From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration
if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have
worked on energy systems to replace the "dirty" sources that we have trouble
with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires
and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a
single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of
affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even
one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical
improvements, and I totally support all R&D, but if we cannot supply large
cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a
crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want
solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a
totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening.
I suppose that depends on your definition of work well now doesn't it. Solar
PV cells produce electricity from light. In what way do they not work? They
work as advertised. I notice you put "dirty" [electricity energy sources] in
quotes. pretty funny - you were joking right? Or did you buy into the myth
of clean coal?
The global installed capacity for solar PV is growing at breakneck speeds -
regardless of what you may believe. Cumulative global installed capacity of
solar PV reached roughly 65 gigawatts at the end of 2011; newly added solar
PV capacity for this year alone is forecast to be between 40 and 45 GW of
new extra added capacity to the already installed base. Cumulative global
installed photovoltaic capacities have doubled every two years on average
since 2004.
The prices for PV keeps coming down as well; in fact it has dropped an
amazing 99% in the past quarter century. The price for installed power
systems is also rapidly falling; it fell by a range of 6 to 14 percent, or
$0.30 per watt to $0.90 per watt, from 2011 to 2012 according to the sixth
edition of "Tracking the Sun," an annual PV cost-tracking report published
this week by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
I am going to go out on a limb here and point out that the facts pretty much
demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about.
Chris
One thing, possibly worth considering, are reactors based on Canadian
Slowpoke reactors, used for basic research. They supply small amounts of
kilowatts, so we'd need lots of them, and what the money cost would be is
unknown by ignorant me. I do know that these are fail safe in operation. I
don't know if they can be used as a target for terrorists, teenagers,
criminals, etc. What I have seen is that they could be buried in steel
reinforced concrete, and made inaccessible. Would this make it all too
expensive? Possibly. If solar can't and uranium or thorium should not be
for safety issues, then where else can we turn? Certainly shale gas, and
possibly methane hydrates, which exist in amounts, should we dare go after
it, would be enough energy to supply our species for 2000-10000 years. There
is the methane release issue involved with this.
My sense of things is that it is not AGW we should fear, or it's dishonest,
descendent, Climate Change, but our true enemies, pollution, and energy
starvation. Think, the 80's Road Warrior scenario. Easier to watch then to
live, I reckon.
-----Original Message-----
From: LizR <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components
(i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues
to work the same way downstream.
This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making
petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as
there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral.
We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary
reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd
eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of
GHGs in the air.
All a pipe dream no doubt.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
