Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

alternatives

Expand Messages
  • swezlex1
    There are all sorts of alternatives to nuclear and coal. Wind, tidal, and solar. Solar concentrators are the most viable option. There used to be a whole bunch
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 13 12:33 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      There are all sorts of alternatives to nuclear and coal.
      Wind, tidal, and solar.
      Solar concentrators are the most viable option. There used to be a whole bunch of
      information on the doe website until the Bush administration got into power.

      http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/powertower.html
      http://www.bluefish.org/australi.htm

      http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/projects/alt_energy/sol_thermal/powertower.html
      http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us/science/energy/powertower.htm

      http://cryptome.org/6odd5-001.jpg <-- Here is a image of Sandia's solar power tower
      Both Sandia and the Israeli Weizmann Insitute have done extensive research on power
      towers.
      The austrailians have smaller ones that would fit on roofs.


      Message: 3
      Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 06:02:13 -0000
      From: "David" <b1blancer1@...>
      Subject: Re: Bagging on Roy Spencer

      But what are the alternatives, Mike? To produce energy, and by that I
      mean electricity, you have to spin a generator. To do that
      consistently for years on end, you need high pressure steam spinning a
      turbine. The only way you get that is by heating a very large volume
      of water. To do that, you have to have either nuclear power or burn
      something. Can you think of another way to do it?
    • David
      The problem, however, is that those technologies aren t mature enough yet to produce power on a large scale. The Boeing website indicated that a solar tower
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 13 5:53 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The problem, however, is that those technologies aren't mature enough
        yet to produce power on a large scale. The Boeing website indicated
        that a solar tower can produce up to 100 megawatts. A single unit
        nuclear station turns out 10 times that amount.
      • XK SAZ
        It is mature enough that countries are starting to build them ans see them as a viable option. It will only get better. If you have 10 of them: free energy
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 16 9:45 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          It is mature enough that countries are starting to build them ans see
          them as a viable option. It will only get better.
          If you have 10 of them: free energy from the sun with no negative side
          effects.
          If you have a nuclear power station that malfunctions:
          http://kidofspeed.com/ <-- this can happen.
          Nuclear power plants have been around for a relatively short time.
          There are a a little over 100 reactors in the US. How long before
          another one malfunctions. Decommissioning them is a nightmare and what
          to do with the waste is another huge nightmare. Technology, no matter
          how well taken care of, does break. Educate yourself about the history
          of nuclear power plant safety. It's not a pretty picture.
          People have to start thinking in the long term and look at the whole
          picture. Right now parts of human society are like a carousing
          teenager who doesn't realize that doing large amounts of drugs
          gluttonously will effect the health later in life.

          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
          wrote:
          > The problem, however, is that those technologies aren't mature enough
          > yet to produce power on a large scale. The Boeing website indicated
          > that a solar tower can produce up to 100 megawatts. A single unit
          > nuclear station turns out 10 times that amount.
        • David
          ... Don t get me wrong. I m not saying it doesn t have potential. I fully support it! However, right now, today, it doesn t have the capacity to provide the
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 16 10:06 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:
            > It is mature enough that countries are starting to build them ans see
            > them as a viable option. It will only get better.
            > If you have 10 of them: free energy from the sun with no negative side
            > effects.

            Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't have potential. I
            fully support it! However, right now, today, it doesn't have the
            capacity to provide the power needs of the country on a cost effective
            basis. However, I'm sure that will change over time.

            > If you have a nuclear power station that malfunctions:
            > http://kidofspeed.com/ <-- this can happen.

            That's not a fair comparison. Chernobyl had no reactor building, and
            technicians were conducting what were referred to as "unauthorized
            experiments." BTW, that's a fantastic website.

            I'm not saying that nuclear energy is perfect. You mention the safety
            record, but even in the worst nuclear power plant accident to happen
            in the US, Three Mile Island, nobody on the outside was harmed.

