Re: Electronium (*e-) Enrichment in Biological Transmutations?
The ocean salt spray (14.7 PSI Beta-Atmosphere?) allows for the generation of positron-emitting Sodium-22 by spallation of neutrons off sodium or magnesium by cosmic rays. This might explain the strange 4.5 to 1 Na/K ratio in Sea Water Calcium forms carbonates that are less soluble in water than similar Magnesium compounds. The White Cliffs of Dover and Environs (British Isles) are sedimentary in origin. :-) Fred Sodium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/geol.html Magnesium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Mg/geol.html Potassium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/K/geol.html Calcium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Ca/geol.html http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research Development Command, Ft. Belvoir, VA Report 2247 (May 1978) Abstract ~ "The purpose of the study was to determine whether recent disclosures of elemental transmutations occurring in biological entities have revealed new possible sources of energy. The works of Kervran, Komaki, and others were surveyed; and it was concluded that, granted the existence of such transmutations (Na to Mg, K to Ca, and Mn to Fe), then a net surplus of energy was also produced. A proposed mechanism was described in which Mg-Adenosine Triphosphate (MgATP), located in the mitochondrion of the cell, played a double role as an energy producer. In addition to the widely accepted biochemical role of MgATP in which it produces energy as it disintegrated part by part, MgATP can also be considered to be a cyclotron on a molecular scale. The MgATP when placed in layers one atop the other has all the attributes of a cyclotron in accordance with the requirements set forth by E.O. Lawr! ence, inventor of the cyclotron.? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002ApPhL..81.1098Kamp;db_key=PHYamp;data_type=HTMLamp;format= Abstract~ "We have investigated effects of electric fields on the yield of secondary electron emission (SEE) from the primary electron bombardment on magnesium oxide (MgO) covering vertically grown multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). We observe that the yield of SEE increases up to at least 22 000 at a special condition. The strong local field generated by the sharp tip of vertically grown MWCNTs accelerates secondary electrons generated by primary electrons. This eventually gives rise to so called Townsend avalanche effect, generating huge number of secondary electrons in a MgO film. Emission mechanism for such a high SEE will be further discussed with energy spectrum analysis."
Re: Electronium (*e-) Enrichment in Biological Transmutations?
Note to a geologist friend. At least he was. :-) Lenr/Canr "Active Sites"? Dave, I find that the transitory Positronium Negative Ion Ps- may form a bound "Triad" (e- e+ e-) or "Electronium" (*e-) with a mass about 1,7 to 2.7 electron masses. It may be ubiquitous in nature. I'm looking for it (it may be down in the K shell of most atoms). Got any colleagues with a stash of positron-emitting Na-22 (~6,000 Curie/gram) that can transmute NaHCO3 (baking soda) into MgCO3,or KHCO3 into CaCO3 etc.? Fred - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: 3/15/2006 1:05:56 AM Subject: Re: Electronium (*e-) Enrichment in Biological Transmutations? The ocean salt spray (14.7 PSI Beta-Atmosphere?) allows for the generation of positron-emitting Sodium-22 by spallation of neutrons off sodium or magnesium by cosmic rays. This might explain the strange 4.5 to 1 Na/K ratio in Sea Water Calcium forms carbonates that are less soluble in water than similar Magnesium compounds. The White Cliffs of Dover and Environs (British Isles) are sedimentary in origin. :-) Fred Sodium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/geol.html Magnesium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Mg/geol.html Potassium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/K/geol.html Calcium: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Ca/geol.html http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research Development Command, Ft. Belvoir, VA Report 2247 (May 1978) Abstract ~ "The purpose of the study was to determine whether recent disclosures of elemental transmutations occurring in biological entities have revealed new possible sources of energy. The works of Kervran, Komaki, and others were surveyed; and it was concluded that, granted the existence of such transmutations (Na to Mg, K to Ca, and Mn to Fe), then a net surplus of energy was also produced. A proposed mechanism was described in which Mg-Adenosine Triphosphate (MgATP), located in the mitochondrion of the cell, played a double role as an energy producer. In addition to the widely accepted biochemical role of MgATP in which it produces energy as it disintegrated part by part, MgATP can also be considered to be a cyclotron on a molecular scale. The MgATP when placed in layers one atop the other has all the attributes of a cyclotron in accordance with the requirements set forth by E.O. Lawr! ! ence, inventor of the cyclotron.? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002ApPhL..81.1098Kamp;db_key=PHYamp;data_type=HTMLamp;format= Abstract~ "We have investigated effects of electric fields on the yield of secondary electron emission (SEE) from the primary electron bombardment on magnesium oxide (MgO) covering vertically grown multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). We observe that the yield of SEE increases up to at least 22 000 at a special condition. The strong local field generated by the sharp tip of vertically grown MWCNTs accelerates secondary electrons generated by primary electrons. This eventually gives rise to so called Townsend avalanche effect, generating huge number of secondary electrons in a MgO film. Emission mechanism for such a high SEE will be further discussed with energy spectrum analysis."
