Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the
CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc. I'll never convince any of them of anything. But we've had record November temperatures and a very warm winter, and the latest views from space about melting antarctic ice is a real worry. Sea level rise has not been enough yet to alarm anyone because when floating ice melts there is little rise. But when ice on land masses melts, then you have direct volume rise in sea levels, and that means big trouble for coastal infrastructure. Australia has maybe 40% of ppl who reckon we shouldn't do anything about the problem because its all bull****, and we didn't cause the problem, or if we did, we only caused 1% of the problem. Weel, they are outnumbered by those who think we ought to lead the world even if the US and China won't. Fence sitting won't fix the problem. I'd love to see how cheerful Lord Valve becomes when he gets an electricity bill in 5 years time that is 3 times higher than now, and he has to pay 3 times for gas and food, and when he finds out the pension has been attenuated 10dB, and health cost is still high because Lord issa gettin old. But I am sure he's ready and willing like millions of others that once they understand the problem, they'll happily pay to fix it up. Not to mention the new tax to fund the war in Afghanistan, and to fund weaning the returning soldiers off the drugs they took while over in Ghan. America is the richest country on Earth, and reputably the best country, and there ain't nothin' an american can't do once he gets a move on it. Think of all the money that was wasted on the Arms Race which could have been spent on alternative energy research, and getting ppl off carbon, and being nicer to little brown people in little $10 countries. It sure is a queer world, now ain't it? Patrick Turner |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
Well, I'm glad you're HOT, Patrick, because I'm effing freezing. But,
er, aren't you *supposed* to be hot roundabout now, in the summer in Australia? Jes' askin'. -- AJ On Nov 25, 1:03*pm, Patrick Turner wrote: There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc. I'll never convince any of them of anything. But we've had record November temperatures and a very warm winter, and the latest views from space about melting antarctic ice is a real worry. Sea level rise has not been enough yet to alarm anyone because when floating ice melts there is little rise. But when ice on land masses melts, then you have direct volume rise in sea levels, and that means big trouble for coastal infrastructure. Australia has maybe 40% of ppl who reckon we shouldn't do anything about the problem because its all bull****, and we didn't cause the problem, or if we did, we only caused 1% of the problem. Weel, they are outnumbered by those who think we ought to lead the world even if the US and China won't. Fence sitting won't fix the problem. I'd love to see how cheerful Lord Valve becomes when he gets an electricity bill in 5 years time that is 3 times higher than now, and he has to pay 3 times for gas and food, and when he finds out the pension has been attenuated 10dB, and health cost is still high because Lord issa gettin old. But I am sure he's ready and willing like millions of others that once they understand the problem, they'll happily pay to fix it up. Not to mention the new tax to fund the war in Afghanistan, and to fund weaning the returning soldiers off the drugs they took while over in Ghan. America is the richest country on Earth, and reputably the best country, and there ain't nothin' an american can't do once he gets a move on it. Think of all the money that was wasted on the Arms Race which could have been spent on alternative energy research, and getting ppl off carbon, and being nicer to little brown people in little $10 countries. It sure is a queer world, now ain't it? Patrick Turner |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Nov 25, 8:03*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
It sure is a queer world, now ain't it? Sure is. Now, Australia may be hotter due to global warming (or not) , and Andre may be colder due to his thin blood and lack of 'vintage Jack Daniels' - but it is a fact that the Gulf Stream can (and does on occasion) shift quickly and with dire consequences for Northern Europe. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 And that should such a change take place the results will be felt very quickly. And the general ocean currents, if they shift, could make what is happening at present in Australia far worse. http://whatonearth.olehnielsen.dk/currents.asp http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi...nfohut/acc.htm http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../currents.html Whether this is global warming or a 1000 year 'normal' cycle - the effects will be the same and all the ranting, whining and puling will near as make no difference. As to taking action (whether one agrees on its efficacy or not) can do no harm and might do some good. An ecological Pascal's Wager if nothing else. Railing against the need is the functional equivalent of Atheist railing against the existence of God. Might be true, but effectively futile and so utterly wasteful of energy and intelligence. As the old expression goes, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Nothing wrong with getting out of the way and doing nothing. Many things wrong with knee-jerk obstructionism. As to Valve - and what happens to him, I seriously doubt he has given it much thought. Putting food on the table day-to-day pretty much occupies all that his frontal lobes can manage - it ain't nohow an easy world for purveyors to the fringe. Writing for myself, I do know we are socking away everything we can, we are tightening down the house a little bit more each day and we are planning for the future so that we will still be able to enjoy ourselves when we choose to stop working. It doesn't take much more than a bit of willpower and a bit of patience, and careful choices. But cutting our water use to less than 50 gallons per day on average for 2 people in a fully mechanised society wasn't hard. Cutting our total energy bill from about $2.00/ square foot of house to about $0.90/square foot for the same comfort level was initially costly but given the size of the house and the actual savings the actual payback is under 4 years - faster when the rate-caps come off in 13 months. And none of this is particularly related to global warming one way or the other - just simple "home defense" and protection of our chosen life-style. That there are positive ecological results is kinda-sorta- feelgood-nice. But entirely beside the point. I would not want to be out in the North Atlantic shivering on an island smaller than Pennsylvania when the gulf-stream shifts. Nor would I like to be at any shore when the sea level rises. Our summer house is in the mountains and our main house is comfortably well above sea-level and away from any major rivers, but both in water-rich locations. It has stood since 1890, I fully expect to enjoy another 100 years out of it. And while on the feel-good aspect, neither of our houses were built on farmland, recent or past. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc. I'll never convince any of them of anything. But we've had record November temperatures and a very warm winter, and the latest views from space about melting antarctic ice is a real worry. Sea level rise has not been enough yet to alarm anyone because when floating ice melts there is little rise. But when ice on land masses melts, then you have direct volume rise in sea levels, and that means big trouble for coastal infrastructure. Australia has maybe 40% of ppl who reckon we shouldn't do anything about the problem because its all bull****, and we didn't cause the problem, or if we did, we only caused 1% of the problem. Weel, they are outnumbered by those who think we ought to lead the world even if the US and China won't. Fence sitting won't fix the problem. I'd love to see how cheerful Lord Valve becomes when he gets an electricity bill in 5 years time that is 3 times higher than now, and he has to pay 3 times for gas and food, and when he finds out the pension has been attenuated 10dB, and health cost is still high because Lord issa gettin old. But I am sure he's ready and willing like millions of others that once they understand the problem, they'll happily pay to fix it up. Not to mention the new tax to fund the war in Afghanistan, and to fund weaning the returning soldiers off the drugs they took while over in Ghan. America is the richest country on Earth, and reputably the best country, and there ain't nothin' an american can't do once he gets a move on it. Think of all the money that was wasted on the Arms Race which could have been spent on alternative energy research, and getting ppl off carbon, and being nicer to little brown people in little $10 countries. It sure is a queer world, now ain't it? Patrick Turner Must be damn hot down under Patrick; what in the world is going on in the Sydney Clock Tower these days??!!! 8) heh heh! M |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Nov 25, 7:03*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc. If Australia is so concerned they should become the first 100 percent nuclear power country and stop their contribution to the mess. Australia is the most nuke-suitable place on earth. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
Bret L wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:03 am, Patrick Turner wrote: There are piles of ppl who deny global warming is occuring despite the CO2 from their cars, and from their wife's use of the stove, and their son's hot-rod, and their daughter's 40 minute showers and their grand parent's air conditioning etc, etc, etc. If Australia is so concerned they should become the first 100 percent nuclear power country and stop their contribution to the mess. Australia is the most nuke-suitable place on earth. **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. * Solar energy manufactures no inconvenient by-products. * Solar power is due to run out in around 4,500,000,000 years. * Australia is the best place on the planet to generate geo-thermal energy (aka: hot rock). * Geo-thermal energy generates minute levels of inconvenient by-products. * There is sufficient geo-thermal energy easily available to last Australia more than 100,000 years. * Whilst the costs of Solar are slightly higher than nukes, geo-thermal is about the same. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
Note the interpolations:
On Nov 27, 7:14*pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. Add the 100 years and that doubles. Boiling Water reactors are particularly inefficient users of nuclear fuel. On the order of 5% of the actual available enrgy. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. That is the from-mined-to-disposed. It is getting better - but it will be no better than marginal as compared to any of the other means-and-methods. * Solar energy manufactures no inconvenient by-products. Utter Bullsh*t. More even than the availability of nuclear fuel. Mine tailings, heavy metals, toxic gases - all quite inconvenient. But also quite distant (mostly in China these days - the most polluted country on earth. * Solar power is due to run out in around 4,500,000,000 years. See above. * Australia is the best place on the planet to generate geo-thermal energy (aka: hot rock). Sure. And 400% efficient as compared to straight electrical equivalent. But not for making power unless one has access to geothermal steam such as Iceland. Thernocouple power generation is probably 300 -/+ years away as a practical matter. * Geo-thermal energy generates minute levels of inconvenient by-products. Actually none other than some very large dirt-piles. But not amenable to actually making power. Concentrating solar collectors making steam are more efficient that way. * There is sufficient geo-thermal energy easily available to last Australia more than 100,000 years. Yes. And with present technology and anticipated technology, it is still net-minus in terms of power requirements. Good for heating and good for cooling in a 30F range, no more. Do the research. * Whilst the costs of Solar are slightly higher than nukes, geo-thermal is about the same. About the same, but not capable of making power with present technology unless steam is available. How many actual "hot springs" does Oz have? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