            But again, I'm not saying that nuclear energy is perfect. Neither is
            coal or natural gas. Neither is hydroelectric. Solar, wind, and
            tidal, while only usable on a small scale today, all have potential.
            I'll be very glad to see that potential realized in the years ahead.
          • XK SAZ
            Did you see this? An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the first in the world that is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 21 9:52 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Did you see this?
              An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the first in the world that
              is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on hydrogen. The house has an electrolyser to
              generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and
              electricity for the house.

              http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2004/4/20/features/
              7725984&sec=features

              We've only had electricity for about 100 years.
              To Power to the world, "Cost Effective" should not be measured in terms of up front cash.
              If you think about the cost of cleanup, longterm insurance for those suffering from "on the
              job" cancers, nuclear power costs quite a bit more than the price of building the plant.
              Same with oil, it "seems" cheap up front but in reality it took a very long time to
              make(fossil fuel), we are spending a huge amount of money on military technology and
              personell in order to control easy access oil rich regions. "Cheapness" only means that the
              men at the top will reap more immediate financial/political bennefits, not that it actually
              costs less for everyone.



              >
              > Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't have potential. I
              > fully support it! However, right now, today, it doesn't have the
              > capacity to provide the power needs of the country on a cost effective
              > basis. However, I'm sure that will change over time.
              >
              > > If you have a nuclear power station that malfunctions:
              > > http://kidofspeed.com/ <-- this can happen.
              >
              > That's not a fair comparison. Chernobyl had no reactor building, and
              > technicians were conducting what were referred to as "unauthorized
              > experiments." BTW, that's a fantastic website.
              >
              > I'm not saying that nuclear energy is perfect. You mention the safety
              > record, but even in the worst nuclear power plant accident to happen
              > in the US, Three Mile Island, nobody on the outside was harmed.
              >
              > But again, I'm not saying that nuclear energy is perfect. Neither is
              > coal or natural gas. Neither is hydroelectric. Solar, wind, and
              > tidal, while only usable on a small scale today, all have potential.
              > I'll be very glad to see that potential realized in the years ahead.
            • XK SAZ
              What kind of unauthorized experiments were they doing? Why were they doing them? I have been a technician before. Because technology breaks, its inevitable
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 21 10:33 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                What kind of unauthorized experiments were they doing? Why were they doing them?

                I have been a technician before. Because technology breaks, its inevitable that you have to
                do "experimentation" in order to fix the problems that come up. Sometimes you don't
                know what is causing the problem in complex machines. Due to human error, and the fact
                that machines break, we should not be relying on something so dangerous when it fails.


                > That's not a fair comparison. Chernobyl had no reactor building, and
                > technicians were conducting what were referred to as "unauthorized
                > experiments." BTW, that's a fantastic website.
                >
              • David
                ... first in the world that ... has an electrolyser to ... is used for heat and ... That s actually a pretty cool house! The article does, however, contain
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 21 7:08 PM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:
                  > Did you see this?
                  > An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the
                  first in the world that
                  > is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on hydrogen. The house
                  has an electrolyser to
                  > generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen
                  is used for heat and
                  > electricity for the house.
                  >

                  That's actually a pretty cool house! The article does, however,
                  contain one obvious error. It says, "Hydrogen is the most abundant
                  element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future."
                  Hydrogen may indeed be tghe fuel of the future, but nitrogen, not
                  hydrogen, is by far the most abundant element in the atmosphere.

                  >
                  > Same with oil, it "seems" cheap up front but in reality it took a
                  very long time to
                  > make(fossil fuel), we are spending a huge amount of money on
                  military technology and
                  > personell in order to control easy access oil rich regions.
                  "Cheapness" only means that the
                  > men at the top will reap more immediate financial/political
                  bennefits, not that it actually
                  > costs less for everyone.
                  >

                  Oh no, you're not going to sucker me into THAT debate! I could cite
                  several different things that show without a doubt that oil is NOT the
                  reason for the war in Iraq, but those reasons are readily found on the
                  web. I really don't feel like going back over that again.