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Nick Palmer wrote: Thomas Malloy wrote to the lone wolf meteorologist Roy Spencer and was directed by the reply to his website of serious articles http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267 Mr Spencer further poured scorn on the piece of popular journalism at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm by saying I would say that is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate issues Dr. Spencer contends that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. Undersea volcanoes could well account for the observed events; melting of the edges of the arctic icecaps, thickening of the centers of the icecaps, and increase in temperature generally. Is this man not one of the most irresponsible people you can imagine? That depends on how you look at it, Nick. IMHO if you are right, there's nothing we can do about it anyway. C to C AM has had three interviewes, who questioned the Global Warming hypothesis, one of whom made the case that we are entering an ice age. Later Keith Nagel wrote; Dow index / Jan 2000 - 11,500 Jan 2006 - 10,780 aggregate US economic growth, -6% Roaring, Rev? How about whimpering like a pimpslapped bitch. No point in addressing the rest. Please reconnect to reality and try again. Operators are standing by. whimpering compaired to what? The youngest people who can remember the great depression are pushing 70. The system can't be even throtled back without crashing. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: Electronium (*e-) Sodium-22 Laced Electrolysis Cells
- Original Message - *From:* Frederick Sparber mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To: *vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* 3/14/2006 4:14:51 AM *Subject:* Re: Electronium (*e-) Sodium-22 Laced Electrolysis Cells FWIW, Jones. A gram of Sodium-22 (2.605 year half-life) undergoes 2.3e14 0.55 MeV positron (e+) decays per second (6,225 Curie) leading to an excited Neon-22 nucleus that emits a 1.27 MeV gamma (sufficient energy for providing the 1.02 MeV required for additional electron-positron pair production). This brings the sort of circuit that the late Paul Brown used in the Nuclear and Tritium Batteries. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Nick Palmer wrote: I first heard it when I was talking to one of the politicians (Economics Minister) in my own fair Jersey about 10 years ago when he metaphorically patted me on the head and (paraphrasing) said don't you realise, little Green person, that we need more economic growth to pay for the environmental clean up that you say is needed! This is a bit like a drug user saying they need even more drugs to get their life back in order... That's true. That's the point I was trying to make. We need less economic activity, not more. A large fraction of economic activity is annoying waste that nobody really wants: things like traffic jams, and overly-bright street lights that interfere with sleep and disrupt nocturnal species. On the other hand, we do need a high level of industrial RD capability to fix these problems. For example, a third-world country mired in hopeless poverty will not invent a fiber-optic telecommunting infrastructure to reduce traffic jams. But once these things are invented, poor but educated countries India or Pakistan can build a telecom system and use it to offshore jobs from the U.S! I hope they are also using it to reduce traffic jams within India, by building small, satellite offices to reduce commuting distances. It would be ironic of programmers in India drive for an hour through choked traffic in order to do on-line work for companies that are thousands of miles away. - Jed
Austria: It ain't hopeless
From the Financial Times Jan. 30, 2006 page 6 In 2003, nearly 70 percent of Austria's domestically produced power came from renewable sources. Biomass fuelled 11.2 percent of Austria's total primary energy supply and 21 per cent of heat production Not only do forests grow back, they absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow. With almost half of Austria covered in forests, wood fired schemes have grown in popularity Biomass energy is a growing business in Austria A new market in wood pellets - compressed sawdust that is drier, cleaner and easier to transport than other biomass fuels - was key to the spread of domestic boilers Austria is pushing biomass in EU and having success doing it. Much of the biomass comes from by- products of existing forestry such as sawdust, chips and low grade logs.