Peter Wieck wrote:
Note the interpolations: On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. **Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their by-products from their nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. **Nope. Fact. If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. **At what cost? Add the 100 years and that doubles. Boiling Water reactors are particularly inefficient users of nuclear fuel. On the order of 5% of the actual available enrgy. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. **Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years. That is the from-mined-to-disposed. It is getting better - but it will be no better than marginal as compared to any of the other means-and-methods. **All very well, except that your figures are complete ********. * Solar energy manufactures no inconvenient by-products. Utter Bullsh*t. **Nup. Fact. More even than the availability of nuclear fuel. Mine tailings, heavy metals, toxic gases - all quite inconvenient. But also quite distant (mostly in China these days - the most polluted country on earth. * Solar power is due to run out in around 4,500,000,000 years. See above. * Australia is the best place on the planet to generate geo-thermal energy (aka: hot rock). Sure. And 400% efficient as compared to straight electrical equivalent. But not for making power unless one has access to geothermal steam such as Iceland. Thernocouple power generation is probably 300 -/+ years away as a practical matter. **The geo-thermal energy being generated in Australia is in a more or less conventional thermal power station. In fact, it is very much like a nuke, without the Uranium. * Geo-thermal energy generates minute levels of inconvenient by-products. Actually none other than some very large dirt-piles. But not amenable to actually making power. Concentrating solar collectors making steam are more efficient that way. **Indeed. Geo-thermal is probably better for base-load power though. * There is sufficient geo-thermal energy easily available to last Australia more than 100,000 years. Yes. And with present technology and anticipated technology, it is still net-minus in terms of power requirements. Good for heating and good for cooling in a 30F range, no more. Do the research. **Already done. Costs are roughly similar to nukes, but: * No messy insurance problems. * No messy by-products. * Long life. * Whilst the costs of Solar are slightly higher than nukes, geo-thermal is about the same. About the same, but not capable of making power with present technology unless steam is available. How many actual "hot springs" does Oz have? **I suggest YOU do some research. The technology you are looking for is called 'hot dry rock'. aka: 'hot rock'. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
Mpffffff. Note the interpolations
On Nov 27, 8:20*pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Note the interpolations: On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. **Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their by-products from their nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. **Nope. Fact. *If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. **At what cost? About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. **Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years. OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours). So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x $7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is. So much for your figures. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
Trevor Wilson wrote:
* Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
"robert casey" wrote in message m... Trevor Wilson wrote: * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future. **No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are other, safer, viable alternatives, that a * Publically acceptable. * Virtually non-polluting. * Enjoy a far longer lifespan. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Nov 26, 12:43*am, Andre Jute wrote:
Well, I'm glad you're HOT, Patrick, because I'm effing freezing. But, er, aren't you *supposed* to be hot roundabout now, in the summer in Australia? Jes' askin'. -- AJ Well, this November has set new records for hot weather we might normally see in mid January. And all before spring has finished. There is much SCIENTIFIC evidence that warming is well underway. The latest observations of oceans and waterways around Oz show changing patterns of mangroves and northern fish species are being found much further south than ever before. We look like experiencing another Elnino effect and hence another drought, but in parts of Oz the last drought has never ended..... Meanwhile federal opposition party on Oz, the Liberal Party is in turmoil about the proposed new Emissions Trading Scheme which it wants to block in the Senate this week so our Prime Minister Kevin Krudd cannot take a passed bill along with him to the Copenhagen conferencing about global warming solutions. I don't give a rat's ****ing arse about the polititics of all this very much except to say that whoever is in power in many nations will have a hell of a job to convince anyone that the proposed carbon trading will have any effect on reducing CO2 emissions. The ETS has been hi-jacked by the coal industry lobbyists, and proposed CO2 cuts are way to low to do anything much, and main polluters are to be rewarded with billions in compensation. So let ALL the politicians make huge fools of themselves. Its all so likely to turn out like this. Its all because global CO2 reductions will be at least +100dB more difficult to achieve by cordial international co-operation in the same way the ozone hole was prevented from becoming far bigger than it did, and thus more threatening farming with far too high levels of UV radiation. Queensland is about the global capitol for skin cancer. With a bigger Ozone Hole things could only have become a LOT worse. The people of the world ain't all complete fools, and in Oz we do have democracy, and if Krudd's governemnt ****s up big time over Emissions Trading