In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:53:12 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:35:56 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:15:56 AM UTC-4, North Star wrote:
On Jun 26, 9:51*am, Oscar wrote:
On 6/26/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:





In article , says...

On 6/25/2012 6:51 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 6/25/2012 5:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in messagenews:e78eu79sv2re36jrsl1rshc0hoei5m8cni@4ax .com...

You are making the same argument that automobiles will never replace
horses. Electricity is likely to be the next fuel, but one thing is a
sure thing: petroleum is going out.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not for quite a while, I don't think.

Electricity and battery powered automobiles are simply examples of
energy generated by other means
and converted to electricity and/or stored in batteries. *If the
current fascination with
"green", electric powered cars grows, *we will see the cost of
generating the energy required
to charge them rise. * The bulk of raw energy is still in the form of
fossil fuels and the conversion
process adds additional energy and cost requirements.

Those who think they are being "green" by driving a battery powered
car have been fed a
line of BS. *It might make them feel good or give them some sense of
being environmentally
friendly, but the truth is they are more environmentally "unfriendly"
than friendly.
Lithium Ion batteries are the best technology we have to date and they
are an environmental
hazard the likes of which we haven't yet to fully experience.

Solar and wind can't come close to meeting the demand and nuclear is
still a political
hot potato. * Here's where the energy used to produce electricity in
the USA comes from:

http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...eneration_sour...

Eisboch

All of that seems quite obvious. Batteries will likely NOT be the most
efficient storage medium, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be
used in the interim.

Oil is on its way out. Period.

Unless somebody can give me a viable alternative, I'm sticking with
electricity as the next fuel.

Electricity is a product made from mostly fossil fuels.

Shhhhh, that's not as impressive at the cocktail parties...

You stupid fool! I guess you've never heard of hydroelectric, nuclear,
solar, wind, etc.? Or is it that FOX or your insanity is telling you
that they don't exist?

You're the fool. With the exception of nuclear, the generators you
mention are VERY MINOR players. Your arguments are not arguments at all.
Just cries for attention.

What are you babbling about?
In a few short years of building we now get almost 30% of our
electricity generated from windmills and hopefully the remainder when
we can figure out how to harness the power of the Fundy tides.
Renewable endless supply... much more than this province will ever
need. Maybe we'll sell a few megawatts to y'all south of the border.

What are you babbling about?
In the scheme of things, your province isn't even a speck on the electricity map.

Besides: "At the end of 2011, wind power generating capacity was 5,265 megawatts (MW), providing some 2.3% of Canada's electricity demand."

"In provinces like Nova Scotia, where only 12% of electricity comes from renewable sources..."

~snerk~

Does that mean that we should stop looking for alternatives to fossil
fuels? Or do you think we should continue to try to develop long term
solutions to the problem which IS fossil fuels?

No, it means that bonnie was making up numbers, and even if his province got 100% of their power from windmills, it would be a tiny percentage of the power that the USA uses.

It had absolutely nothing to do with your two questions. Why would you come to such an erroneous assumption?

Because you and most conservative types here poo poo any type of new
technology. I often wonder why?

Wrong on two accounts... I haven't poo-poo'd anything, and pointing out the problems and shortcomings in some of the new technology isn't a poo-poo. It's reality.

I work in technology... love and embrace it. But as an engineer, I do think logically.

The current crop of electric cars meet a narrow slice of the driving population's needs, and few of them can justify, or afford, to spend $30-50k on one. Until we get that breakthrough that makes them acceptable alternatives, they will be novelties that don't make sense or are out of reach for most people.

A good, common sense article:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/will-...vive-in-the-us

The majority of buyers of Hybrid vehicles are first time Hybrid vehicle
buyers. The people who own Hybrid vehicles look for regular gassers for
the Hybrid replacement.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomi...hybrid-owners-
dont-buy-another-hybrid/

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:46:32 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Somebody please explain to me why with at least 100 years worth of
energy right here under the ground in the US, we don't concentrate more
on making it clean enough to use it?

===

Because it has become clear to just about everyone that fossil fuels
are not viable over the long term -- depletion, pollution, CO2, etc.

We need to find a better way. Fusion has been dangling out there at
the end of the rainbow for a long time (60+ years). That's one of
the things that needs more work. Home solar is another one that's
getting a lot closer. Solar panels are now less than $1/watt which
is almost at the point where it begins to make economic sense, at
least in sunny climates.

On 6/26/2012 8:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:46:32 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Somebody please explain to me why with at least 100 years worth of
energy right here under the ground in the US, we don't concentrate more
on making it clean enough to use it?

===

Because it has become clear to just about everyone that fossil fuels
are not viable over the long term -- depletion, pollution, CO2, etc.

We need to find a better way. Fusion has been dangling out there at
the end of the rainbow for a long time (60+ years). That's one of
the things that needs more work. Home solar is another one that's
getting a lot closer. Solar panels are now less than $1/watt which
is almost at the point where it begins to make economic sense, at
least in sunny climates.


