Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I can believe solar panels show a return for the owner - with sufficient
> public subsidies.
>

Yes. Fortunately, the public subsidies for solar panels are far smaller
than they are for coal or nuclear power. Imagine if we had to kill 20,000
people a year to make solar panels work! The public would be up in arms.
Nuclear power too costs far more than solar when you include the cost of
the Fukushima disaster.

The thing about the public subsidies for coal is that only poor people
living downwind of the coal fired plants pay them. Middle class and wealthy
people do not. If we could pipe the smoke into Atlanta, New York or L.A.
the coal industry would be permanently shut down in a few months.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Alain Sepeda]

to be clear it is long ago proven that hormesis is real, thet there is
structural threshold in genotoxic effects, ...

As much as LENR is long time measured, ormesis and threshold are measured.
much meter tha Rossi's calorimetry.

every 6 month someone say that we have at last found that, and nobody
cares...
we are unders propaganda war , and this is hopeless.


there is no epidemiology, nor biological tknowledge on cancerogenesis and
genotoxicity that makes that result surpsing.


latest I caught is
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316085015.htm
but there are papers since decades on that.

LLNT is a joke, but news and politics are full of joke.

2016-05-13 15:37 GMT+02:00 Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com>:

> I agree.  There is too much assumption that harm created by pollution or
> radiation is perfectly linear, down to tiny amounts.  There doesn't seem to
> be any allowance for hormesis.   And, yes, I own solar panels.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:58 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
>
> Jed,
>
> I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very
> flakey.
> Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies on
> models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.
> I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.
>
> I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For
> lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[a.ashfield]

Chris Zell,
"And, yes, I own solar panels."

I can believe solar panels show a return for the owner - with sufficient 
public subsidies.

RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Chris Zell]

I agree.  There is too much assumption that harm created by pollution or 
radiation is perfectly linear, down to tiny amounts.  There doesn't seem to be 
any allowance for hormesis.   And, yes, I own solar panels.

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

Jed,

I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very flakey.
Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies on 
models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.  
I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.

I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For 
lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very 
flakey.
Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies 
on models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.  
I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.


I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For 
lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> The World Bank refuses to lend money for cheap new coal fired power
> stations "because of environmental concerns."  Presumably future children
> are more valuable than the ones actually being killed now.
>

Coal fired plants kill roughly 20,000 people in the U.S. per year, and
roughly 250,000 people per year in China:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coal-emissions-smog-deaths

If you are thinking that "environmental concerns" are only about global
warming, you do not understand the current cost of coal. It is by far the
most expensive fuel when you take into account how many people it kills. It
is only cheap because power companies pay nothing to the families of the
victims. If a normal industry, such as the airlines or food manufacturers,
were to kill 20,000 Americans it would be driven out of business in six
months.

(I realize that automobiles and guns kill tens of thousands of people. With
automobiles we have no alternative, but we will once self driving cars are
developed, and I do not think human driven cars will be allowed for long
after they are introduced. The gun manufacturers are not a normal business.)

This is the 21st century. We do not need to rely on 18th century fuel. Even
if First World nations must protect themselves from global warming by
subsidizing modern technology in the Third World -- such as solar, wind or
nuclear -- it would still be better than building coal-fired plants.

In India, starting this year or next, solar electricity will be cheaper
than coal-fired electricity, especially when you take into account the cost
of the grid. Coal-fired plants are only economical on a large scale and
they require a large grid. If you want power for a village with no grid,
solar is already cheaper, just as cell phones are cheaper than landmines in
the Third World.

In Morocco and Dubai, CSP solar will soon be producing the cheapest
electricity in history. Granted these are desert areas which are ideal for
any kind of solar plant, but there is more than enough potential solar
energy (PV or CSP) in North Africa to power all of Africa and Europe.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
"Poor people are the last to switch to the new technology and they end 
up paying a lot of money because they cannot afford the transition. Here 
is a heartbreaking example:"


It is even worse than your links suggest.  Cooking over indoor fires 
apparently kills half to one million inhabitants a year.  Depending on 
which estimate you believe.
The World Bank refuses to lend money for cheap new coal fired power 
stations "because of environmental concerns."  Presumably future 
children are more valuable than the ones actually being killed now.


I console myself with thought that LENR may provide an answer without 
waiting too long.