Scheme its quite OK because Krudd will be removed by the balot box. This could be very likely because CO2 will continue to rise alarmingly, and people will find the cost of living has risen 20% and so what will they think their politicians have achieved for them? - SWEET **** ALL I'd say. Where is all the money of the carbon trading going to ****ing go? Not into my ****ing pocket for the huge increases in electricity and food prices. So ****ing where? If only the politicians with their forked tongues were able for a minute to prevent the present 80% of the population from being ignorant about what they should not be ignorant about. The people will find out about the real meaning of the costs of ETS, and then pity help the politicians, and the ppl will try to vote for better ones but methinks that no matter who comes to power, there will still be believers, fence sitters or deniers, the problem of global warming will continue because its a bigger problem than man can fix himself. I like what James Lovelock has said abouty GW - its all too late to make much of a change, and our species will just have to put up with a huge KICK in the BUTT until balance in GAIA is resolved. I am serene about not having had any children. Patrick Turner. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffffff. Note the interpolations On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Note the interpolations: On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. **Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their by-products from their nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. **Nope. Fact. If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. **At what cost? About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package. **The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of generated power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That may explain why breeder reactors are not popular. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. **Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years. OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours). So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x $7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is. So much for your figures. **Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do with your original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost of production. The retail price of cells is solely related to supply/demand issues, not the cost of manufacture. Moreover, the cost of producing PV cells is falling month by month. As supply is ramped up to meet demand (which is currently outstripping supply quite comfortably), the further price falls will be seen. Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be around 5% of their present price, given the fact that thin film cells use less than 1% of the silicon that poly and mono crystalline sells use. The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking about) were related to the amount of energy used to produce the cells (I've left your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually dishonest in future. The ENERGY payback period (which was what you SPECIFICALLY referred to) is between 2 and 4 years, depending on location and cell type. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:39:00 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message m... Trevor Wilson wrote: * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future. **No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are other, safer, viable alternatives, that a * Publically acceptable. * Virtually non-polluting. * Enjoy a far longer lifespan. Except for the not so trivial problem of being insufficient to meet the world's energy demands. **********. Here in Australia, we have sufficient KNOWN geo-thermal energy sources, capable of supplying all our energy requirements for several thousand years. And that is base load power. Unknown reserves could boost that figure several-fold. Solar energy capabilities would easily exceed that figure for several billion years. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Nov 29, 4:15*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Mpffffff. Note the interpolations On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Note the interpolations: On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. **Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their by-products from their nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. **Nope. Fact. If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. **At what cost? About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package. **The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of generated power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That may explain why breeder reactors are not popular. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. **Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years. OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours). So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x $7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is. So much for your figures. **Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do with your original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost of production. The retail price of cells is solely related to supply/demand issues, not the cost of manufacture. Moreover, the cost of producing PV cells is falling month by month. As supply is ramped up to meet demand (which is currently outstripping supply quite comfortably), the further price falls will be seen. Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be around 5% of their present price, given the fact that thin film cells use less than 1% of the silicon that poly and mono crystalline sells use. The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking about) were related to the amount of energy used to produce the cells (I've left your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually dishonest in future. The ENERGY payback period (which was what you SPECIFICALLY referred to) is between 2 and 4 years, depending on location and cell type. Um. Trevor, the figures quoted are present-day figures installed here in the United States. And as you also noted, solar is more expensive per installed KW than nuclear - and will be so into the future. So, let's be both *honest* and *realistic* with photovoltaics, and not live in a fool's paradise. Sure, production is ramping up and demand exceeds supply at present. But the cost still remains at/about $7800/ kw installed at utility-level quanitities. And the _VERY BEST_ thin- film solar cells using the very best technology - which realizes about a 5% success rate at present - 95% of what comes out of the process is waste - get about 15 watts/s.f./hour at the equator. So, do the math from there. I gave you cutting-edge technology, 24-hour sunlight, 3x the wholesale price of power as your realized revenue and discounted the cost of any storage or additional infrastructure - And still the payback was over 6 years. Right now, in Pennsylvania with a 30% state subsidy and a 30% federal tax credit, the given payback for a 3kw residential non-storage installation runs about $13,000 and is expected to pay off in about 10 years. That is _with_ an ultimate 60% subsidy. Your figures are absolute pie-in-the-sky blather unsupported by any source whatsoever. http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarindices.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics http://www.ecoworld.com/fuels/the-tr...ovoltaics.html http://www.gosolarnow.com/pdf%20files/solarvalue.pdf Nuclear is coming down: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/...OfNuclearPower And so forth and so on. Remember, subsidies do not count when caculating the cost of solar power. Subsidies are when the government uses tax money to pay for short-sighted but politically correct feel-good solutions. But the money is still spent. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Mpffffff. Note the interpolations On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Note the interpolations: On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. **Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their by-products from their nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. **Nope. Fact. If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. **At what cost? About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package. **The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of generated power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That may explain why breeder reactors are not popular. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. **Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years. OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours). So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x $7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is. So much for your figures. **Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do with your original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost of production. The retail price of cells is solely related to supply/demand issues, not the cost of manufacture. Moreover, the cost of producing PV cells is falling month by month. As supply is ramped up to meet demand (which is currently outstripping supply quite comfortably), the further price falls will be seen. Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be around 5% of their present price, given the fact that thin film cells use less than 1% of the silicon that poly and mono crystalline sells use. The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking about) were related to the amount of energy used to produce the cells (I've left your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually dishonest in future. The ENERGY payback period (which was what you SPECIFICALLY referred to) is between 2 and 4 years, depending on location and cell type. Um. Trevor, the figures quoted are present-day figures installed here in the United States. **Here are your precise words: "And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce." I say again: ********. The energy produced (NOT THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE CELLS) is paid back in a 2 to 4 year period. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Nov 29, 6:07*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Mpffffff. Note the interpolations On Nov 27, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: Note the interpolations: On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **You'd think, except for a couple of things: * The population is none too happy about nukes. Mostly because the population is ignorant of the byproducts of burning coal, damming rivers, burning oil and burning natural gas. **Mostly because they know that the by-products of a nuke lasts for tens of thousands of years and no one has a solution for those by-products for Australia. The US sure doesn't. They've asked if we can take their by-products from their nukes. * Australians know that there is only 100 years' of easily avaiable Uranium Utter codswallops. **Nope. Fact. If the political will existed to install fast- breeder reactors there is enough fuel already in existence to last ~1,000 years or more at present rates of consumption. **At what cost? About the same as a boiling water reactor per MW generated. More than a fluidized-bed reactor, more than a graphite pile reactor, but much more efficient than all three in a somewhat smaller package. **The information I've found suggests that the costs, per MWh of generated power is around 400% higher than regular reactors. That may explain why breeder reactors are not popular. left on the planet, making nukes a short-sighted, short-term solution. * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes they do. And there are quite a number of sufficiently stable locations on the planet to take 100% of what has and will be generated for the next 2,000 years. _ANY_ underground test site is already contaminated for the next few thousand years - and the access already exists to them, and the volume in each location is roughly a sphere of ~500 feet in diameter per test. * Australia is the best place on the planet for Solar energy. And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce. **Absolute ********. In Australia, the payback period is less than 2 years. In places like