                  Anyway, to get back to your point, yes, electricity has only been
                  around for a short time. Consider, however, that the alternate means
                  of generating electrical power have been around for even less time.
                  The best way to generate electricity on a large scale is still to spin
                  a generator. The best way to spin a generator constantly day after
                  day, year after year, is still either by high pressure steam or
                  falling water. Even if hydrogen were to come into wide useage
                  tomorrow, the current technology for manufacturing hydrogen on a large
                  scale requires fossil fuel.

                  I have no doubt that as technology improves, better means of power
                  generation will be developed and put into large scale use. I fully
                  support that. However, right now, today, it isn't feasible.
                • David
                  ... doing them? I honestly don t know. I remember the issue being raised, but I don t remember what exactly was being done. I ll look around and see what I
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 21 7:10 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:
                    > What kind of unauthorized experiments were they doing? Why were they
                    doing them?

                    I honestly don't know. I remember the issue being raised, but I don't
                    remember what exactly was being done. I'll look around and see what I
                    can find.

                    >
                    > I have been a technician before. Because technology breaks, its
                    inevitable that you have to
                    > do "experimentation" in order to fix the problems that come up.
                    Sometimes you don't
                    > know what is causing the problem in complex machines. Due to human
                    error, and the fact
                    > that machines break, we should not be relying on something so
                    dangerous when it fails.
                    >

                    Sure technology fails! That's why nuclear power plants, at least in
                    the western world, have all kinds of safety systems and backups built
                    in.
                  • XK SAZ
                    One of the cameras on Soho is facing the wrong way. Its facing to the left of the sun. You can t see the sun but you can see a bunch of stars and the light
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 23 9:51 AM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      One of the cameras on Soho is facing the wrong way. Its facing to the left of the sun. You
                      can't see the sun but you can see a bunch of stars and the light coming from the sun to
                      the
                      right. I don't know which camera it is.

                      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040419.html
                      It was a comet!!! I could only see this on the LASCO instrument because most of the Soho
                      shots are so close to the sun you can't see anything. I thought it was a cosmic ray...

                      April 22, 2004
                      Recovery from ESR has been postponed until tomorrow.
                      SOHO entered ESR (safe) mode at 07:27 UT. The ESR was tiggered by another spurious
                      FSPAAD (Fine Sun Pointing Attitude Anomaly Detector) anomaly. Recovery is in progress.
                      April 21, 2004
                      SOHO entered ESR (safe) mode at 05:37 UT. The ESR was tiggered by the FSPAAD (Fine Sun
                      Pointing Attitude Anomaly Detector)

                      Even if hydrogen were to come into wide useage
                      > tomorrow, the current technology for manufacturing hydrogen on a large
                      > scale requires fossil fuel.

                      There are other ways. In LA there is a bus company which makes hydrogen from solar a
                      solar array right at the pump station. There is an algae research farm that efficiently
                      makes hydrogen.
                    • David
                      As you ve found, SOHO has had experienced two ESR (Emergency Sun Reacquisition) events. At this time, there isn t any scientific data being returned from
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 23 2:25 PM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        As you've found, SOHO has had experienced two ESR (Emergency Sun
                        Reacquisition) events. At this time, there isn't any scientific data
                        being returned from SOHO.

                        >
                        > Even if hydrogen were to come into wide useage
                        > > tomorrow, the current technology for manufacturing hydrogen on a large
                        > > scale requires fossil fuel.
                        >
                        > There are other ways. In LA there is a bus company which makes
                        hydrogen from solar a
                        > solar array right at the pump station. There is an algae research
                        farm that efficiently
                        > makes hydrogen.

                        That's great! Like I've said...I don't mean to imply that the current
                        state of affairs is the best way, or that it can't be improved upon.
                        The technologies you've mentioned are all potentially viable
                        alternatives. In time, I have no doubt they will come into wider use.
                        However, it will take time, and during that time, oil is still the
                        fuel that drives the machines of industry, manufacturing, and
                        transportation.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.