.pdf
...
Note that the bulk of those energy figures involve CO2-belching sources. In the past, the market had no way of penalizing such pollution, thus (being cheap) they tend to dominate.
However, going forward these technologies will be at an ever-increasing competitive disadvantage because the costs of their collateral pollution will be factored into their output. Meanwhile, renewable tech will be getting a boost from a differently balanced marketplace where lack of emissions will actually be an additional source of revenue all in itself. That's what the Kyoto accord (and similar structures) is all about.
Therefore, in this case discussing the past or current trends in energy use is a deceptive practice when it comes to planning for the future.
Now take a look at this chart (showing levels of funding for energy research in United States, compared to other types of research), and try to tell me that we've had a sane policy over the last few decades:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/1...GY2-for-web.gif
Speaking of solar energy "trends" in Asia and Europe vs. the United States, you might find this article (for example) quite enlightening:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12.htm
And world-wide, we have this:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/U...data.htm#table5
Annual Growth in World Energy Use by Source, 1995-2005
Energy Source Annual Rate of Growth (Percent)
Wind Power 28.6
Solar photovoltaics 26.2
Geothermal Power 3.1
Hydroelectric 1.2
Oil 1.7
Natural Gas 2.5
Nuclear Power 1.9
Coal 2.3
I do hope you understand the nature of exponential curves, enough to stop quoting the current amounts of installed energy and open your eyes to what's coming.
And incidentally here's a little something about wind energy:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52.htm
WIND ENERGY DEMAND BOOMING:
Cost Dropping Below Conventional Sources Marks Key Milestone in U.S. Shift to Renewable Energy
...
Overall, U.S. wind-generating capacity expanded by 36 percent in 2005, reaching 9,149 megawatts. This year it could expand by 50 percent. At the end of 2005, there were commercial wind farms in 30 states.
Wind power generation would grow even faster if it were not constrained by the availability of turbines. General Electric, now supplying 60 percent of the U.S. wind turbine market, is sold out through 2007. Clipper Windpower, a startup turbine manufacturer, is planning to produce 20 of its 2.5-megawatt Liberty turbines per month by mid 2006 and a total of 250 turbines in 2007. Its production is also committed well into the future.
After years of industry uncertainty, when Congress allowed the wind production tax credit (PTC) to lapse several times, the 2005 PTC extension through 2007 has given investors renewed confidence in the future of wind power. The extension of the PTC, which is designed to offset subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power, is leading to record growth in the number of new wind farms planned.
Wind energy is emerging as a centerpiece of the new energy economy, because it is abundant, inexpensive, inexhaustible, widely distributed, clean, and climate-benign. Three of the 50 states—North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas—have enough harnessable wind energy to satisfy national electricity needs. The cost of wind-generated electricity has fallen from 38¢ per kilowatt-hour in the early 1980s to 4¢ to 6¢ today, offering an almost endless supply of cheap energy.
It's actually quite astonishing to see that California is in fact a state with among the poorest wind energy potential compared to other states:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/U...data.htm#table4
Now let me guess what your response will be.... "blah blah nuclear blah blah nuclear only nuclear forget everything else blah blah blah"
It is YOU who claims that GW is DEADLY SERIOUS while YOU are also rejecting the ONE source of proven technology that could drastically cut CO2 emissions.
Does that mean YOU do not think GW is "DEADLY SERIOUS"? Because if you do, then why keep pointing to me as the "hypocrite"?
As far as "ONE source of proven technology", in the short term conservation and efficiency are the way to go. In the long term, it would be moronic to commit ourselves to another century full of nuclear plants (because each one is a VERY long-term investment), when ever more efficient and practical renewable technologies are coming online. It is a much smarter long-term play, to accelerate the evolution of those renewables, and to lead in their adoption and dissemination. It is also a far more universal solution, addressing the GLOBAL problem of both population and emissions growth. Nuclear plants, in contrast, are only feasible in first- and second-world countries to begin with -- never mind that world-wide spread of nuclear technology is only the second stupidest thing we can do, aside from simply doing nothing.
QUOTE
Which implies to me that you have a HIDDEN agenda.
That is possibly the most hilarious thing anyone's ever accused me of.
