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 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...

In article , says...

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...

Please show where the "technology was obsolete".....

"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?

"thumper" wrote in message ...

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?


---------------------------------------
Depends on the panel type. I think most cheap panels are C-SI which has up
to 10% the first year and .5 to 5% the second year. Multicrystaline is an
about 0.5%. A lot of the actual degradation is not the silicon part of the
panel and UV absorption but the glass covering the panel. Environmental
etching is the main problem.