Germany, the payback period is longer - around 4 years. Most PV cells are good for at least 25 years. OK. Let's check those figures. SOTA (practical production-level) solar cells cost about US$7800/kw installed. About 10% more than a boiling- water reactor per KW installed. SOTA solar cells generate about 10W per square foot, with some iridium/gallium arsenide cells reaching 15W/ s.f/hour. but at a cost of nearly twice as much and are nowhere near practical production levels. But, let's assume so and let's assume no cost premium. Let's also assume no cost for storage (until the sun shines all night, storage will be required and about 2.5 x the average load will have to be made during the daylight hours). So, to make 1MW (1000 KW) of power, we would have to spend 1000 x $7800 or $7,800,000. And, let's assume the value of the power is about $0.16/kwh leaving the plant - about 3 x the average leaving the plant value in the US. The plant has to operate for 48,750 hours to break even. That is a bit over six years. And again, discounting all the peripheral costs necessary and focusing only on the raw (and wildly optimistic) figures. Oh, and do you think Iridium and Gallium are cost- free environmentally? I guess if all that mining and processing is done elsewhere, as far as you are concerned it is. So much for your figures. **Dream on. Quoting the retail price of Solar cells has zero to do with your original statement and NOTHING to do with the energy cost of production. The retail price of cells is solely related to supply/demand issues, not the cost of manufacture. Moreover, the cost of producing PV cells is falling month by month. As supply is ramped up to meet demand (which is currently outstripping supply quite comfortably), the further price falls will be seen. Ultimately, when thin film cells are available in sufficient quantities, the retail price of PV cells can be expected to be around 5% of their present price, given the fact that thin film cells use less than 1% of the silicon that poly and mono crystalline sells use. The payback period I referred to (and the numbers YOU were speaking about) were related to the amount of energy used to produce the cells (I've left your quote in place). Stop being so intellectually dishonest in future. The ENERGY payback period (which was what you SPECIFICALLY referred to) is between 2 and 4 years, depending on location and cell type. Um. Trevor, the figures quoted are present-day figures installed here in the United States. **Here are your precise words: "And the life-time cost of solar panels exceeds the actual amount of energy they produce." I say again: ********. The energy produced (NOT THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE CELLS) is paid back in a 2 to 4 year period. -- Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Lifetime cost = Cost to produce + cost to install + cost to maintain + cost to remove + Cost to dispose of safely. Cost to produce = Cost of the raw materials + the cost to repair the environmental consequences of producing the raw materials + the cost to manufacture the raw materials into the cells + the cost of transportation to their installed location + the cost of transporting them to where they are disposed of safely. The retail cost of a solar cell = the cost to make it and transport it to its installed point. That is about 3/5 the actual cost as maintenance and disposal are _NOT_ part of that cost. Retail cost = the cost to get a solar cell to its place of use. Does not include the cost of installation, the cost of the infrastructure required to make the power it produces compatible with the grid (or any given end-user for that matter), the cost of maintenance nor anything other than what it costs to buy said cell on the open market. Similar the cost of a raw chicken does not include the cost of cooking it, or cleaning up after it is cooked. And following that analogy, KFC might purchase chicken at a far better price than I can, and Giant Foods may purchase it at a far better price than I can - but what gets to me is what becomes the "Retail Price". As what - I - pay for electricity becomes the retail price - not what it costs the plant to make it or the transporter to carry it or the distributor to bring it to my house - those are pieces of the retail price. So, cutting to the chase, at 10w/sf and at $7800/kw installed, and at _your_ 25-year life-span and at the present retail cost of power-at- the-plant in the US on-average, nationwide at $0.07/kwh - let's do the math. 1MW = $7,800,000. That figure is pretty indisputable and encompasses 100% of the present SOTA in practical photovoltaic manufacturing. Assume at the equator, so a true average of 12 hours of useful sunlight per day. Assume an average cost-of-power at $0.14kwh for argument's sake. 2 X the present average - and what I can get a 20- year contract for right now. IOW an insane price. Do the math, you are at an 11+ year payback however you slice it or dice it. And if you factor maintenance, infrastructure and all the other parts and pieces (comes to as listed per published utility tariffs) that *adds* an additional $0.11/kwh premium to solar costs. Brings that payback to something on the order of 40 years or so. Less if we taxpayers subsidize it. But that 'less' is to the producer, not to the consumer. That is if the plant were built with available SOTA technology today. Few are as most solar installations today are built either for political reasons or because there are no practical alternatives. I have seen some pretty massive solar arrays in Saudi in the empty quarter - because bringing in power is simply too expensive or impractical for any of several pretty obvious reasons. So, technology gets 2 x as good. Payback = 20 years. Right now the curve looks not nearly that good, and not anytime so soon. Much as your "Hot Rocks" technology. All 100% experimental today - with some hopeful signs - but nothing practical to-date. And quite a few signficant issues to be addressed and as-yet unsolved. Get real. Repeating bad information will not ever make it better. That is Andre's forte - try not to imitate him. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