But if I am to be accused of such a thing, then perhaps I'd best state what it is. I want a redundant, distributed, diverse, affordable power grid based on renewable (solar) energy that does not pollute, does not involve militarily dangerous technology, and can be easily disseminated to every country in the world without a second thought.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Which implies to me that you have a HIDDEN agenda. |
That is possibly the most hilarious thing anyone's ever accused me of.
But if I am to be accused of such a thing, then perhaps I'd best state what it is. I want a redundant, distributed, diverse, affordable power grid based on renewable (solar) energy that does not pollute, does not involve militarily dangerous technology, and can be easily disseminated to every country in the world without a second thought.
As far as trends:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_3.pdf
...
Note that the bulk of those energy figures involve CO2-belching sources. In the past, the market had no way of penalizing such pollution, thus (being cheap) they tend to dominate.
However, going forward these technologies will be at an ever-increasing competitive disadvantage because the costs of their collateral pollution will be factored into their output. Meanwhile, renewable tech will be getting a boost from a differently balanced marketplace where lack of emissions will actually be an additional source of revenue all in itself. That's what the Kyoto accord (and similar structures) is all about.
Therefore, in this case discussing the past or current trends in energy use is a deceptive practice when it comes to planning for the future.
Now take a look at this chart (showing levels of funding for energy research in United States, compared to other types of research), and try to tell me that we've had a sane policy over the last few decades:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/1...GY2-for-web.gif
Speaking of solar energy "trends" in Asia and Europe vs. the United States, you might find this article (for example) quite enlightening:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12.htm
And world-wide, we have this:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/U...data.htm#table5
CODE
Annual Growth in World Energy Use by Source, 1995-2005
Energy Source Annual Rate of Growth (Percent)
Wind Power 28.6
Solar photovoltaics 26.2
Geothermal Power 3.1
Hydroelectric 1.2
Oil 1.7
Natural Gas 2.5
Nuclear Power 1.9
Coal 2.3
I do hope you understand the nature of exponential curves, enough to stop quoting the current amounts of installed energy and open your eyes to what's coming.
And incidentally here's a little something about wind energy:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52.htm
QUOTE
WIND ENERGY DEMAND BOOMING:
Cost Dropping Below Conventional Sources Marks Key Milestone in U.S. Shift to Renewable Energy
...
Overall, U.S. wind-generating capacity expanded by 36 percent in 2005, reaching 9,149 megawatts. This year it could expand by 50 percent. At the end of 2005, there were commercial wind farms in 30 states.
Wind power generation would grow even faster if it were not constrained by the availability of turbines. General Electric, now supplying 60 percent of the U.S. wind turbine market, is sold out through 2007. Clipper Windpower, a startup turbine manufacturer, is planning to produce 20 of its 2.5-megawatt Liberty turbines per month by mid 2006 and a total of 250 turbines in 2007. Its production is also committed well into the future.
After years of industry uncertainty, when Congress allowed the wind production tax credit (PTC) to lapse several times, the 2005 PTC extension through 2007 has given investors renewed confidence in the future of wind power. The extension of the PTC, which is designed to offset subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power, is leading to record growth in the number of new wind farms planned.
Wind energy is emerging as a centerpiece of the new energy economy, because it is abundant, inexpensive, inexhaustible, widely distributed, clean, and climate-benign. Three of the 50 states—North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas—have enough harnessable wind energy to satisfy national electricity needs. The cost of wind-generated electricity has fallen from 38¢ per kilowatt-hour in the early 1980s to 4¢ to 6¢ today, offering an almost endless supply of cheap energy.
It's actually quite astonishing to see that California is in fact a state with among the poorest wind energy potential compared to other states:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/U...data.htm#table4
Now let me guess what your response will be.... "blah blah nuclear blah blah nuclear only nuclear forget everything else blah blah blah"
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 26 2007, 07:27 PM)
You know. I really can't help but feel that deprioving ourselves of that much oxygen so quickly is a bad idea - it's been proven that the earths atmospheric oxygen is highly variable, and that lows tend to coincide with extinction events.
Besides, think, for a minute about some of the side effects, like the damage the shockwaves would cause, and the amount of NOx that would be produced as well as the CO2.
We never could deprive ourselves of that much oxygen. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel and all the trees, we still would not run out of oxygen. Most of the planet's oxygen stems from the plants in the oceans. We could wipe all the Amazon rain forests and still have enough oxygen to breathe, so long as we do not kill off the sea plants before such an event occurs. That is why I would worry more about the sea than I would about hypothetical AGW.
