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

Re: alternatives

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Apr 16, 2004
    • 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 2 of 10 , Apr 21, 2004
      • 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 3 of 10 , Apr 21, 2004
        • 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 4 of 10 , Apr 21, 2004
          • 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 5 of 10 , Apr 21, 2004
            • 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 6 of 10 , Apr 23, 2004
              • 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 7 of 10 , Apr 23, 2004
                • 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.