|
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
This is in an article about the mind blowing technology of the next ten
years. Funny, I didn't see any mention of "drill baby drill" for energy!! http://tinyurl.com/9r6e5xs Solar energy will soon leave fossil fuels and inefficient wind farms in the dust. According to Kurzweil, ?the cost per watt of solar energy is coming down rapidly and the total amount of solar energy is growing exponentially. It has in fact been doubling every two years for the past 20 years and is now only eight doublings away from meeting all of the world?s energy needs.? Emerging technology from a company called Sandia is making the reality that much closer: Sandia?s solar cells are made of 100 times less material than the current top solar cells while operating at the same efficiency. Since the biggest hurdle in the path of solar power is the expensive and large nature of solar panels, these new microscopic cells will make a huge difference. For example, current panels are massive and require large motors to move them to track the sun. Sandia?s cells, on the other hand, would only need to be moved a fraction of a millimeter to track the sun efficiently while weighing next to nothing. Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/12/2012 3:32 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
This is in an article about the mind blowing technology of the next ten years. Funny, I didn't see any mention of "drill baby drill" for energy!! http://tinyurl.com/9r6e5xs Solar energy will soon leave fossil fuels and inefficient wind farms in the dust. According to Kurzweil, ?the cost per watt of solar energy is coming down rapidly and the total amount of solar energy is growing exponentially. It has in fact been doubling every two years for the past 20 years and is now only eight doublings away from meeting all of the world?s energy needs.? Emerging technology from a company called Sandia is making the reality that much closer: Sandia?s solar cells are made of 100 times less material than the current top solar cells while operating at the same efficiency. Since the biggest hurdle in the path of solar power is the expensive and large nature of solar panels, these new microscopic cells will make a huge difference. For example, current panels are massive and require large motors to move them to track the sun. Sandia?s cells, on the other hand, would only need to be moved a fraction of a millimeter to track the sun efficiently while weighing next to nothing. Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron. How much $faith$ do you have in this? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:32:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron. === That's a bit optimistic even though the technology is interesting. One of the credibility problems with solar power is the wildly optimistic press releases that come out periodically. They raise expectations to unrealistic levels which casts doubt on the whole effort. It's always better to under promise and over deliver. That said, with the price of solar panels down to about $1/watt, we will be starting to see a lot more of them. I'm in the preliminary planning stage for a small "proof of concept" project, probably a grid tied system that will help meet our peak power needs in some small way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid-tie_inverter |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett
wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. That might be possible right now using energy storage technology. It would not be cost justified at this time however. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. There are some very real issues with nuclear power. Fusion is the big pie in the sky if someone can figure that out. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters?? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:44:42 +0000 (UTC), thunder
wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png === At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that prove Murphy's law. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:31:43 -0400, JustWait wrote:
On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters?? Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier. There wasn't a large environmental movement pre-1974. Three Mile Island wasn't until 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._United_States |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. That might be possible right now using energy storage technology. It would not be cost justified at this time however. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. There are some very real issues with nuclear power. Fusion is the big pie in the sky if someone can figure that out. -------------------------------------------------- I spent a good amount of time during my working career in programs supporting efforts to achieve nuclear fusion from deuterium, highly compressed in enormously high powered, multiple beamed lasers. This technology has been in development for many decades ... going back to the 50's and 60's. Progress has been made, but unity gain was only recently achieved ... meaning as much energy was used as produced. The lasers only fire for a nanosecond before the power supplies that power them have to be recharged. It's technically possible, but still a very long way from any form of commercial applications. It's strictly R&D. Newest program is "NIF" or National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Labs. Before NIF, research was also conducted at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. My company's involvement was building the systems that applied thin-film, high energy laser coatings on the optics used in the laser bays. NIF is a very impressive laser system ... details he https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/about.php |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:42:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that prove Murphy's law. There are 3rd and 4th generation reactors now out there that solve many of those problems. I think we are going to see much more nuclear in the next decade or two, smaller plants with less capital investment on the front end. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/12/2012 7:03 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. That might be possible right now using energy storage technology. It would not be cost justified at this time however. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. There are some very real issues with nuclear power. Fusion is the big pie in the sky if someone can figure that out. -------------------------------------------------- I spent a good amount of time during my working career in programs supporting efforts to achieve nuclear fusion from deuterium, highly compressed in enormously high powered, multiple beamed lasers. This technology has been in development for many decades ... going back to the 50's and 60's. Progress has been made, but unity gain was only recently achieved ... meaning as much energy was used as produced. The lasers only fire for a nanosecond before the power supplies that power them have to be recharged. It's technically possible, but still a very long way from any form of commercial applications. It's strictly R&D. Newest program is "NIF" or National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Labs. Before NIF, research was also conducted at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. My company's involvement was building the systems that applied thin-film, high energy laser coatings on the optics used in the laser bays. NIF is a very impressive laser system ... details he https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/about.php Just spent some time there.. all I can say is "cool"... but not just cool, like:), really cool... |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/12/2012 7:08 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:42:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that prove Murphy's law. There are 3rd and 4th generation reactors now out there that solve many of those problems. I think we are going to see much more nuclear in the next decade or two, smaller plants with less capital investment on the front end. Maybe even micro (relatively speaking) plants that can be easily isolated in an emergency... spread around more. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/12/2012 3:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:44:42 +0000 (UTC), thunder wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png === At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that prove Murphy's law. And they don't pay for insurance for damages they may cause. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:46:43 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:32:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron. === That's a bit optimistic even though the technology is interesting. One of the credibility problems with solar power is the wildly optimistic press releases that come out periodically. They raise expectations to unrealistic levels which casts doubt on the whole effort. It's always better to under promise and over deliver. That said, with the price of solar panels down to about $1/watt, we will be starting to see a lot more of them. I'm in the preliminary planning stage for a small "proof of concept" project, probably a grid tied system that will help meet our peak power needs in some small way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid-tie_inverter When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. I'm sure that when the automobile was invented that backwards thinking people said about the same thing. I'll also bet that when electricity became available that a lot of people said that too. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
|
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article , says...
On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters?? Can't read, huh? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article , says...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:31:43 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters?? Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier. There wasn't a large environmental movement pre-1974. Three Mile Island wasn't until 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._United_States Scotty can't comprehend anything that doesn't come from some FOX talking head.... |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:41:01 -0400, Sarah Ehrett
wrote: I'm in RI. Three wind turbines here have already failed and they're each barely powering one building. Wind Turbine Failures http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...1024&bih =587 === There's an interesting and well balanced reliability discussion he http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...ox-reliability Block Island, RI has some of the highest electric rates on the east coast and also has outstanding average wind velocity. Champlain's Marina put in their own diesel gensets almost 30 years ago because they felt they could generate at lower rates than the local muni plant was charging. The demand there is highly seasonal however and probably does not justify a big infrastructure investment like a wind farm. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:35:46 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:46:43 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:32:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron. === That's a bit optimistic even though the technology is interesting. One of the credibility problems with solar power is the wildly optimistic press releases that come out periodically. They raise expectations to unrealistic levels which casts doubt on the whole effort. It's always better to under promise and over deliver. That said, with the price of solar panels down to about $1/watt, we will be starting to see a lot more of them. I'm in the preliminary planning stage for a small "proof of concept" project, probably a grid tied system that will help meet our peak power needs in some small way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid-tie_inverter When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power. I'm sure that when the automobile was invented that backwards thinking people said about the same thing. I'll also bet that when electricity became available that a lot of people said that too. I'm sure they did but putting a light bulb in someone's home, or seeing a car drive down a rutted back road was far easier to do than to power a US city 24/7 with solar and wind power. No, not really. In all the years we've had solar and wind technology, where has anyone ever used either or both to power a city the size of a medium US city? Any where in the world, 24/7 ? Because people are stuck thinking the only energy source is fossil fuels. I'm in RI. Three wind turbines here have already failed and they're each barely powering one building. I'm in PA and they are putting them up here and in western NY at a staggering pace. Wind Turbine Failures http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...1024&bih =587 What about pollution from oil spills, on land and in oceans? What about oilfield failures from weather, fire and such? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:41:01 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: I'm in RI. Three wind turbines here have already failed and they're each barely powering one building. Wind Turbine Failures http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...1024&bih =587 === There's an interesting and well balanced reliability discussion he http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...ox-reliability Block Island, RI has some of the highest electric rates on the east coast and also has outstanding average wind velocity. Champlain's Marina put in their own diesel gensets almost 30 years ago because they felt they could generate at lower rates than the local muni plant was charging. The demand there is highly seasonal however and probably does not justify a big infrastructure investment like a wind farm. Here's some interesting stuff: http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_d...ations/global% 20energy%20grid%20scenario.pdf |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:07:14 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
Such as? And what are viable alternatives? France seems to be able to run dozens of nuclear power plants. I say follow their example. Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, ... By the way, we use produce close to twice as much nuclear energy than France. Fusion is the big pie in the sky if someone can figure that out. And in the mean time hopefully we won't be living back in the 16th century by depending on wind mills and solar panels. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:06:03 -0400, Sarah Ehrett
wrote: And how about all the new electric cars we'll have to buy. Off to work where we'll plug them in to recharge for 11 hours, then back home again to plug them in again. With the needed electricity daily blackouts will become lengthy and stretch all across the country. === Is it possible that you are slightly prone to exaggeration? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:41:01 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: I'm in RI. Three wind turbines here have already failed and they're each barely powering one building. Wind Turbine Failures http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...1024&bih =587 === There's an interesting and well balanced reliability discussion he http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...ox-reliability Block Island, RI has some of the highest electric rates on the east coast and also has outstanding average wind velocity. Champlain's Marina put in their own diesel gensets almost 30 years ago because they felt they could generate at lower rates than the local muni plant was charging. The demand there is highly seasonal however and probably does not justify a big infrastructure investment like a wind farm. Friend of my works in the energy field and he says that the wind turbines are still have the problem of eating themselves more often than not. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
|
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:42:58 -0400, BAR wrote:
France didn't build each nuke plant from scratch like we did. They weren't trying to provide a jobs program for engineers. Careful, someone may call you a socialist. :-) France works differently than we do. After the 1973 oil crisis, Prime Minister instituted a huge nuclear build program, without public or parliamentary debate. That wouldn't work here. If you recall, our response to the oil crisis was Carter's "moral equivalent of war" speech. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, all have tried to address the energy problem. Maybe in another 30 to 40 years we'll actually do something. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/13/2012 10:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
There's an interesting and well balanced reliability discussion he http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...ox-reliability Well that sucks... a simple mechanical problem is significantly altering ROI. It's fixable however. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:27:41 -0400, BAR wrote:
Adding more demand to the ailing grid is the problem. Short and to the point. Wish I'd read this before I answered. :) You have to beat it into them from every angle. ====== An ailing grid is inexcusable of course, regardless of what you think of alternative energy and transportation. It is a tribute to the weak kneed, preoccupied leadership that we have on both sides of the aisle. Let's get behind congressional term limits and throw the bums out ! |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
|
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-new-coal-fired-power-plants No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-plant-in-pacific-nw-to-shut-down-by-2025-climate-change-will-wreak-havoc-on-britains-coastline-by-2050/?mobile=nc Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there-in-the-state-of-california Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-new-coal-fired-power-plants No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-plant-in-pacific-nw-to-shut-down-by-2025-climate-change-will-wreak-havoc-on-britains-coastline-by-2050/?mobile=nc Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there-in-the-state-of-california Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! I'm sorry, please show me where any of those points to reducing coal fired plants as the culprit for rolling blackouts... It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-new-coal-fired-power-plants No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-plant-in-pacific-nw-to-shut-down-by-2025-climate-change-will-wreak-havoc-on-britains-coastline-by-2050/?mobile=nc Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars.. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there-in-the-state-of-california Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! I'm sorry, please show me where any of those points to reducing coal fired plants as the culprit for rolling blackouts... It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Wow. Even my dog can add 1 + 1. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Sep 15, 10:43*am, wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-ne.... No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-pla... Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there... Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! I'm sorry, please show me where any of those points to reducing coal fired plants as the culprit for rolling blackouts... It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Wow. *Even my dog can add 1 + 1. As soon as he starts the loony "anti-technology wingnuts...etc" he loses and shouldn't be taken seriously. Nobody is anti-technology, it's just a talking point, a ridiculous one, like "war on women" or "hope and change"... LOL!!! |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-new-coal-fired-power-plants No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-plant-in-pacific-nw-to-shut-down-by-2025-climate-change-will-wreak-havoc-on-britains-coastline-by-2050/?mobile=nc Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there-in-the-state-of-california Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! You are expecting "it" to utilize "its" brain beyond 1%. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Smart grid controls distribution. We have plenty of distribution, we lack generation. Smart grid technology works primarily by turning off demand, preventing you from washing clothes or heating water during peak power demands. Smart grid technology doesn't fix the lack of generation, it prevents consumers from overwhelming it. So, with smart grid, when you plug your electric car in it either won't charge, or your washer/dryer will shut down. Look it up. |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:59:32 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
..the fact that if we had in place smart grid technology you could close ALL of the coal fired plants in CA and still have electricity. Cite? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-new-coal-fired-power-plants No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-plant-in-pacific-nw-to-shut-down-by-2025-climate-change-will-wreak-havoc-on-britains-coastline-by-2050/?mobile=nc Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there-in-the-state-of-california Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! I'm sorry, please show me where any of those points to reducing coal fired plants as the culprit for rolling blackouts... It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Wow. Even my dog can add 1 + 1. Can your dog show me how decommishoning low output coal fired plants causes rolling blackouts? Do you realize that if we went to a smart grid system we wouldn't need nearly the power plants we have now? |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
In article ,
says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Smart grid controls distribution. We have plenty of distribution, we lack generation. Smart grid technology works primarily by turning off demand, preventing you from washing clothes or heating water during peak power demands. Smart grid technology doesn't fix the lack of generation, it prevents consumers from overwhelming it. So, with smart grid, when you plug your electric car in it either won't charge, or your washer/dryer will shut down. Look it up. BULL****!!!!! http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid http://mcensustainableenergy.pbworks.../Smart%20Grid% 3A%20Guest%20Lecture http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/.../Technologies/ |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 12:05:15 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Smart grid controls distribution. We have plenty of distribution, we lack generation. Smart grid technology works primarily by turning off demand, preventing you from washing clothes or heating water during peak power demands. Smart grid technology doesn't fix the lack of generation, it prevents consumers from overwhelming it. So, with smart grid, when you plug your electric car in it either won't charge, or your washer/dryer will shut down. Look it up. BULL****!!!!! http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid "A key feature of the smart grid is automation technology that lets the utility adjust and control each individual device or millions of devices from a central location." |
But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
On 9/15/2012 12:02 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:17:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Again, please show me where in the article that it states that the reason for rolling blackouts is specifically tied to shutting down coal plants. Good lord, man... you're dense. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/california-moves-quickly-to-block-new-coal-fired-power-plants No new plants. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/07/207644/news-last-coal-plant-in-pacific-nw-to-shut-down-by-2025-climate-change-will-wreak-havoc-on-britains-coastline-by-2050/?mobile=nc Phasing out all remaining coal plants. 40% of LA's power comes from coal. (see above article for "cite") Original article states the loss of "one" plant will likely cause rolling blackouts. Grid and capacity stretched thin already. Now introduce new loads on the grid from electric cars... say just 10% of their car registrations. 3.2 million electric cars. 1 out of 10. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-registered-vehicles-are-there-in-the-state-of-california Think man, think! Gotta go cut the grass, then tailgate at the game. Have fun everyone! I'm sorry, please show me where any of those points to reducing coal fired plants as the culprit for rolling blackouts... It's because of the antiquated grid, and of course you anti-technology righties don't want to even think about fixing it with smart grids. Wow. Even my dog can add 1 + 1. Can your dog show me how decommishoning low output coal fired plants causes rolling blackouts? Do you realize that if we went to a smart grid system we wouldn't need nearly the power plants we have now? Give it up loogie. You're a moron and everyone knows. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com