[O.T. - N.T.] Apocalypse Now? 8-)
= Renowned Bird Flu Expert Warns: Be Prepared - March 14, 2006 - Robert G. Webster is one of the few bird flu experts confident enough to answer the key question: Will the avian flu switch from posing a terrible hazard to birds to becoming a real threat to humans? There are about even odds at this time for the virus to learn how to transmit human to human, he told ABC's World News Tonight. Webster, the Rosemary Thomas Chair at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., is credited as the first scientist to find the link between human flu and bird flu. Webster and his team of scientists are working to find a way to beat the virus if it morphs. He has even been dubbed the Flu Hunter. Right now, H5N1, a type of avian influenza virus, has confined itself to birds. It can be transmitted from bird to human but only by direct contact with the droppings and excretions of infected birds. But viruses mutate, and the big fear among the world's scientists is that the bird flu virus will join the human flu virus, change its genetic code and emerge as a new and deadly flu that can spread through the air from human to human. If the virus does mutate, it does not necessarily mean it will be as deadly to people as it is to birds. But experts such as Webster say they must prepare for the worst. I personally believe it will happen and make personal preparations, said Webster, who has stored a three-month supply of food and water at his home in case of an outbreak. Frightening Warning Society just can't accept the idea that 50 percent of the population could die. And I think we have to face that possibility, Webster said. I'm sorry if I'm making people a little frightened, but I feel it's my role. Most scientists won't put it that bluntly, but many acknowledge that Webster could be right about the flu becoming transmissible among humans, even though they believe the 50 percent figure could be too high. Researcher Dr. Anne Moscona at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center said that a human form may not mutate this year or next - or ever - but it would be foolish to ignore the dire consequences if it did. If bird flu becomes not bird flu but mutates into a form that can be transmitted between humans, we could then have a spread like wildfire across the globe, Moscona said. = Well, the Apocalyse does have a section where 200,000,000 horsemen slay one third of the human race. 8-) Cheers, Cassandra See also, http://www.fluwikie.com/index.php?n=About.About Jonas
Re: [O.T. - N.T.] Apocalypse Now? 8-)
-Original Message- From: Grimer Well, the Apocalyse does have a section where 200,000,000 horsemen slay one third of the human race. 8-) Cassie, Sounds a bit like the Raison Strain in Ted Dekker's circle trilogy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Dekker Ted's works are sometimes listed as religion; but, I think 'inspirational' would be a better term . . . kind of an adult Narnia. Hmmm, a deadly disease whose name in English is 'reason'. -Thomas of Hunter ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: [O.T. - N.T.] Apocalypse Now? 8-)
On Mar 15, 2006, at 8:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Grimer Well, the Apocalyse does have a section where 200,000,000 horsemen slay one third of the human race. 8-) If they are each on horseback that's going to make for an awful lot of horse dung! 8^) The bright side is that could be used to make a lot of methane. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: I first heard it when I was talking to one of the politicians (Economics Minister) in my own fair Jersey about 10 years ago when he metaphorically patted me on the head and (paraphrasing) said don't you realise, little Green person, that we need more economic growth to pay for the environmental clean up that you say is needed! This is a bit like a drug user saying they need even more drugs to get their life back in order... That's true. That's the point I was trying to make. We need less economic activity, not more. A large fraction of economic activity is annoying waste that nobody really wants: things like traffic jams, and overly-bright street lights that interfere with sleep and disrupt nocturnal species. With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity, especially in housing retrofits. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. We have the opportunity to make the WWII boom look like a minor blip. Before this can happen, unfortunately, the people have to wake up to what is going on, what could happen depending of courses of action chosen, and what it all means to them directly.