In order for things to get uncomfortable for us, we would need at least 15,000 ppm CO2 to cause that. Burning all the fossil fuels in the world and all the clathrates under the sea simultaneously would not accomplish it. Letting that much methane out all at once without doing something about it might well poison all higher forms of placental life, however. We can survive reduced oxygen for a time. We cannot survive methane poisoning.
Scientists do not know exactly why there are mass extinctions, they only guess. There are so many theories around now about that, that trying ito master the information in them all makes one's head spin.
Additionally, I doubt very highly that there would be any shockwaves. Conditions for such a thing do not tend to come about in open air fires. Shockwaves come from enclosed spaces, such as in mines and caves. And, burning free methane into CO2 would not produce the NO and NO2 that are produced in a combustion engine. Methane, or natural gas is much cleaner a fuel than gasoline and even more so than gasoline in combustion engines, where conditions are right for oxidizing Nitrogen.
Besides, think, for a minute about some of the side effects, like the damage the shockwaves would cause, and the amount of NOx that would be produced as well as the CO2.
We never could deprive ourselves of that much oxygen. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel and all the trees, we still would not run out of oxygen. Most of the planet's oxygen stems from the plants in the oceans. We could wipe all the Amazon rain forests and still have enough oxygen to breathe, so long as we do not kill off the sea plants before such an event occurs. That is why I would worry more about the sea than I would about hypothetical AGW.
In order for things to get uncomfortable for us, we would need at least 15,000 ppm CO2 to cause that. Burning all the fossil fuels in the world and all the clathrates under the sea simultaneously would not accomplish it. Letting that much methane out all at once without doing something about it might well poison all higher forms of placental life, however. We can survive reduced oxygen for a time. We cannot survive methane poisoning.
Scientists do not know exactly why there are mass extinctions, they only guess. There are so many theories around now about that, that trying ito master the information in them all makes one's head spin.
Additionally, I doubt very highly that there would be any shockwaves. Conditions for such a thing do not tend to come about in open air fires. Shockwaves come from enclosed spaces, such as in mines and caves. And, burning free methane into CO2 would not produce the NO and NO2 that are produced in a combustion engine. Methane, or natural gas is much cleaner a fuel than gasoline and even more so than gasoline in combustion engines, where conditions are right for oxidizing Nitrogen.
More than 17,000 climate scientists DISAGREE with AGW alarmists! News here:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20779
What Climate Scientists Really Say About Global Warming:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20732
Climate Scientists' Petition Project and peer-reviewed paper on Global Warming:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
All interesting reading...
BTW, sorry about the heat wave in Europe right now but it is not due to AGW as our resident alarmists believe. Rather, it is due to monsoon conditions in Africa causing the heat from the Sahara desert to flow into Europe.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20779
What Climate Scientists Really Say About Global Warming:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20732
Climate Scientists' Petition Project and peer-reviewed paper on Global Warming:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
All interesting reading...
BTW, sorry about the heat wave in Europe right now but it is not due to AGW as our resident alarmists believe. Rather, it is due to monsoon conditions in Africa causing the heat from the Sahara desert to flow into Europe.
Shouldn't the IPCC report be a better estimation of consensus than the Heartland Institute?
QUOTE (dachpy arvile+Jul 27 2007, 07:58 PM)
We never could deprive ourselves of that much oxygen. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel and all the trees, we still would not run out of oxygen. Most of the planet's oxygen stems from the plants in the oceans. We could wipe all the Amazon rain forests and still have enough oxygen to breathe, so long as we do not kill off the sea plants before such an event occurs. That is why I would worry more about the sea than I would about hypothetical AGW.
In order for things to get uncomfortable for us, we would need at least 15,000 ppm CO2 to cause that. Burning all the fossil fuels in the world and all the clathrates under the sea simultaneously would not accomplish it. Letting that much methane out all at once without doing something about it might well poison all higher forms of placental life, however. We can survive reduced oxygen for a time. We cannot survive methane poisoning.
Scientists do not know exactly why there are mass extinctions, they only guess. There are so many theories around now about that, that trying ito master the information in them all makes one's head spin.
Additionally, I doubt very highly that there would be any shockwaves. Conditions for such a thing do not tend to come about in open air fires. Shockwaves come from enclosed spaces, such as in mines and caves. And, burning free methane into CO2 would not produce the NO and NO2 that are produced in a combustion engine. Methane, or natural gas is much cleaner a fuel than gasoline and even more so than gasoline in combustion engines, where conditions are right for oxidizing Nitrogen.
I think maybe that you need to do some more reading on Paleogeography, and paleoclimatology, among other things.
In order for things to get uncomfortable for us, we would need at least 15,000 ppm CO2 to cause that. Burning all the fossil fuels in the world and all the clathrates under the sea simultaneously would not accomplish it. Letting that much methane out all at once without doing something about it might well poison all higher forms of placental life, however. We can survive reduced oxygen for a time. We cannot survive methane poisoning.
Scientists do not know exactly why there are mass extinctions, they only guess. There are so many theories around now about that, that trying ito master the information in them all makes one's head spin.
Additionally, I doubt very highly that there would be any shockwaves. Conditions for such a thing do not tend to come about in open air fires. Shockwaves come from enclosed spaces, such as in mines and caves. And, burning free methane into CO2 would not produce the NO and NO2 that are produced in a combustion engine. Methane, or natural gas is much cleaner a fuel than gasoline and even more so than gasoline in combustion engines, where conditions are right for oxidizing Nitrogen.
I think maybe that you need to do some more reading on Paleogeography, and paleoclimatology, among other things.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jul 27 2007, 02:29 AM)
I want a redundant, distributed, diverse, affordable power grid based on renewable (solar) energy that does not pollute, does not involve militarily dangerous technology, and can be easily disseminated to every country in the world without a second thought.
Get used to disappointment.
Oh, and by the way, your Wind Power growth figures were HILARIOUS.
You'd EXPECT them to relate growth in PERCENT because when you have virtually none installed 10 years ago, the PERCENT of growth APPEARS large.
Neat trick, used mostly by most people who want to DECEIVE.
And of course they only talk in INSTALLED Capacity, which in this discussion is pretty much a USELESS term, since in reality only ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION is what matters, and what varies quite a bit with wind is LOW PRODUCTION related to INSTALLED CAPACITY.
Why?
Because this has been a MAJOR shortcoming for Wind Power, where production is not reaching even the low water mark of 30% of capacity.
But lets compare the growth of Wind as a function of PERCENT of Electrical Production.
In the last 5 years the total electrical generation has gone from
15580 Terawatts in 2001 to 18262 Terawatts in 2005, or a growth of 2,682 TeraWatts.
But Wind, even with its heavily subsidized growth (and at a 33% of installed capacity rate) only produced a growth of 122 Terawatts.
Wind (at a generous 33% capacity factor) accounted for LESS THAN 1 per cent of electrical generation in 2005.
But the GROWTH in total electrical generation, EVEN THOUGH IT IS GROWING AT A SMALLER PERCENT RATE, DWARFS the TINY NET GROWTH of Wind.
In over the LAST 5 YEARS the NET GROWTH in TOTAL ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION was 25 times the TOTAL WIND OUTPUT in 2005.
Face it, Wind may be SLIGHTLY slowing the growth of CO2, it is not anywhere near the ability to reverse the trend of increasing CO2 emissions.
Nor is Wind + Solar + Hydro + Geothermal.
Why?
Because the GROWTH in TOTAL ENERGY NEEDS is growing FASTER than the growth in these energy sources.
SO
If you think GW is a "DEADLY SERIOUS" problem then why, besides being a HYPOCRITE, do you not support the a proven method of substantially increasing our electrical generation at quantities that COULD possibly make a difference?
Arthur
Get used to disappointment.
Oh, and by the way, your Wind Power growth figures were HILARIOUS.
You'd EXPECT them to relate growth in PERCENT because when you have virtually none installed 10 years ago, the PERCENT of growth APPEARS large.
Neat trick, used mostly by most people who want to DECEIVE.
And of course they only talk in INSTALLED Capacity, which in this discussion is pretty much a USELESS term, since in reality only ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION is what matters, and what varies quite a bit with wind is LOW PRODUCTION related to INSTALLED CAPACITY.
Why?
Because this has been a MAJOR shortcoming for Wind Power, where production is not reaching even the low water mark of 30% of capacity.
But lets compare the growth of Wind as a function of PERCENT of Electrical Production.
In the last 5 years the total electrical generation has gone from
15580 Terawatts in 2001 to 18262 Terawatts in 2005, or a growth of 2,682 TeraWatts.
But Wind, even with its heavily subsidized growth (and at a 33% of installed capacity rate) only produced a growth of 122 Terawatts.