Of course "are not viable over the long term"... I know that and that's
why we need to spend that time looking for "viable" alternatives. We
have plenty of time though, don't have to do it on one election cycle.
We can take our time and get it right, and in the mean time, still find
better and cleaner ways to use what we have.... I guess my sarcasm
missed you but I am not against new technology at all, as long as it's
not technology we already know won't work... And certainly I don't want
it to turn into just more Global Taxing for nothing...

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:48:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cracking Hydrogen takes a lot of electricity.

===

Not necessarily. It always takes an energy source to break the H-O2
bonds but it doesn't have to be electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

On 6/26/12 8:14 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/26/2012 8:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:46:32 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Somebody please explain to me why with at least 100 years worth of
energy right here under the ground in the US, we don't concentrate more
on making it clean enough to use it?

===

Because it has become clear to just about everyone that fossil fuels
are not viable over the long term -- depletion, pollution, CO2, etc.

We need to find a better way. Fusion has been dangling out there at
the end of the rainbow for a long time (60+ years). That's one of
the things that needs more work. Home solar is another one that's
getting a lot closer. Solar panels are now less than $1/watt which
is almost at the point where it begins to make economic sense, at
least in sunny climates.


Of course "are not viable over the long term"... I know that and that's
why we need to spend that time looking for "viable" alternatives. We
have plenty of time though, don't have to do it on one election cycle.
We can take our time and get it right, and in the mean time, still find
better and cleaner ways to use what we have.... I guess my sarcasm
missed you but I am not against new technology at all, as long as it's
not technology we already know won't work... And certainly I don't want
it to turn into just more Global Taxing for nothing...


Dip**** JustWait channels dip**** Palin.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:14:45 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Of course "are not viable over the long term"... I know that and that's
why we need to spend that time looking for "viable" alternatives. We
have plenty of time though, don't have to do it on one election cycle.
We can take our time and get it right, and in the mean time, still find
better and cleaner ways to use what we have.... I guess my sarcasm
missed you but I am not against new technology at all, as long as it's
not technology we already know won't work... And certainly I don't want
it to turn into just more Global Taxing for nothing...

===

People who are afraid to make mistakes never move forward. Not all
R&D is destined to be successful. It's a matter of risk management
and cutting your losses when things aren't working out. Trying to
position energy development failures as a political issue is a huge
mistake and bad for the country in the long term.

On 6/26/2012 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:14:45 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Of course "are not viable over the long term"... I know that and that's
why we need to spend that time looking for "viable" alternatives. We
have plenty of time though, don't have to do it on one election cycle.
We can take our time and get it right, and in the mean time, still find
better and cleaner ways to use what we have.... I guess my sarcasm
missed you but I am not against new technology at all, as long as it's
not technology we already know won't work... And certainly I don't want
it to turn into just more Global Taxing for nothing...

===

People who are afraid to make mistakes never move forward. Not all
R&D is destined to be successful. It's a matter of risk management
and cutting your losses when things aren't working out. Trying to
position energy development failures as a political issue is a huge
mistake and bad for the country in the long term.


I don't know how I could be more clear. Although I think a lot of the
Global taxing and fuss is political, that is not my main point. I don't
think we should be spending money on technology "such as Solyndra" where
we already knew the technology was obsolete and couldn't compete with
the Chinese Technology which was already up and running at the time.
What is so unclear about that. I don't know why we would spend billions
for instance on Wind when we already know it's not going to be the
answer... Spend money on technology we haven't already figured out will
not suit our needs...

On 6/26/2012 5:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:

Having been involved in an industry that has seen three major spikes of
solar power interest,
(the first being in the late 70's), the efficiency of solar panels has
gone from from about 8 percent
to about 15-18 percent in the last 35 years. It needs to be triple
that to be a realistic contender
to replace fossil fuels.

Why? Efficiency just determines how many watts per square meter of PV
cell area you get. It's not like we're running out of space for them.
Cost per watt seems more relevant. It's still headed down last I heard.

Wind? Forget it. The largest operational wind turbine (in Germany)
produces 5MW of power
under ideal conditions (wind speed of 30 mph). Most of the time the
output is much less.

That's why there's so many of them. We've been getting more power than
we know what to do with.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...l_with_wi.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oregon

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:46:32 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Somebody please explain to me why with at least 100 years worth of
energy right here under the ground in the US, we don't concentrate more
on making it clean enough to use it?

===

Because it has become clear to just about everyone that fossil fuels
are not viable over the long term -- depletion, pollution, CO2, etc.

We need to find a better way. Fusion has been dangling out there at
the end of the rainbow for a long time (60+ years). That's one of
the things that needs more work. Home solar is another one that's
getting a lot closer. Solar panels are now less than $1/watt which
is almost at the point where it begins to make economic sense, at
least in sunny climates.


-----------------------------------
Major problem with home and other solar panels is the degradation over time.
The wattage output declines significantly over 5 years. That has to be
addressed to really make it viable. Not just the cost to install.

On 6/26/2012 10:31 PM, Califbill wrote:

Major problem with home and other solar panels is the degradation over
time. The wattage output declines significantly over 5 years.

About 0.5% per year. Major problem?