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Horace Heffner wrote: With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . . This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope. . . . especially in housing tetrofits. Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders. $10,000 per house would improve that by much. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing, and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8 trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. In certain countries such as India and Africa, small, self-contained systems, such as for pumping irrigation water, or powering comfort fans, can work wonders. For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. But in order to capitalize on biomass, there have to be some logistical structures in place. P. At 02:37 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . . This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope. . . . especially in housing tetrofits. Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders. $10,000 per house would improve that by much. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing, and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8 trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. There is a good possibility of retrofits. Also, gas guzzling SUVs and trucks will probably end up in the junk yard much faster than before. I think the transition period to new vehicle types must necessarily result in increased economic activity. Additionally, entire new career types will develop. Being an auto mechanic or running a filling station will just not be the same! What you are saying is true in the long run from a world perspective. The problem in the transportation area is more along the lines of *where* the main interim activity will occur. My impression is that it will not be in the US unless significant changes in attitude occur. It is likely that building of entirely new vehicle classes, like inexpensive personal commuter vehicles, will eventually reduce overall economic activity. Similarly, reduced vehicle usage due to changes in commuting habits should reduce vehicle dollar sales volume. However, economic efficiency gains improve quality of life, even ignoring environmental quality issues. And maybe that was your original point - that we can reduce economic activity while simultaneously improving quality of life. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . . This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope. . . . especially in housing tetrofits. Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders. $10,000 per house would improve that by much. Here it depends on just what kinds of retrofits are being made. I am assuming here that these might include addition of solar energy gathering, general energy storage facilities, utility coordinating computers/communications, and vehicle energizing facilities. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing, and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8 trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead. Renewable energy is achieved by the replacement of energy mining with energy device manufacturing. I think this can be achieved at comparable costs per BTU for petroleum, as shown in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf and substantiated in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf. This means that trillions of dollars per year are moved from light labor activity (mining/exploration) to a labor intensive manufacturing activity. The ultimate product is the same, the value of 400 quads/year. However, the economic multiplier for labor intensive activities, like manufacturing, is higher. More peripheral support jobs are created, e.g. teachers, doctors, store clerks, etc. The quality of life for the masses is improved. This is offset by a reduction in income for the comparatively few who own the petroleum infrastructure. However, if clever, the petro-people are the very people who can benefit the most by having the wisdom to jump on the renewable energy bandwagon as soon as possible with their windfall profits. If not, they will ultimately go the way of the dinosaur. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Philip Winestone wrote: In certain countries such as India and Africa, small, self- contained systems, such as for pumping irrigation water, or powering comfort fans, can work wonders. For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. What is the basis for this position? Wind rose data for mountain top regions in northern latitudes like Canada and Alaska show enormous energy potential. The southern US has enormous solar generating potential, and Canada has much to offer in trade in the US/Canada energy grid. The principle technological problems are renewable energy storage and transmission. There are also the lessor problems of generating power during windmill feathering in high winds, and operating in arctic conditions, but these problems are solvable. There is good geothermal potential in the US and Canada as well as bio-fuel potential. In addition, renewable energy can be imported from efficient solar generating countries using silicon or nitrogen based energy transport systems. See supporting material and refs at http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/. Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. But in order to capitalize on biomass, there have to be some logistical structures in place. Yes, major infrastructure changes have to occur to convert to renewable energy. However, these infrastructure changes and the economic efficiencies occurring as a result of these changes should have a dramatic and positive effect on the world economy and the quality of life. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Philip Winestone wrote: For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. That's incorrect. The U.S. wind power in the top ~5 states is larger than the power from all of the oil produced in the Middle East. (That is, wind power from places where turbines are allowed, excluding national parks, bird migratory lanes, urban areas and so on.) Solar power in the southeast could also easily supply all U.S. energy needs. As I recall, advanced, large scale solar in the Mohave desert could probably supply the entire world with energy, but the cost would be prohibitive. There are areas in the U.S. without much renewable power, such as Georgia and Washington DC. (If we could harness stupidity, cupidity and hot air, Washington alone could supply the whole nation.) Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. Hydro is tapped out. Biomass is far too small to make a significant difference. Biomass is a form of solar energy which happens to be less than 0.1% efficient, which is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday March 10, 2006
Our dear curmudgeon has responded. Terry From: Robert Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add to Address Book Date: 2006/03/15 Wed PM 03:09:08 EST To: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sonofusion go retire yourself! Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2006 9:06 PM Greetings Bob, You might like to examine Dr. Putterman's involvement in the referenced issues before you pass judgement. Don't you think it's time you retired? History can be quite ascerbic. Warmest regards, Terry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WHAT'S NEW Robert L. ParkFriday, 10 Mar 06 Washington, DC 1. BUBBLE FUSION: NEWS OF SCIENCE THAT WON'T CHANGE YOUR LIFE. The story sounded vaguely familiar. A claim was made in the month of March that deuterium fusion had been produced in a desktop experiment. However, experienced nuclear physicists, using the same experimental setup except for better detection equipment, found no evidence of fusion. By early summer, the bubble burst. Cold fusion in 1989? No, bubble fusion in 2002, http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn030102.html . But like cold fusion, the corpse of bubble fusion keeps twitching. In 2003, Rusi Taleyarkhan, who made the claim, moved from Oak Ridge to Purdue University. There he claimed to confirm fusion. Others found nothing. Last week, citing extremely serious concerns, Purdue announced a full review of Taleyarkhan's work. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Sorry - but I've been there. I was an alternate energy engineer quite a few years ago, specializing in solar, both in North America and overseas in India, Pakistan and Thailand. Wind power is inconsistent (like I said). Solar power - if you put panels on every square metre of the US - may supply lots of energy. Prohibitive cost? Yup. We also have three levels of hot air in Canada: Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Lots of potential there. Small hydro? Location-specific, but as I said, consistent. Biomass? Lots of logging here in Canada, as well as crop waste; lots of potential. Some years ago the Tennessee Valley Authority had some excellent, quite ambitious plans for harnessing biomass. Like I said, they tackled the logistics and the rest fell into place. P. At 04:21 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. That's incorrect. The U.S. wind power in the top ~5 states is larger than the power from all of the oil produced in the Middle East. (That is, wind power from places where turbines are allowed, excluding national parks, bird migratory lanes, urban areas and so on.) Solar power in the southeast could also easily supply all U.S. energy needs. As I recall, advanced, large scale solar in the Mohave desert could probably supply the entire world with energy, but the cost would be prohibitive. There are areas in the U.S. without much renewable power, such as Georgia and Washington DC. (If we could harness stupidity, cupidity and hot air, Washington alone could supply the whole nation.) Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. Hydro is tapped out. Biomass is far too small to make a significant difference. Biomass is a form of solar energy which happens to be less than 0.1% efficient, which is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Philip Winestone wrote: Sorry - but I've been there. I was an alternate energy engineer quite a few years ago, specializing in solar . . . What kind of solar? PV or direct thermal? Direct, large scale thermal plants were built 20 years ago by Luz, and they take less land area than coal or nuclear plants do when you factor in the size of the mines. They take much less land than hydroelectricity does, when you factor in the land that is submerged by the lake behind the dam. They are more efficient than PV, and about 250 times more efficient than biomass. See Strirling Energy, Sempra Energy and others. They are building a 500 MW unit and a 900 MW unit. These units do not take much