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> And, if your earlier point turns out to be true, there will be a
> disproportionate impact on lower income people who are unable to afford the
> cost of switching to such distributed power systems.
>

Yes. That often happens with technology as it becomes obsolete. Poor people
are the last to switch to the new technology and they end up paying a lot
of money because they cannot afford the transition. Here is a heartbreaking
example:

Many poor people in the Third World still use kerosene lighting. Solar cell
charged battery-powered LED lights are now available. These cost far less
to operate, they produce more light, and they are much safer, but the
initial purchase price is high compared to buying a kerosene lamp, so
people who are extremely poor cannot afford the transition.

See:

http://www.lightsforlife.org/lighting_poverty_problem

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/tech/innovation/solar-powered-led-lamps/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable
> energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller
> and cheaper.  But this does not help the power companies that have already
> made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home.  This is
> why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and
> using such distributed power systems.  The war will last over 20 years and
> we are far from seeing the worst of it.  Many big utility companies will go
> out of business before it is done.  Some utility bonds will fail.
>

And, if your earlier point turns out to be true, there will be a
disproportionate impact on lower income people who are unable to afford the
cost of switching to such distributed power systems. I suppose governments
will step in if things get usurious.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Higgins]

The problem with the strategy presented by Smith/Edison is that the big
electric power utility companies have *already made the big investment in
distribution*.  Smith describes a new installation.  The technology for the
power management he describes is available today - you can go out and buy
it for your house (not new).  You can install solar, wind, etc and
batteries and have a single power management station.  What will be the
result?  You will draw less power from the electric utility.  If you draw
less power from the electric utility, you pay less toward maintenance of
the big investment the power companies have already made (power companies
profit >50% on each kWH they sell you).  They will fight tooth and nail to
prevent this income reduction to insure they get the return they promised
their investors on the huge investment in big infrastructure.  Face it,
that's their job - to provide that return to the investors in utility bonds.

If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable
energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller
and cheaper.  But this does not help the power companies that have already
made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home.  This is
why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and
using such distributed power systems.  The war will last over 20 years and
we are far from seeing the worst of it.  Many big utility companies will go
out of business before it is done.  Some utility bonds will fail.

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Ken Deboer  wrote:

> Vis a vis this excellent thread, I'd be interested in people's thoughts
> about a new video by Robert Murray Smith on "The Internet of Energy".
> This looks to me to be better than Tesla's technology, and in fact, a very
> significant advance for, especially, widespread solar.
> ken
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular
>> level of insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You
>> are free to leave when you like.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che  wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
>> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
>> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
>> >>
>> >> Eric
>>
>> * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus
>> is essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence
>> of some degree.
>>
>> * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic
>> social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact.
>>
>> * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual,
>> unfortunately) way.
>>
>>
>> And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such
>> a basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost
>> invariably and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic
>> understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate.
>> (i.e. 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is
>> essentially NEUTRAL*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Ken Deboer]

Vis a vis this excellent thread, I'd be interested in people's thoughts
about a new video by Robert Murray Smith on "The Internet of Energy".
This looks to me to be better than Tesla's technology, and in fact, a very
significant advance for, especially, widespread solar.
ken


On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular level
> of insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You are free
> to leave when you like.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
> >>>
> >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
> >>>
> >>
> >> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
> >>
> >> Eric
>
> * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus is
> essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence of
> some degree.
>
> * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic
> social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact.
>
> * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual,
> unfortunately) way.
>
>
> And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such a
> basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost invariably
> and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic
> understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate.
> (i.e. 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is
> essentially NEUTRAL*.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Eric Walker]

As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular level of 
insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You are free to 
leave when you like.

Eric


> On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
> >>>
> >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
> >>>
> >>
> >> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will 
> >> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may 
> >> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
> >>
> >> Eric
> 
> * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus is 
> essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence of 
> some degree.
> 
> * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic 
> social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact.
> 
> * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual, 
> unfortunately) way.
> 
> 
> And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such a 
> basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost invariably 
> and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic 
> understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate. (i.e. 
> 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is 
> essentially NEUTRAL*.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Che]

> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:
>>
>>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
>>>
>>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
>>
>> Eric

* Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus is
essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence of
some degree.

* Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic
social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact.

* These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual,
unfortunately) way.


And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such a
basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost invariably
and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic
understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate.
(i.e. 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is
essentially NEUTRAL*.

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> . . . as shown if you have abundant drunks in your neighborhood who happen
> to take out telephone poles on weekends.
>

We have that problem!

