|
Quote:
So where is the balance of the 93% of the required power going to come from? Your delusional if you think its going to come form any of the sources you suggested, and thats a FACT, do some real research, and forget wiki LIES, its totally bogus. |
Quote:
Of the renewable breakdown, there are sources other than hydro that by themselves make up more than 1%. Collectively the "other" sources excluding hydro beat your 1% statement. That's a fact according to the US Govt. No one is arguing that currently oil, gas and coal are not the source of the majority of our nation's energy. The point is that this fact will not always be the same as billions of dollars are invested in renewable sources . . . this is happening. While the figures for the output of the Sun were found in Wiki, the sources listed in the Wiki appear reputable, IMO. If you have a problem with the known energy output of the Sun, why not challenge the claims? Do you not think the Sun outputs the amount of energy claimed? Best, Kurt |
The consensus is that the so called renewable s will never contribute much more than an insignificant (less than 10% is considered insignificant in the engineering world) amount of energy. For example wind. No one wants this monster in his back yard and it is a very big, very ugly, very noisy monster with significant disadvantages. Solar is up against cost and efficiency. Same for most of the rest. As long as coal and oil remain cheap, about 500 plus years at this point, none of the so called alternatives will make any sense. By then nuclear, hopefully fusion will be perfected. If not fusion, fission will still be making a lot of power. In any case nothing in our lifetimes or that of our grandchildren will ever replace conventional fuel. Alternatives should remain in the lab, where they belong, until they mature, a whole lot.
I will make my own entry to Wiki lies tomorrow. It will state that global cooling is now a fact and the price of real estate is going down. Biomass 48% vs actual 4.8% sounds like wishful thinking run amuck. By the way our gggrandparents probably used biomass, ie wood burning stoves. No pollution there. |
Quote:
Cost will always be a factor because that's the way markets work. As long as oil, gas and coal are cheaper, we'll burn that stuff. I agree here. But folks get pretty excited when their investment in solar power pays for itself and starts returning dividends via savings. Independence from utility companies and foreign energy sources and pumping electricity back into the grid is a consumer "high", especially when it translates into money. And making an earthbound Sun via fusion would be the ultimate solution; difficult problem, but humans are working on it. See ITER overview here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011161327.htm We can agree to disagree on wind, tidal and solar power. Costs are dropping and efficiencies are improving across the board and the gap of time between installations and recovery of costs is decreasing. On the micro scale, powering a home with 100% solar is realistic and costs can be recovered in significantly shorter periods of time compared to just a few years ago. It will take a major derailment to stop the huge worldwide investment in renewable energy sources and the consumers who are now demanding this clean energy, IMO. FWIW. Best, Kurt |
Quote:
What is the size of a critical mass of fission material? Answer: depending on the degree of refinement, between the sinze of a grapefruit and a basketball. What is the size of a critical mass of hydrogen for fusion? The professor would then point out the window at the sun. How much Energy is used per year worldwide? http://timeforchange.org/sites/timef...on-by-year.jpg We have about 1000 watts per meter hitting the planet. So, to meet todays energy demands for the world, we need to put a string of photovoltaic cells (5% efficient) around the middle of the earth at the equator, stretching about 300 KM wide, or from about 100 miles north of the equator to 100 miles south. |
And to power my house. My "average" consumption is 4kW/hr.
Sun is up for an average of 12 hours per day (2x factor) The sun through the day (1.414 factor) Assume fixed installation pointed at sun for maximum effect at noon on equinox (1.086 factor) Clearness ratio for Houston is about .55 (1.818 factor) Photo voltaic cell efficieny 15% (6.666 factor) I found Kyocera KC200GT 200 Watt Solar Panels for $898.00 each. I will need about 750 of these panels to meet my needs. Each panel is about 1.5 sq meters! Yep, my HOA would love a 1100 sq meter solar array on my house (about 100 feet by 100 feet), and the cost is about $700K, or twice the value of my house. |
There was a story yesterday on NPR on the Dept of Defence developing the technology for satellites which would reflect solar energy to the earth. They said no one in the past really took this type of thing serious until now because the Pentagon is involved. I found it interesting that until the guys with the guns/bombs/balls get behind it, the scientific community couldn't get anyone to listen to them.
