Liberalism is supporting government? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I mean, liberalism is a typical conservative stance, for example, the more conservative the republican, the more liberal it is. Liberal as meaning interference of the government with the economy. The most liberal of the republican nowadays are Ron Paul supporters, after him comes neo cons and Reagan fans...
Republicans are liberals and Democrats are slightly less so, as far as I can perceive. There are minor issues (I mean, money management is the biggest issue for these parties) regarding abortion, minorities rights. But these stances fluctuates much more within each party. 2012/6/1 <ny....@aol.com> > Liberal Journalist wannabes seem to abound > in vertex. Experienced adults know that governments lie. Bureaucrats and > politicians > alike must keep their jobs as priority one. Thank you for your > observations, Chemical Engineer. Remember Communist Russia and > its creation of a land of happy, plenty, joyful and free democracy. > > Quickly > > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/answering-to-ruby-carats-what-if.html > (AnonymousMay 31, 2012 7:51 AM > Oops, why not work more on the references rather than > trying to complete your efforts toward making money as > a cold Fusion Consultant and/or author? See: Ruggero > Maria Santilli for one.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chemical Engineer <cheme...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Jun 1, 2012 12:48 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR > > Jed, > > Just a fact check. You don't know how many times I have heard that " a > solar site 100 miles to the side in the Mohave could generate all of the > power requirements for the US". > > Some numbers based upon most efficient claimed CSP plant: (approx 2 to 3 > times more efficient than PV but much more expensive) > > 370 MW Nominal generation requires 3500 acreas (largest, most efficient > claimed US solar thermal plant being constructed) > 350,000 mirrors (assuming they are clean) > Generates power ~10 hours/day > > To cover peak US demand of 768,000 MW you would need 781 MILLION mirrors > that only cover you 10 hours per day. The 110Mile x 110Mile plot is idle > at night. With thermal storage you would need to more than double the area > if you wanted to store during the day and generate at night, taking up > > 60% of the Mohave. > > You can double this area for utility scale PV which, although cheaper is > ~ half the efficiency of CSP/acre, in which case you would need a larger > Mohave. You also need to develop weather technology to keep all clouds out > of the desert... > > Also, your "Robots" will need to clean 781 million mirrors per month > (monthly cleaning cycle) in the heat and sand of the desert. Plus where > will you get the water to clean them or power for your army of hundreds of > thousands of robots? If you cannot clean 781 MILLION mirrors per month you > will need more, less efficient dirty mirrors and more space > > You will also pay 4 times more for this electricity than you are paying > now. > > Also, from a strategic defense standpoint, it would be very easy for an > enemy to blast one large nuke off over the desert and shatter all of those > mirrors. > > I am OK with distributed PV on rooftops but get the crap out of the > desert and give the BILLIONS to homeowners to subsidize installations. > Solar City has a much better business model. > > I admire your creativity and regurgitating green fluff but I think you > are drinking your own bath water and they are WASTING OUR MONEY > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Chemical Engineer <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> You mention projects that are advancing human civilization and many were >>> great investments. Are you OK spending billions on green projects that >>> have 1/100th or less the energy density/potential of existing fossil fuels >>> . . . >>> >> >> Which projects do you mean? I am not aware of anything like that. >> >> The energy density of uranium fission plants is not as good as existing >> fossil fuels, because uranium ore density is so low, but I still prefer >> uranium reactors to coal-fired plants. >> >> The power density of solar cells is low but as long as they are cheap >> it does not matter. (Energy density is meaningless in a solar cell or wind >> turbine; the energy will last for billions of years.) We are not running >> out of space on the roofs of houses, or in the deserts of the southwest. A >> solar array 100 miles to the side could generate all of energy in the U.S., >> and there are hundreds of miles of empty land in places like Arizona and >> North Africa. >> >> >> >>> Are you OK filling up the deserts with solar panels full of dust?. >>> >> >> Better than building more coal fired plants and filling people's lungs >> with dust. It is not problem keeping the panels clean with robots. It does >> not take much water or overhead. >> >> Wind now supplies 2% of electricity. It could be increased to 20% with >> today's distribution technology. That would displace half of coal fired >> electricity. In North America, it would be way cheaper than adding that >> much nuclear power (~100 reactors). >> >> >> I guess you would recommend a Billion Dollar DOE investment in >>> Rossi's company at this point? maybe a GigaCAT? >>> >> >> Of course not. Anyway, Rossi will take any investment money from >> anyone. I know several people with millions of dollars burning a hole in >> their pockets. They are pounding on his door. He will not take one dollar >> from them. He will not surrender any control over the product. >> >> - Jed >> >> > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