Wind (at a generous 33% capacity factor) accounted for LESS THAN 1 per cent of electrical generation in 2005.
But the GROWTH in total electrical generation, EVEN THOUGH IT IS GROWING AT A SMALLER PERCENT RATE, DWARFS the TINY NET GROWTH of Wind.
In over the LAST 5 YEARS the NET GROWTH in TOTAL ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION was 25 times the TOTAL WIND OUTPUT in 2005.
Face it, Wind may be SLIGHTLY slowing the growth of CO2, it is not anywhere near the ability to reverse the trend of increasing CO2 emissions.
Nor is Wind + Solar + Hydro + Geothermal.
Why?
Because the GROWTH in TOTAL ENERGY NEEDS is growing FASTER than the growth in these energy sources.
SO
If you think GW is a "DEADLY SERIOUS" problem then why, besides being a HYPOCRITE, do you not support the a proven method of substantially increasing our electrical generation at quantities that COULD possibly make a difference?
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2007, 03:06 AM)
I think maybe that you need to do some more reading on Paleogeography, and paleoclimatology, among other things.
You would be wrong, very wrong. Indeed, it is you who should be doing more reading. When life took more complex forms, the maximum known CO2 from proxies was ~ 7,000 ppm or so. I know how much CO2 can cause discomfort and I know how much can kill. That is a long story but here are some figures.
1,500 ppm Recommended maximum for human health (in enclosed spaces)
15,000 ppm Discomfort, increase in difficulty in breathing
20,000 ppm Deep, rapid breathing
40,000 to 60,000 ppm Heavy breathing, drowsiness, for 30 minutes, and headaches
100,000 to 240,000 ppm Narcotic effect, dizziness, unconsciousness
250,000 ppm and above Death
We will never reach such levels no matter how much we try. Too much CO2 is sunk in limestone, marble, diatomaceous earth, undersea sediments, etc., and fossil fuels will never make up the levels that are contained in those sources. Our measily ~383 ppm mean atmospheric CO2 is a mere pittance compared to what was. This is one of many reasons why I do not worry about the alarmists' claims regarding fossil fuels usage.
Additonally, detonation and demolition is something I know quite a bit about. But, that is quite another long story. Believe me when I say that igniting rising methane would not create any sort of shockwave like you would claim. Better to convert it into CO2 than let it remain in the atmosphere for ten or so years and just wait for it to oxidize into CO2 and other components. If you did not die from high concentrations of methane in the atmosphere (500,000 ppm CH4 can cause asphyxiation but we are not sure what the total atmospheric concentration of CH4 would be if all clathrates released their CH4), things would get far hotter because methane is a more potent greenhouse ga
You would be wrong, very wrong. Indeed, it is you who should be doing more reading. When life took more complex forms, the maximum known CO2 from proxies was ~ 7,000 ppm or so. I know how much CO2 can cause discomfort and I know how much can kill. That is a long story but here are some figures.
1,500 ppm Recommended maximum for human health (in enclosed spaces)
15,000 ppm Discomfort, increase in difficulty in breathing
20,000 ppm Deep, rapid breathing
40,000 to 60,000 ppm Heavy breathing, drowsiness, for 30 minutes, and headaches
100,000 to 240,000 ppm Narcotic effect, dizziness, unconsciousness
250,000 ppm and above Death
We will never reach such levels no matter how much we try. Too much CO2 is sunk in limestone, marble, diatomaceous earth, undersea sediments, etc., and fossil fuels will never make up the levels that are contained in those sources. Our measily ~383 ppm mean atmospheric CO2 is a mere pittance compared to what was. This is one of many reasons why I do not worry about the alarmists' claims regarding fossil fuels usage.
Additonally, detonation and demolition is something I know quite a bit about. But, that is quite another long story.
Believe me when I say that igniting rising methane would not create any sort of shockwave like you would claim. Better to convert it into CO2 than let it remain in the atmosphere for ten or so years and just wait for it to oxidize into CO2 and other components. If you did not die from high concentrations of methane in the atmosphere (500,000 ppm CH4 can cause asphyxiation but we are not sure what the total atmospheric concentration of CH4 would be if all clathrates released their CH4), things would get far hotter because methane is a more potent greenhouse ga