This does not bode well. The Kiplinger Letter, April 11, 2008, had the
following to say about future electricity bills:
Electricity rate increases will accelerate in another year or two.
Among the drivers: Financing woes squelching plant
Escalating costs...both for materials and for skilled technicians...
SNIP
That looks good to me.? Thats what I do ... start up new power plants,
scribbers, etc.
Mo money.. yea!
To bad the money for oil is not recirculating around the US also.
Frank Z
From Frank Z:
Regarding Kiplinger's comment: Escalating costs...both for materials
and for skilled technicians...
That looks good to me. Thats what I do ...
start up new power plants, scribbers, etc.
Mo money.. yea!
...
What about Kiplinger's latter comment: ...combined with a more
Best option would be to get the CO2 from the atmosphere as we are all aware,
let's see the implications:
= extensive growing surfaces with ample water, nutrients and sunlight
= the oceans provide all that, as discussed before
= it occurs to me we could use the natural ocean streams as conveyor
Nice posting Michel,
I can envision a fleet of large ocean going catamaran
vessels, hulls perhaps 200 meters in length, and
designed so that between the hulls is fitted on a
roller mecahism a continuous recirculating open-weave
netting to harvest the sargasso.
The catamaran could even be
It sounds quite shipshape ;-)
The harvesting/processing vessels could be powered by their own algoil in low
wind conditions, quite frequent in the Sargasso Sea.
The bulk of the fertilizers, iron included, would be made on the spot too, in
the form of the press cake, right?
Michel
-
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:08:33 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
--- Nick Palmer wrote:
getting the CO2 from existing coal/oil/gas fired
plants would be FAR better...
I agree 100%. The situation is not either/or.
CO2 should definitely be removed from the exhaust of
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
If I'm not mistaken (and I could well be), then the US actually consumes more
fossil fuel to generate electricity than it does for transportation . . .
Roughly the same for both: 26.6 quads of oil for transportation, and
for electric power 20.5 quads of coal and
--- Robin
If I'm not mistaken (and I could well be), then the
US actually consumes more fossil fuel to generate
electricity than it does for transportation,
Yes but much of that consumption for electricity is
provided by nuclear, hydro, wind, solar or in sites
which cannot easily adapt to
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:05:25 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
--- Robin
If I'm not mistaken (and I could well be), then the
US actually consumes more fossil fuel to generate
electricity than it does for transportation,
Yes but much of that consumption for
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is true that a breakthrough in batteries (what
happened to EEStor ??) would bring the situation into
better balance by shifting more demand to the grid.
Not a lot of real news on their wiki article:
Hunting with a cavitation pistol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCRJSGVIrs
This shrimp has great aim.
Terry
OrionWorks wrote:
This does not bode well. The Kiplinger Letter, April 11, 2008, had the
following to say about future electricity bills:
Electricity rate increases will accelerate in another year or two
But it's good news for anyone with an
Charles M. Brown wrote:
Vorts,
The diode array is still available for development.
It is said that the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids devices that
absorb heat while releasing electrical power
Yah, all you've got to do is get it to work! This is makes the case for
why I find the
14 matches
Mail list logo