land. See: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/news/Solars%20Day%20in%20the%20Sun%20-%20WSJ%2011-17-05.pdf Stirling claims that a solar farm 100 miles square could supply all U.S. electricity. Others have made similar claims. There are plenty of places in the Southwest desert ares where you could hide an installation as large as this -- not that you would actually put it all in one location. See: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all Wind power is inconsistent (like I said). For many applications this does not matter. Solar power - if you put panels on every square metre of the US - may supply lots of energy. Panels -- meaning PV. This is the wrong approach in the U.S., with present day technology, although it is going great guns in Japan. Japan has different land use and weather parameters. Prohibitive cost? Yup. Stirling expects it will cost 10 cents per kWh in their first installations. Others estimate 6 cents. That's expensive but not prohibitive. The cost would fall to 2 cents if these things were developed on a large scale. (That is true of wind, as well.) PV electricity in Japan is now cheaper than centrally generated power, which is admittedly the world's most expensive. - Jed
Good summary of solar generators
See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_37/b3950067_mz018.htm Quotes: The price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) that SCE will pay is confidential and must be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. But there's little doubt that the contract will get a thumbs-up, perhaps as soon as next month. One reason: SCE says the price it negotiated is so attractive -- well below the 11.33 cents per kWh it now pays for peak power -- that it won't seek any subsidies from the state. Osborn says that a dish farm of 11 miles square could produce as much electricity as the 2,050 MW from Hoover Dam. We're already looking at a half-dozen one-square-mile sites in the California desert, he says, and there's lots and lots more territory there. [NOTE: Lake Mead, behind the Hoover Dam, takes up 247 square miles. Of course, people enjoy Lake Mead, but that is not true of many other hydroelectric projects, especially in Canada and South America. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/lakefaqs.html] - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Oh, incidentally, if I were to choose a way for people to become somewhat energy independent (ie - not hooked up to some grid and thus not totally dependent on giant energy purveyors) I would far rather put my energy into developing viable cold fusion applications, and not waste my time on the other stuff we've already discussed. Philip. At 04:21 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. That's incorrect. The U.S. wind power in the top ~5 states is larger than the power from all of the oil produced in the Middle East. (That is, wind power from places where turbines are allowed, excluding national parks, bird migratory lanes, urban areas and so on.) Solar power in the southeast could also easily supply all U.S. energy needs. As I recall, advanced, large scale solar in the Mohave desert could probably supply the entire world with energy, but the cost would be prohibitive. There are areas in the U.S. without much renewable power, such as Georgia and Washington DC. (If we could harness stupidity, cupidity and hot air, Washington alone could supply the whole nation.) Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. Hydro is tapped out. Biomass is far too small to make a significant difference. Biomass is a form of solar energy which happens to be less than 0.1% efficient, which is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Philip Winestone writes: Oh, incidentally, if I were to choose a way for people to become somewhat energy independent (ie - not hooked up to some grid and thus not totally dependent on giant energy purveyors) Honestly, I see no point to energy independence. Why does anyone care whether they are hooked to a grid or not? The power company charges a reasonable price. You cannot have wind power without a grid. I mean, I would prefer a world with no grid, because power lines are ugly and they take up space. But since we have a grid why does anyone want to get off of it? Of course CF would have countless advantages, and it would do away with the grid. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Philip Winestone wrote: ...I really can't be bothered arguing how many PV modules can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, all those facts can be so annoying. Horace Heffner
Polar CO2
Polar carbon dioxide increasing at surprising rate. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1729255,00.html In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm. Horace Heffner
Efimov state - key to multi-nuclear LENR?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060315174950.htm This ring means that three objects are entangled. If you pick up any one of them, the other two will follow. However, if you cut one of them off, the other two will fall apart, Chin said. There is something magic about this number of three. If you can create this kind of state out of any other type of particle, it'll have exactly the same behavior, Chin said. This is a cryogenic state, but one has to wonder about the possibility of a similar state existing in a lattice for a sufficient time to produce multi-nuclear LENR. Horace Heffner