Make energy a national security issue and people pay attention. |
You guys, arguing about all this environmental silliness. Al Gore earned the Nobel Prize for inventing the internet.
|
I agree . Al Gore didn't earn the Nobel Prize for Peace. . IMHO, George Bush should have won it.
|
Quote:
Gore never claimed to have "invented" the internet. Never. This was total media spin to make him look daft. When he was a Senator in the 1980's Gore sponsored a couple bills that helped promote the use of the internet outside of universities and the Pentagon - and bring it into the public domain. He described this role in an interview and bingo some disingenuous reporter - dreams up the headline "Gore Claims to Invent Internet". But never let facts get in the way of your punchlines puppy - even a punchline as unoriginal as this one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's a very different set of numbers from a solar house in Maine that generates more power than it uses in a year . . . back in 1998: Excerpt: On the financial side, let's talk numbers. Let's assume you are going to purchase a 2 kW PV system for your home. I have a 4.2 kW system - larger than most. My neighbors have just installed an 8 kW system because their home is heated in large part by electricity. You've checked prices with local dealers and plan on paying approximately $18,000 for a 2 kW system installed. According to Solarbuzz.com, PV module prices are running $4.88/watt which means that the panels would cost just under $10,000. Add to that the ancillary equipment (mounting materials, wiring, inverter, etc.) and labor and you're in the $18-20k area. In Maine and many other states there are subsidies that will reimburse you for a portion of your costs - 30-50%! There are also federal tax credits available. A 2 kW system will likely not power your full home unless you've done significant load reduction (gas/propane water heater, dryer and cooking stove) and have installed energy efficient appliances. But it's a significant reducton of your "carbon footprint" and there's nothing wrong with cutting your electric bill by 30-50%. More ambitious systems can handle your annual electrical load. It's only a matter of how much you can afford to invest and how well you've eliminated unnecessary energy use. Your lifestyle need not be compromised - just made more efficient. Source: http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.htm More: Maine is a "annualized net metering state." There are two meters on our house--one measures power "purchased" (in) from Central Maine Power Company and the other meter measures power "sold" (out) to CMP. If we export the same amount as we import, there is no charge, except for a $8/month hookup charge which all electricity customers must pay. Here are the results for 1998. The monthly PV output reflects the amount of energy harvested by the PV array. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1192379060.jpg The 4200 watt array generated 4.246 megaWhr of electricity in 1998, even though June and November were particularly cloudy months. We "imported" 2.417 mWhr of power from Central Maine and "exported" 3.008 mWhr to the grid. Therefore in 1998, we generated 591 kWh more than we used. While the bill has been figured on a monthly basis these past few years, in 2000 the bill became "annualized" - excess production from one month is added to the following month until a final 12-month net is determined. As you can see from these figures, we owed nothing for electricity - just the small monthly hookup charge of $8.00. As part of the new net billing rule, any excess will be given back to the utility at no cost and any deficit will be paid at the retail rate (currently 12 cents/kWh). Here is Maine's Annualized Net Metering Policy page. source: http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.htm The above is from almost 10 years ago, and the numbers have improved. Here in California home-builders like Lennar are installing solar systems in new homes. They have a 2.3kW system that has collectors that are in the shape of roof tiles (search Lennar, SunTile, Solar). FWIW. Best, Kurt |
Did Al Gore invent this?
<embed src="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/811500/electric_meter_hack_how_to_cut_your_electricity_bi ll_in_half.swf" width="400" height="345" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed><br><font size = 1><a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/811500/electric_meter_hack_how_to_cut_your_electricity_bi ll_in_half/">Electric Meter Hack! How To Cut Your Electricity Bill In Half!</a> - <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/">More free videos are here</a></font> |
Quote:
Sweden Nobel commitee picks all the scientific prizes and they still represents the most noble and respected awards in the world in the scientific arena (IMHO). |
Gore gets a cold shoulder
Steve Lytte October 14, 2007 ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming. "We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous." At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing." Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming. But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years. "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said. During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed. "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said. He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants." This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html |
Wow heated debate, so yes I'll throw my two cents (CDN) in.
He does nothing for peace so he doesn't deserve it. Yes it great more people are thinking about driving Prius', but peace is not even a stretch. Someone asked who deserves it more, I would say any soldier who died trying to capture terrorists deserves it more. I know there are more deserving people, but I'm just making a point about a "Peace Prize". A lady at a client of mine was telling me her brother is one of the top 4 scientists in (I can't remember what field it was) in the world and said the real reason for the climate change is the shifting of the Earth on its' axis. |
I would think there is a direct correlation betwen peace and energy (therefore peace and climate change, if climate change is something we agree CAN be affected by human action). Wars are fought over oil and have been since at least WW II when the GErmans needed fuel and Eastern Europe countries (including USSR) had it.
Just a thought (which is getting more difficult as I age) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That and $2.60 will get you a latte at Starbucks. |
Quote:
This guy is a familar feature on the anti-Gore rubber chicken circuit. Next time you google him, go beyond the first few hits. Very few people take him seriously. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website