>


> I can’t wait for better batteries.
>

Your wait is nearly over. The Tesla Powerwall is now available:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/05/tesla-powerwalls-for-home-energy-storage-are-hitting-us-market.html

This will have a big impact in Hawaii.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Chris Zell]

Almost every month, I pay more for delivery of electricity than for electricity 
itself and this has been true for some years.  NYSEG and NIMO used to be great 
companies with excellent service – as shown if you have abundant drunks in your 
neighborhood who happen to take out telephone poles on weekends.

I can’t wait for better batteries.

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Higgins]

You say the solution is obvious, but that is far from the case.  If the
power companies charged everyone a flat fee for their share of the grid
maintenance and repayment of capital, I guarantee you that the bills of the
apartment dwellers would go way up.  The power company makes money on each
kWH you use and they expect the bigger, more expensive homes will use more
power and pay a larger share of the grid costs.  The problem is that if
solar panels are added, it reduces the kWHs used in the big home.  How
could they legally justify raising the base price just for the larger home
owners?  They can't.  But, the present profit by kWH used billing does just
that - unless solar panels are present.

Interestingly, where I live, I calculated today that I could go off grid
entirely with about a 4 year payback cycle.  I would use a diesel generator
as a CHP.  The water cooling of the engine would heat my house, allowing me
to use almost all of the energy available from each gallon of diesel fuel.
If I compare the fuel cost of such a system compared to my far-from-optimum
electric+propane energy supply, I would save 45% in fuel cost compared to
present bills and would apply that 45% to pay back the capital cost over
about 4 years.  When you add solar in with this, it is a lot of system to
get correct, but the payback would be about the same with less fuel burning.

The power companies are definitely on shaky ground, and they know it.  The
solar power wars are probably going to result in some new state laws.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:02 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 4 May 2016 17:46:33 -0600:
> Hi,
>
> The solution is obvious. The power companies should charge a usage price
> for the
> connection to the grid that reflects the actual costs of maintaining the
> hardware, including the poles and wires, then on top of that they should
> charge
> for the power delivered.
> That way, everyone pays their fair share, and the power company will
> continue to
> function as long as people stay connected.
>
> >Well, that is the crux.  If the power infrastructure is going to charge
> the
> >consumer the same whether he uses grid power or not but still has the grid
> >connection, what is the user's incentive to invest in alternative energy?
> >Actually, they are creating a situation where users will disconnect from
> >the grid entirely.  Then, the electric company will not get any money from
> >that user.  Their present policies are heading toward forcing the
> >development of off-grid solutions and because of that, these off-grid
> >solutions will become better and better alternatives.  CHP is going to
> >thrive on LENR, and it doesn't need LENR to begin.  A solar assisted house
> >with a diesel generator to provide both supplemental electricity and the
> >heat needed in the house (for cooler climes) is probably already on the
> >threshold of competing with grid power for the same application.
> >
> >This has happened to the wireline telephone company - people have gone
> >completely wireless and eliminated the wireline service altogether.  It is
> >also happening to the cable companies as more and more people are starting
> >to get their entertainment from the internet.  The power company is in the
> >beginnings of a death spiral and it is not going to be pretty,
> particularly
> >for the consumers that cannot afford to migrate to new energy
> technologies.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 4 May 2016 17:46:33 -0600:
Hi,

The solution is obvious. The power companies should charge a usage price for the
connection to the grid that reflects the actual costs of maintaining the
hardware, including the poles and wires, then on top of that they should charge
for the power delivered.
That way, everyone pays their fair share, and the power company will continue to
function as long as people stay connected.

>Well, that is the crux.  If the power infrastructure is going to charge the
>consumer the same whether he uses grid power or not but still has the grid
>connection, what is the user's incentive to invest in alternative energy?
>Actually, they are creating a situation where users will disconnect from
>the grid entirely.  Then, the electric company will not get any money from
>that user.  Their present policies are heading toward forcing the
>development of off-grid solutions and because of that, these off-grid
>solutions will become better and better alternatives.  CHP is going to
>thrive on LENR, and it doesn't need LENR to begin.  A solar assisted house
>with a diesel generator to provide both supplemental electricity and the
>heat needed in the house (for cooler climes) is probably already on the
>threshold of competing with grid power for the same application.
>
>This has happened to the wireline telephone company - people have gone
>completely wireless and eliminated the wireline service altogether.  It is
>also happening to the cable companies as more and more people are starting
>to get their entertainment from the internet.  The power company is in the
>beginnings of a death spiral and it is not going to be pretty, particularly
>for the consumers that cannot afford to migrate to new energy technologies.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Higgins]

