Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Klaus Stock wrote: Nope. In Germany, political reasons are the real reasons, not common sense. The europeans are crazy. They don't know what to do, they add a lot of uncertainty to the economy with all those subsidies that come and go, taxes that come and go, and regulations that come and go. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, not technology. I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high Only for an ideal wind turbine. In real life, current designs have to be turned out of the wind if the wind gets strong. They actually have a rather small range of wind speeds in which they can operate; both weak and strong wind is a problem. Vertical wind turbines, like the Savonius design, are less efficient, but can cope with a wider range of wind speed (including weaker wind and turbulent wind). Advocates of vertical wind turbines often cite conspiracy theories as the reason for the limited use of these designs in large scales. wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in elevation from one large area to anothermountaintops aren't good because you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in wind would be doing water storage already. Nope. In Germany, political reasons are the real reasons, not common sense. Electricity from wind turbines was highly subsidized, with the result that it became commercially efficient to erect wind parks at location which made absolutely no sense. After this had been found out, the subsidies have been reduced. But still you can make more money by producing electricity than by pumping water. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: (Keith) If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to yourself. I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance of suceeeding. Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of working on power satellites and laser propulsion. I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix. I make a case that going to laser propulsion and power sats would get humanity off fossil fuels in 20 years. Do you consider that a quick fix? But, we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run. snip I notice you don't put either a cost per kWh or a capital investment on any of these tired proposals, Nuclear is both expensive and slow (even in China) to install. There are also scaling problems. If you are going to get off fossil fuel, do you really want to build 15,000 1 GW reactors? If we are going to make a good choice, we need to cite the numbers. I have analyzed the cost of this new idea to build power satellites with laser propulsion. I get $1600 per kW and 2 cents per kWh based on 6.8% discount rate. The cost information for other forms is easy to find. Offer stands, but you are going to have to cite defensible numbers to get me to switch my efforts to your concept of how to solve the problem. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 12/1/2012 6:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote: How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not populareven going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much for Obama to propose. I am assuming that at some point we have enough Sandy's to tip the balance. That will come much later than it should have come, but I think it will come at some point. IF you don't think that will ever happen, just adjust your forecasts accordingly. BTW, carbon taxes are an economically efficient way of reducing emissions, which means that if you need to reduce emissions this does it with the least negative effect on the economy. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to yourself. I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance of suceeeding. Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of working on power satellites and laser propulsion. I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix. But, we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run. Short run: give nuclear power a level playing field...the same safety requirements as any other industry, and allow the testing of new safer, cheaper designs in the US and Europe. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that the Communist party/the government of China is a good source for innovation. Princelings tend to not want to vary from the tried and true much. So it is up to Europe and the US to do this. (I've had experience both with Chinese tech. goods and as a potential vendor for China and you can see the fingers of the Communist party holding back the wheels of progress in both cases). Short run: improve fuel efficiency standards. Add a tax to gasoline and electricity. Have rebates for low income people to balance the tax. If they spend it elsewhere, find. Short run: build a natural gas infrastructure for truck transportation in the US. The decline in US emissions to 1992 levels (even though the population increased 23%) is mostly due to the switch to natural gas from coal. But, the critical area is the developing world. China puts out more CO2 than the US and EU combined, and the new coal plants on order from China and India will add this amount again. So, we need to make nuclear power cheap. It may not be enough to be as cheap as coal, and in that case the west could switch but India and China would be far less likely to. In the west, the small difference in cost would not be a barrier. The difference is larger in India and China because coal is very cheap with no pollution control or mining regulations. Mid term, offer subsidies for synthetic biofuels that do not displace cropland. Right now, several companies are in pilot to initial commercial appplication. I'd give this field the highest chance of working: say 25% chance of being close to competitive with gasoline while using concentrated waste CO2, sunlight, bioengineered life forms, and brackish water. Then, the goverments should support research in areas that would allow for alternative energy in decades. This would be developing our knowledge in a lot of different fields so someoone could put the knowledge together to develop either a power source or effective power storage. They include Plasma physics Mesoscopic physics Synthetic biology Material sciences And more engineering oriented, but still experimental: Development of capacitance Development of compact accelerators This is not exhaustive, I'd welcome suggestions. It's putting governments back in the business of funding fundamental research at, say, 1% of GDP. There will be scores of possibilities that all have a 1%-2% chance of working. And when one does, venture capital and small companies can be the mechanism for picking winners and losers. The government's job is to prepare the field. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, not technology. I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in elevation from one large area to anothermountaintops aren't good because you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in wind would be doing water storage already. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:13 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote: So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not populareven going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much for Obama to propose. Given the fact that Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate 95-0, I can't see carbon taxes at 5x the European level. At the present level of Europe's tax, it would cost an extra 0.6 cents/kwH for natural gas and 1.2 cents per kWh for coal. That's peanuts compared to the extra cost for wind/endergy storage which is by far the cheapest form of energy. And for gasoline, it's an extra 11 cents/gallon, well within the weekly variation in price. And, this is just the US. China will just use coal. But, windmills will not be effective until the total cost, with energy storage, becomes within a 2-3 cents/kwH of other sources. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Dan Minette wrote: Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save water and not consume natural gas when the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other sources of energy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save water and not consume natural gas when the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other sources of energy. I remember one study where it was predicted that if (in Germany) 10% if the required electricity is produced by wind, temperatures on land will rise and drop on the sea. To me, that sounds like wind farms on land will deliver not enough energy to power the air conditions we might need. Wind farms on the water will reduce evaporation. No idea how big this impact will be, but if we begin to need desalination plants to provide water for irrigation, wind farms might again lead to less energy instead of more. Furthermore, the currently used designs require massive maintenance. Production of replacement parts is not CO2-neutral. Not by far! Yo, still somewhat better than burning coal. But still surprisingly dirty. Water is, AFAIR, even worse. The water basins replace plants, which would otherwise convert CO2. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity are often cited as a solution to the storage problem. Apart from the problem mentioned above, they are also inefficient. While a modern pumped-storage hydropower station may yield an efficiency between 70% and 80%, energy transmission from and to the the site also takes a toll. It's estimated that today about 50% of the electrical energy is lost on it's wan from the power plant to the user. Consider that the energy might to be transmitted twice (to the pumped-storage hydropower station and back). Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, not technology. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save water and not consume natural gas when the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other sources of energy. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Texas actually had a fairly large number of windmills. And, they had been used in tandum with expensive natural gas. The natural gas plants are cheaper than coal, but the fuel was more expensive. So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. The largest German company in this field has calculated that they can only count on about 10% of the nameplate capacity from windmills. As a result, when windmills get to over 6%-10% of total grid power, they become impractical. The black swan I was talking about was a cheap efficient storage mechanism for vast amounts of power. That would make windmills practical as a significant source. Otherwise, we can have them as a 4%-8% source, but always need to rely on other sources. At low levels, this might make ecconomic sense. But, having two sets of power plants, overall, does not make sense. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/29/2012 6:38 PM, Dan Minette wrote: They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So, using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it. Well, I just noted that a new technology has come along that replaces much of the use of rare earth elements (it had to do with electric motors). This is one of the reasons you have to be slightly skeptical about attempts to use predatory pricing to create monopolies. The very act of raising prices creates a strong incentive for substitutes, among other things. I just did a Google search on rare earth substitutes that brought back a number of recent articles about how rare earth prices were falling as a result of manufacturers finding substitutes, and other articles about how manufacturers are finding those substitutes. Now, I cannot say exactly how this will play out since predictions are hard, especially when they are about the future. ;) But there is a concept in economics called hysteresis that says that changes once made are sometimes hard to reverse. A great example of this was the automobile market in the 1970s. When oil prices rose, consumers went looking for fuel-efficient autos. When U.S. manufacturers could not meet this demand, they turned to the hitherto ignored Japanese cars. This led them to discover a previously unknown fact, that those cars were of higher quality than American cars. As a result, even when oil prices fell, the market share of Japanese autos did not fall back to its previous level. A permanent change had occurred in consumers' preferences. It is at least conceivable to me that the research into alternatives to rare earths will result in a permanent fall in demand for them. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote: So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. Of course, certain critical businesses will be exempt from that tax. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. That's impressive hearing considering that the big, high efficiency lasers that make this concept possible have been around for less than 5 years. This particular combination, I haven't heard for 50 years. But, the basic physics of photoelectric cells has been around for over a century; current produced by low intensity beams was one of the key early experiments that led to QM. So, the basic physics for solar panels has been around that longOK, not well understood for a couple of decades. Still, Germany is building more coal plants for electricity and solar panels for show. The physics behind fusion power has been around for 60 years. In the '50s, it was assumed that fusion plants would be common in the '80s. The physics hasn't changed. But, a lot of practical problems have come up, and the optimists are saying 30 years, like they did in the 50s. I've seen resources poured into things for which the physics would work, but any good applied physicist could see was vaporware. Just at my work, over million was spent on a shake table that tested at different frequencies than applied downhole. One of the critical points of their argument was not to involve any technical people in the decision because they were wedded to the old paradigm. Or acoustic telemetry while drillingthat only worked when the drill string didn't touch the borehole wall at quasi-random points (which happens all the time). Or downhole robots. In almost all of the cases I can think of, there are no answers to practical questions. Folks who have been responsible for building fleets of tools that work worldwide, that operate at 150C with 20G rms vibration tend to know what questions to ask about folks who propose new ideas that the company should put vast resources in. Unfortunately, the chief corporate technology officer, like the person in change of computing for the corporation often was in the '80s, did not have ordinary skill in the art. This is what I referred to. I only gave a fraction of the answers. we could add inertia fusion in the '80s, the multiple times solar power was going to be cost effective in 5-10 years, etc. None of these concepts violated laws of physics. But, anyone who has been around the block knew they were sketchy. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. But I don't exactly see why you are appealing to authority. The physics behind this concept is either correct or it is not. So far the people who are qualified to express an opinion and have done so all say I got the physics right. I was basically asking if you've been around the block. That's not an appeal to authority, just the result of the observation that folks who've walked the walk are more likely to be accurate the next time they talk the talk than folks who never walked the walk. I did look at high energy lasers, and the person who wrote http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html Looks like he has worked with high power lasers. One notes that high power is 5 kWatt, and the many caveats for use at that energy. It's not that bad. If you can remember or relearn a few pages of high school physics (the rocket equation and Newton's laws), you can be qualified to express an opinion too. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I keep telling myself that when I hear how modern science is a left wing plot. But, the question is not whether an opinion is constitutionally protected (I think flat earth folks have constitutionally protected opinions), but whether it is right. Your ideas don't violate the laws of physics any more than the idea that folks had in '30s of the world of tomorrow violated physics. But, reading the article, and thinking about laser based propulsion, I can see overwhelming practical problems that would have to be solved. Looking at articles on laser propulsion, it is definitely in the highly speculative phase right now. In fact, part way along the way to your plan, we should have enough control over beams (particle beams have real advantages over lasers here) to do inertia fusion practically. So, I won't say never to power satellites, but I'd saw it's probably three black swans awayand they have to be just the three black swans we need. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
On 11/28/2012 7:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: In regard to Kevin B. O'Brien's comments, the Chinese are far more likely to build propulsion lasers and power sats than the US. It's possible they have already made the decision, see the recent announcement about building power sats with the Indians. They could build power sats with their PV production and sell power or power sats instead of panels. If they do so that is great. I also recall reading that they have been looking at pebble-bed reactors as an energy source. That is all to the good. What is abundantly clear is that they have no intention at all of cutting down on their energy use and economic growth, so any environmental progress will depend on rolling out cleaner alternatives. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: snip I was basically asking if you've been around the block. That's not an appeal to authority, just the result of the observation that folks who've walked the walk are more likely to be accurate the next time they talk the talk than folks who never walked the walk. It's not hard to find out what I have done, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson I did look at high energy lasers, and the person who wrote http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html Looks like he has worked with high power lasers. One notes that high power is 5 kWatt, and the many caveats for use at that energy. These http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/vesta/ are 15 kW and have been ganged to over 100 kW. Getting to the GW level (out in space no less) is just a matter of having a lot of money to buy lasers and haul them out there. snip So, I won't say never to power satellites, but I'd saw it's probably three black swans awayand they have to be just the three black swans we need. If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to yourself. Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of working on power satellites and laser propulsion. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests. It depends on how close you are to the nuclear bomb test. But, oil is generally lower in radioactivity than bananas. If you are far enough away from the test, then the radiation is so low, it's orders of magnitude below what you get from eating a banana. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:06 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting: A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up several interesting topics. First, this is arguably the most important technology of the 21st century since it not only provides energy security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does not appear in this story. But, the technology is extremely expensive, even the cheap version. That is why Germany is building coal plants to replace the nuclear plants, while solar represents only 0.3% of the total energy supply. China is subsidizing it's solar panels in an attempt to gain a monopoly in selling solar panals. It doesn't really use themI couldn't get a number just on Chinese solar panels, but there total renewable (excluding hydroelectric and wood) is 0.2% of their energy consumption, and wind is much cheaper, so maybe they have 0.01%-0.05% solar. They have a natural advantage in that they can just dump the toxic byproduct of making solar cells instead of processing them. That cuts material costs tremendously. They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So, using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it. But, since solar power is a feel good luxury, and shows no sign of being an important part of any ecconomy, they cannot use it as a political weapon. A country can do without solar power; it cannot do without rare earths. Nuclear power and biofuels from synthetic biology and bioengineering are far more likely to be used as green energy sources. One advange each has is that the development of efficient storage is not required for their use. In a real sense, solar needs two breakthroughs that we cannot see to be effective. Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting: http://www.