flipper wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be, is not the world. True, everybody knows that the US is. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The
earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was connected to the continent of Europe by a large clay basin the size of England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. Soon after this catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in the last 4000 years. Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these: Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe? Cheers Ian |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Nov 30, 7:15*am, Ian Bell wrote:
About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was connected to the continent of Europe by a large *clay basin the size of England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. *Soon after this catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in the last 4000 years. Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these: Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe? Cheers Ian Ian: But the climate didn't "settle down so quickly after" or the water that made the North Sea would have re-frozen and 'dogger land' would have reappeared. And a rise of that nature over that period of time in that general area could also mean that the glaciers were melting (and they were). I don't think that anyone denies that there are natural cycles and that what is happening to the climate today could be from any number of reasons up to and *including* human activities - but what I think is the gist of the issue is exactly as it is for a professional boxer - one is going to get hit, that goes with the territory. But whyinhell would you lean *into* the punch? I am not so sure I have anything to worry about. Nor the kids. But I am a wee-touch concerned after what the grandchildren will experience - and to the extent that I can mitigate the potential negatives, I will. Pretty simple and not much debate or thought required at that level. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
A very good question for the global warmies to answer
On Nov 30, 12:15*pm, Ian Bell wrote:
About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was connected to the continent of Europe by a large *clay basin the size of England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. *Soon after this catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in the last 4000 years. Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these: Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe? Cheers Ian More a man-interpreted "catastrophe" than a "manmade" catastrophe, I think, Ian. Heh-heh! Andre Jute Riddle me that one, Batman |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:21:11 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: flipper wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:39:00 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message m... Trevor Wilson wrote: * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future. **No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are other, safer, viable alternatives, that a * Publically acceptable. * Virtually non-polluting. * Enjoy a far longer lifespan. Except for the not so trivial problem of being insufficient to meet the world's energy demands. **********. Here in Australia, Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be, is not the world. **Read the title of the thread. Oz = Australia. I am perfectly on topic. we have sufficient KNOWN geo-thermal energy sources, capable of supplying all our energy requirements for several thousand years. And that is base load power. Unknown reserves could boost that figure several-fold. Solar energy capabilities would easily exceed that figure for several billion years. Terrific. Build away. **Already in progress. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
A very good question for the global warmies to answer
On Nov 30, 8:14*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:15*pm, Ian Bell wrote: About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was connected to the continent of Europe by a large *clay basin the size of England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. *Soon after this catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in the last 4000 years. Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these: Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe? Cheers Ian More a man-interpreted "catastrophe" than a "manmade" catastrophe, I think, Ian. Heh-heh! Andre Jute Riddle me that one, Batman- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And You would dearly like to think so - given your age, condition, accomplishments and emotional limitations, you have nothing much to lose in any case. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
Ian Bell wrote in
: About 11,500 years ago there was a catastrophic climatic event. The earth's mean temperature rose by 7 degrees in 15 years. Of course, back then there was no man made CO2 of any significance whatsoever, so it is hard to make a case for this being AGW. At that time, the UK was connected to the continent of Europe by a large clay basin the size of England, which archaeologists now call Dogger Land. Soon after this catastrophic event the climate settled down once more. Despite the rapid melting of ice that resulted, it took several thousand years for the Dogger Land to be completely covered by water and create what is now the North Sea. Since then, the mean sea level has risen by about 1 metre in the last 4000 years. Now my questions for the AGW alarmists are these: Can you explain what caused this sudden temperature rise? Can you explain why the climate settled down so quickly after? Do you current models include the the mechanisms that caused this catastrophe? You are talking about the end of the Younger Dryas event aren't you? This was nothing like the current warming, since the warming at the end of the YD was from glacial to interstadial conditions. The YD is thought to have been caused by a shutdown in the N. Atlantic thermohaline circulation (NATHC), although that is open to some debate. There are also some differences in terms of the timing of the warming in different regions and hemispheres, between