Well, that is the crux.  If the power infrastructure is going to charge the
consumer the same whether he uses grid power or not but still has the grid
connection, what is the user's incentive to invest in alternative energy?
Actually, they are creating a situation where users will disconnect from
the grid entirely.  Then, the electric company will not get any money from
that user.  Their present policies are heading toward forcing the
development of off-grid solutions and because of that, these off-grid
solutions will become better and better alternatives.  CHP is going to
thrive on LENR, and it doesn't need LENR to begin.  A solar assisted house
with a diesel generator to provide both supplemental electricity and the
heat needed in the house (for cooler climes) is probably already on the
threshold of competing with grid power for the same application.

This has happened to the wireline telephone company - people have gone
completely wireless and eliminated the wireline service altogether.  It is
also happening to the cable companies as more and more people are starting
to get their entertainment from the internet.  The power company is in the
beginnings of a death spiral and it is not going to be pretty, particularly
for the consumers that cannot afford to migrate to new energy technologies.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> It's not that sorry.  The problem is poor people in apartments bear the
> brunt of increased utility prices.  Yay for rich people and their solar
> installations though, I guess.
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> There is a residential solar power war going on now (see Scientific
>> American issue 11/2014) between homeowners having rooftop solar panels and
>> the power companies.  The power companies believe they have a right to
>> supply all of your power and are charging additional fees if you have
>> panels on your roof.  The argument is that the homeowners with solar panels
>> are not buying enough electricity to pay for his portion of the electrical
>> infrastructure.  Even though the power company charges a fixed fee
>> historically plus a charge per kWH, they make most of their profit on the
>> amount of electricity (the kWH) you use because they charge you a retail
>> price which is about twice as much as their wholesale price to produce that
>> energy or buy it.  So the new added fee is for not using enough electricity
>> to pay the profit they need from each individual to pay for their
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> The power company leaders are meeting in secret together to create
>> strategies to keep sucking what they believe is their fair share of money
>> from everyone who has alternative power but is still connected to the
>> grid.  It is a sorry situation for getting the US into use of a significant
>> fraction of alternative energy.
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet

 http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower

>>>
>>> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
>>> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
>>> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Blaze Spinnaker]

It's not that sorry.  The problem is poor people in apartments bear the
brunt of increased utility prices.  Yay for rich people and their solar
installations though, I guess.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> There is a residential solar power war going on now (see Scientific
> American issue 11/2014) between homeowners having rooftop solar panels and
> the power companies.  The power companies believe they have a right to
> supply all of your power and are charging additional fees if you have
> panels on your roof.  The argument is that the homeowners with solar panels
> are not buying enough electricity to pay for his portion of the electrical
> infrastructure.  Even though the power company charges a fixed fee
> historically plus a charge per kWH, they make most of their profit on the
> amount of electricity (the kWH) you use because they charge you a retail
> price which is about twice as much as their wholesale price to produce that
> energy or buy it.  So the new added fee is for not using enough electricity
> to pay the profit they need from each individual to pay for their
> infrastructure.
>
> The power company leaders are meeting in secret together to create
> strategies to keep sucking what they believe is their fair share of money
> from everyone who has alternative power but is still connected to the
> grid.  It is a sorry situation for getting the US into use of a significant
> fraction of alternative energy.
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker > > wrote:
>>
>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
>>>
>>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
>> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
>> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Higgins]

There is a residential solar power war going on now (see Scientific
American issue 11/2014) between homeowners having rooftop solar panels and
the power companies.  The power companies believe they have a right to
supply all of your power and are charging additional fees if you have
panels on your roof.  The argument is that the homeowners with solar panels
are not buying enough electricity to pay for his portion of the electrical
infrastructure.  Even though the power company charges a fixed fee
historically plus a charge per kWH, they make most of their profit on the
amount of electricity (the kWH) you use because they charge you a retail
price which is about twice as much as their wholesale price to produce that
energy or buy it.  So the new added fee is for not using enough electricity
to pay the profit they need from each individual to pay for their
infrastructure.

The power company leaders are meeting in secret together to create
strategies to keep sucking what they believe is their fair share of money
from everyone who has alternative power but is still connected to the
grid.  It is a sorry situation for getting the US into use of a significant
fraction of alternative energy.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
>>
>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
>>
>
> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
>
> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
>

Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will
allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may
end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.

Eric

[Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet

http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower