![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
[Much snipped in the interest of brevity] On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:21:48 -0000, wrote: If our planet were a closed system, solar energy wouldn't work at all. Ah Jim, there you go demonstrating that sound mind capable of reasoned and insightful thoughts. I guess I need to amend my statement to exclude the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Thanks for the correction, but it doesn't materially affect my argument. Reasonable people know we cannot continue to dump our trash and emissions into our environment, and expect to continue to experience the same quality of life. Such has been illegal in the US for decades. Perhaps you are thinking of China, India, or Africa? You do know the modern view is that petroleum is not dinosaurs and is constantly being created in the Earth? At what rate? Please don't attempt to pull a Ted Cruz obfuscation, and attempt to imply, that petroleum is being created at a rate adequate to replenish the volume that is currently being extracted. :-) Does it really matter if KNOWN reserves are enough for hundreds of years? Known oil reserves are estimated to be several hundred years worth, which should be long enough to get fusion energy and good batteries working. So, you appear to agree that oil is a finite resource as compared to insolation. Perhaps, but the only place where there is guaranteed insolation is above about 80,000 feet. For the Earth's surface the amount of insolation is both latitude and climate dependant. And as long a petroleum is available, why shouldn't we use it? Not that petroleum has much of anything to do with electrical power. Fusion is the Holy Grail, but apparently nearly as elusive. [...] giant leaps in several technologies before something like an electric 747 becomes possible. I would be skeptical of the useful production of such an aircraft too, but the experts (NASA) appear to believe progress toward that end is possible: https://www.rt.com/usa/328220-nasa-electric-plane-future/ "Electric skies: NASA claims progress on hybrid plane engine Published time: 7 Jan, 2016 22:14 Project engineers and researchers at the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio are looking at electrical systems that could either replace or complement the current turbine engines, turning electricity into thrust. One of the agency?s goals is to help the aircraft industry shift away from kerosene-guzzling gas turbines, in order to reduce emissions, noise and fossil fuel consumption. Contrary to the childhood tales, wishing for something will not make it come true. The world's total usage of "fossil fuel" to power airplanes is a trivial drop in the bucket compared to total usage; jet fuel in the US uses 8%. If you think "sustainable power" has no environmetal impact, you are living in a fantasy world. I hope you aren't attempting to imply inefficient petroleum power is anywhere near as clean as a 98% efficient electric motor. The environmental impact from some energy technologies is more damaging than others... If you want to talk about efficiency, first discuss the 20% efficiency of solar conversion, the efficiency of charging and discharging batteries, and the effiency of inverters to convert solar power into something usefull. Concider how messy solar panel manufacturing is for starters. Not everyplace has abundent sunshine But every place does have _some_ sunshine. Where there is sunshine, it is possible to directly convert it to electricity without emissions. It's just a matter of how much square area of photovoltaics need to be installed to meet the particular demand. It is also possible to make a motor from a birthday candle, a permanent magnet, and a Zippo flint; that doesn't make it a practical source of power. How many square miles of forrest do you have to clear to provide solar power in places like Washington and Oregon? and the decentralized solar power in Hawaii, one of the few places where it is really practical, is destabilizing the grid. If the solar installation is totally off-grid, that becomes a non-issue. The way I see it, decentralizing electric distribution mitigates the issue of a single point of failure (among other benefits). Except modern society can not be sustained totally off grid and the batteries required to come anywhere near close would be both a huge manufacturing problem and a huge disposal problem. What do you do for power during winter storms that last for weeks? Living totally off-grid is only viable for hermits living in the boondocks. It may also impact the utility companys' bottom line, but, given the fact that So. Calif. Edison had the audacity to see that their former top executive at Southern California Edison Co., Michael Peevey, as California Public Utilities Commission President, that may be a good thing: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-puc-peevey-20141010-story.html "I think Peevey started his collusion early, and he did it often," Lynch said. "From the beginning he evidenced a complete disregard for the rules of law and a complete interest in cozying up to utilities." [...] Undisclosed emails and other private conversations are representative of the "endemic corruption" in state government created by "the imbalance" in lobbying power between wealthy corporations and advocacy groups that speak for consumers and utility ratepayers, said Robert Fellmeth, a regulatory law expert and director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego. Regulators like Peevey should not hold "secret conversations" with only one side in a pending case that they eventually will have to rule upon as both judge and jury, Fellmeth said. http://fueltracker.com/content/why-you-can-no-longer-trust-public-utilities-commission-look-out-your-best-interests What does some crook have to do with the realities of science, engineering, and power production and usage? snip Thank you for taking the time to ponder these issues and offer your insight. It's always a pleasure to read your views. FYI I have been closely watching the progress of solar power for several decades now and have consistantly found that it would never pay for itself in my lifetime, and I live in sunny southern California. -- Jim Pennino |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Doesn't Germany have the highest electricity prices in Europe? No, because there are 81 million people in Germany, and half of