this event and the modern era. Current climate models can simulate large-scale regional cooling associated with cessation of the NATHC. Coupled ocean-atmosphere models can also simulate a shut-down of the NATHC with increased freshwater inflow to the N. Atlantic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas Your comment is sophism since there are many known differences in mechanisms between a radiatively forced change in climate and one due to large-scale shifts in ocean circulation. That one can happen in the absence of the other is nothing new to climate physicists. But then, I'm betting you knew that. -- Bill Asher |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:01:52 +1100, keithr wrote: flipper wrote: Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be, is not the world. True, everybody knows that the US is. Speak for yourself because neither I, nor anyone I know, thinks that. That is what they all say when put on the spot about it, but you don't have to look too far in Usenet or the US media to see the attitude. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:52:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:21:11 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: flipper wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:39:00 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message m... Trevor Wilson wrote: * Nukes generate quite a bit of inconveniently radioactive by-products, which need to be placed somewhere for a very long time. Yes, but, to a first order approximation, the amount of damage a coal fired power plant is about as bad, but the nuclear waste is contained, not spewed all over the environment (usually!). You do have to be very careful with the nuclear stuff, however. So we stash it in very stable caverns, and we may find a use for some of it later on in the future. **No argument from me. The thrust of my point is that there are other, safer, viable alternatives, that a * Publically acceptable. * Virtually non-polluting. * Enjoy a far longer lifespan. Except for the not so trivial problem of being insufficient to meet the world's energy demands. **********. Here in Australia, Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be, is not the world. **Read the title of the thread. Oz = Australia. I am perfectly on topic. Why don't you try reading what was written. I said "insufficient to meet --- the world's --- energy demands," to which you replied "bullocks. Here in Australia..." Oz is not "the world." **READ THE THREAD TITLE. (I hate to shout, but you are terminally stupid) I am thrilled you think geothermal energy is sufficient to power Australia but it's insufficient for -- the world--. **Is it? How do you know? What are the reserves of the entire planet? For example, the U.S. currently produces more thermal power than any other country but estimates indicate it's only practical in 13 of the 50 states. **So? Are you unaware of high Voltage transmission lines? we have sufficient KNOWN geo-thermal energy sources, capable of supplying all our energy requirements for several thousand years. And that is base load power. Unknown reserves could boost that figure several-fold. Solar energy capabilities would easily exceed that figure for several billion years. Terrific. Build away. **Already in progress. Terrific http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116967563 "Experts have estimated that Australia could draw nearly 7 per cent of its electricity from hot rock power stations by 2030..." What do you plan for the other 93%? And that's just electricity. **There are no technical reasons why geo-thermal energy could not be dramatically expanded. The reasons are purely financial. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seenbefore.
On Dec 1, 5:27*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: flipper wrote: **There are no technical reasons why geo-thermal energy could not be dramatically expanded. The reasons are purely financial. No Sh*t, Sherlock! And why Solar power is 30 years out. And why practical geothermal *electricity* is between 30 and 50 years out. And this having nothing to do with the cost/future/lack/surplus of fossil fuels or even their cleanliness. It has to do with simple execution. Hybrid cars are only just practical - for technical reasons. The drive towards their development is political. Eventually it will become practical as the cost/benefit threshold is much closer. Keeping in mind that electric cars as a standard-technology-of-the-industry is over 100 years old. What killed them was (the need for) speed. Geothermal electric power installations have a definite service life, a very high cost and have some environmental concerns. Similar in many ways to nuclear power. All it takes is political will to overcome all of the objections. But even with 100% will, it is still 30 years out from any level of execution. And to make even Australia go off the fossil-fuel grid - just do the math. Only this time honestly and with actual figures. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here in Oz we HOT because of record hot weather never seen before.
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:11:09 +1100, keithr wrote: flipper wrote: On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:01:52 +1100, keithr wrote: flipper wrote: Hate to burst your bubble but Australia, wonderful though it may be, is not the world. True, everybody knows that the US is. Speak for yourself because neither I, nor anyone I know, thinks that. That is what they all say when put on the spot about it, but you don't have to look too far in Usenet or the US media to see the attitude. Hogwash. That 'Americans', or any other nationality for that matter, may strongly express they feel their country is 'right' on issues like, say, Iran building nukes, or whatever, does not say, nor mean, they think the U.S. is 'the world'. How much is "The world" mentioned on US network news? Or on cable news for that matter. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
From the Weather Underground to the White House | Audio Opinions | |||
using condenser mics in 40-degree weather | Pro Audio | |||
Cool weather recording | Pro Audio | |||
Cool weather recording | Pro Audio |