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1articleid=5336750 A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up several interesting topics. First, this is arguably the most important technology of the 21st century since it not only provides energy security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does not appear in this story. Third, there is an interesting economic argument. The Chinese government is subsidizing their manufacturers which results in Chinese solar panels being about 30% cheaper (per the story. I have not verified this independently.) From one perspective, you could argue that this is great for consumers. China is making everything 30% cheaper! Woo hoo! The objection is that this would undermine local producers, but that is not as clear a problem as the European manufacturers would like to say. For the advantage to be permanent you would need either perpetual subsidies by the Chinese government or some kind of barrier to entry in the solar panel market that would keep out competitors. Economic theory says that potentially the Chinese manufacturers could use these subsidies to drive out competitors, and when that was accomplished they would just raise prices and enjoy monopoly rents. But without the barriers to entry, that cannot happen. The other solution, if you think that subsidies by one side is a problem, is to create counter-subsidies. That might be preferable to a trade war, and arguably would help promote a technology we desperately need. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Klaus Stock k...@stock-consulting.com wrote: snip Our political leaders don't need solutions, they need fear. Once you control voters by fear, you can do literally everything. snip However, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, has studied physics. I'm wondering if she would be open to scientific solutions. Or if there political contrains which would prevent her from actually persuing solutions. - Klaus That's a good idea. Any thoughts on presenting this to someone who knows her? Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. That's impressive hearing considering that the big, high efficiency lasers that make this concept possible have been around for less than 5 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. No. Closest would be the log-antilog 4 quadrant multiplier I invented in the early 70s while working for Burr-Brown. In the heyday of analog control these were use from tire balancing machines to the control of thousand ton ball mills. But I don't exactly see why you are appealing to authority. The physics behind this concept is either correct or it is not. So far the people who are qualified to express an opinion and have done so all say I got the physics right. It's not that bad. If you can remember or relearn a few pages of high school physics (the rocket equation and Newton's laws), you can be qualified to express an opinion too. In regard to Kevin B. O'Brien's comments, the Chinese are far more likely to build propulsion lasers and power sats than the US. It's possible they have already made the decision, see the recent announcement about building power sats with the Indians. They could build power sats with their PV production and sell power or power sats instead of panels. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
For God's sake (written as 日本酒), Japan had the earthquake of the century, it hit hard on the nuclear plants, and almost nothing happened. If this is not a very good security test on nuclear power, then I don't know what could be. Maybe hit a nuclear plant with an airplane? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/26/2012 9:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Since we don't want this list dominated by carved Norwegian tourist shop items, I thought I'd throw out an argument. I have seen Germany and Japan shutting down nuclear energy, after the Greens have suceeded in making it non-PC. They had argued that the energy will be replaced by renewaable sources. But, reality has set in, and they are being replaced by fossil fuels. Indeed, the biggest rise in energy production will be coal plants. As http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-than-1000-new-coal-plants-planned-wo rldwide-15279 shows, there are plans for 1.4 trillion watts of capacity being added now in process. This will add the equivalent of another China in greenhouse gas emissions, more than the US and EU combined. So, I'd argue that the Green's main effect on the environment has been to increase greenhouse gas emissions by making nuclear power politically unacceptable. Japan shutting down their reactor after the only nuclear damage having been radiation burns on the feet of workers who walked into radioactive water without checking and without boots (non-fatal) is amazing. It's like shutting down all automobile traffic after the 100 car pileup on Thanksgiving on I-10. I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are even safer. This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very few people approach problems that way. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are even safer. Um, like the german SNR-300 design? Yup, the first reactor with a core catcher! Which was, of course, dismantled. Apparently, there's only one things the greens fear more than an unsafe reactor - and that's a safer one. Funny quote from a politician who opposed the SNR-300: If we had such technology, we'd have to export it, too.. That wouldn't have helped Fukushima; that was a 1960s design, while the SR-300 was a 1970s design, which was being upgraded though the 1980s. And now something completely different (warning: machine translation!): http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=detl=enjs=nprev=_thl=deie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planet-wissen.de%2Fnatur_technik%2Fenergie%2Ferdoel%2Finterview.jsp Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests. - Klaus -- Best regards, Klausmailto:k...@stock-consulting.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very few people approach problems that way. Twitter compressed solution Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. If anyone wants to know more, ask. Our political leaders don't need solutions, they need fear. Once you control voters by fear, you can do literally everything. That's toally different from us people with a scientific background, who still believe that we're constrained by physical laws. Or math. Or reason. Or logic. It works because politicians don't even get close to breaching natural laws. They are content with much, much simpler achievements. Personal wealth, power or just making certain other people feel miserable. However, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, has studied physics. I'm wondering if she would be open to scientific solutions. Or if there political contrains which would prevent her from actually persuing solutions. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Dan M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com