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

Re: alternatives

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.