them use solar power. People with solar panels don't pay anything for electricity, instead... the power company pays them. It's called net metering. So you have to average the 40 million who get paid, in with the other 40 million. The panel installations are part of the home's equity and are transferable cash value. It's all mute anyway, because fossil fuels are responsible for the acidification which is destroying the worlds coral reefs now at an accelerated pace, among other proven mass extinction events. --- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-4, wrote: Doesn't Germany have the highest electricity prices in Europe? No, because there are 81 million people in Germany, and half of them use solar power. People with solar panels don't pay anything for electricity, instead... the power company pays them. It's called net metering. So you have to average the 40 million who get paid, in with the other 40 million. The panel installations are part of the home's equity and are transferable cash value. "German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe." http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-920288.html It's all mute anyway, because fossil fuels are responsible for the acidification which is destroying the worlds coral reefs now at an accelerated pace, among other proven mass extinction events. Yeah, sure. -- Jim Pennino |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 5/3/2016 5:28 PM, wrote: (In response to: "Reasonable people know we cannot continue to dump our trash and emissions into our environment, and expect to continue to experience the same quality of life." Such has been illegal in the US for decades. Huh? Go look at the back of your car. See that open ended pipe? Think about what comes out of that. Think about all of the millions of others just like it. Follow that open ended pipe back a bit; see the catalytic converter? Follow back a bit more; see all the crap to reduce emmisions? Ever looked under the hood of a car from the 50's? In the LA area, air concentrations of volatile organic compounds declined by a factor of 50 between 1962 and 2012. Nitrous oxides and ozone declined by 70% to 80% over the same period of time. As for "dump our trash", dairy farms now get fined for spilling milk. -- Jim Pennino |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:03:56 -0000, wrote: In the LA area, air concentrations of volatile organic compounds declined by a factor of 50 between 1962 and 2012. Nitrous oxides and ozone declined by 70% to 80% over the same period of time. I recall in the mid '50s in the Los Angeles area when homeowners burned their trash in backyard incinerators. It wasn't pretty. Then as freeway construction became completed, the air quality was so bad, that it hurt to inhale, eyes burned, and it was generally unbearable. Subsequently, California emissions control laws have made a very substantial positive impact on improving air quality, but that's not to say the air quality is good. There were a LOT of changes in the law on everything; trash burning, industry, farming, painting, vehicles, etc. LA smog did not just come from cars and entire industries have been legislated out of existance. Here's some supporting evidence: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0430-air-pollution-20140430-story.html L.A., Central Valley have worst air quality, American Lung Assn. says Which has more to do temperature inversions due to geography than anything else. snip The ports of L.A. and Long Beach are the largest single source of air pollution in the region. There are no solar powered ships nor 18 wheelers anywhere in the future. -- Jim Pennino |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 5/4/2016 1:03 PM, wrote: Follow that open ended pipe back a bit; see the catalytic converter? Follow back a bit more; see all the crap to reduce emmisions? Ever looked under the hood of a car from the 50's? In the LA area, air concentrations of volatile organic compounds declined by a factor of 50 between 1962 and 2012. Nitrous oxides and ozone declined by 70% to 80% over the same period of time. As for "dump our trash", dairy farms now get fined for spilling milk. Along with you, I applaud the progress that has been made in the past. That said, wave your arms all you want, talk about spilled milk all you want, the fact will remain that vehicle emissions are a major contributor to air pollution. As of 2011, there are over one billion cars in operation daily on planet earth. The implications are obvious. --- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Vaughn Simon wrote: On 5/4/2016 1:03 PM, wrote: Follow that open ended pipe back a bit; see the catalytic converter? Follow back a bit more; see all the crap to reduce emmisions? Ever looked under the hood of a car from the 50's? In the LA area, air concentrations of volatile organic compounds declined by a factor of 50 between 1962 and 2012. Nitrous oxides and ozone declined by 70% to 80% over the same period of time. As for "dump our trash", dairy farms now get fined for spilling milk. Along with you, I applaud the progress that has been made in the past. That said, wave your arms all you want, talk about spilled milk all you want, the fact will remain that vehicle emissions are a major contributor to air pollution. As of 2011, there are over one billion cars in operation daily on planet earth. The implications are obvious. Yes; people are more mobile than they have ever been. There are also about 2.5 million wood stoves and heaters in the USA. There are more 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world; none of them in the USA where they are shutting down. -- Jim Pennino |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Over San Francisco, pt 6 - Solar Impulse 03.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_8_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | September 2nd 15 12:46 PM |
Over San Francisco, pt 6 - Solar Impulse 02.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_8_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | September 2nd 15 12:46 PM |
Over San Francisco, pt 6 - Solar Impulse 01.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_8_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | September 2nd 15 12:46 PM |
RTW Solar Impulse 2 | Kilo-Bravo | Soaring | 5 | March 17th 15 07:17 AM |
Solar Impulse at Francazal (Toulouse/France) | Joan | Aviation Photos | 0 | July 26th 12 12:53 PM |