CO2 study

How much did Management Information Services, Inc. get for writing it? How much would they charge for writing one titled "The Social Benefits of Raw, Cholera-Laden Sewage"?

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

It was paid for by American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: I couldn't find the price tag.

Well, the above Carbon report is 183 pages long. Proofed and edited copy goes for about $100/page (my estimate): so that's $18,300, which sounds like a bargain. A non-fiction book costs about $25,000.

Another way to price it is to compare the cost to the similar EIR (environmental impact report) preperation costs. They vary by the size of the project, but that last one I saw cost $15,000 for a small

2 house development. Most of it was boiler plate.

If you're not in a rush, you can always bribe a college professor into having his class do the necessary research, and then just summarize the results. Reading the aformentioned Carbon report, it kinda sounds like that's what was done because of the wide variations in writing styles and chart styles. It's also clear that no original research was done, just a summary of existing publications and federal reports.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Nice reply! I like it.

The paper was pretty well footnoted. The CO2 benefits are apparently real.

I'm not a fan of coal, especially unscrubbed coal, which makes a lot of particulates. But it's what we have a lot of. Civilization needs energy and plants love CO2.

--

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    

Precision electronic instrumentation

You want them to write kook left propaganda?

"John Larkin" napisal w wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

The plants love the fly ash and SO2. Not only CO2. S*

Many people heavily into aquariums with lots of green plants actually set up CO2 generators using yeast, or some other method to infuse CO2 into their fish tanks. The green plants are dramatically improved. Coal is the nastiest but we've got to have it. Lots of people die each year mining coal, too. But almost every large scale organized human activity involves some rate of human death. We don't stop.

Fish tanks are a special case. Regular plants respond to higher levels of C O2 in the atmosphere by having fewer or smaller stomata, so they can get th e same amount of CO2 while losing less water - water being harder to get, f or most plants.

Only until we starting building serious thermal solar energy generating cap acity. Even now big thermal solar plants in the tropics are close to compet ing with coal fired generators on price, and the economies of scale you'd g et it they took over the job would make them decidedly cheaper, even before you figure in the cost of digging out even more deeply buried coal as we b urn our way through the stuff that is only moderately difficult to dig up.

of human death.

More if morons like you are looking after safety at work.

But it might be an idea to try something different which killed fewer peopl e. Greegor's brain isn't well adapted to absorbing new ideas. If anybody is nuts, they must be suffering from Asperger's Syndrome ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Slowman, ever the social butterfly.

"Bill Sloman" napisal w wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com...

The most effective in absorbing the solar energy are plants. "Only until we starting building serious the dry plants fired generators".

Our atmosphere needs the fly ash and O2, CO2, SO2. Are the solar panels competing with the dry plants fired generators ? S*

capacity. Even now big thermal solar plants in the tropics are close to competing with coal fired generators on price, and the economies of scale you'd get it they took over the job would make them decidedly cheaper, even before you figure in the cost of digging out even more deeply buried coal as we burn our way through the stuff that is only moderately difficult to dig up.

Not really.

Solar cells get about 15 times more energy out of the same land area than corn.

Photosynthesis captures quite a bit less energy per photon that even silicon solar cells, but plants are cheaper to grow, if you've got the water, the fertiliser and the trace elements they need.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

But: "the fact that you could dry and burn the corn stalks to distill the ethanol, and lots of other factors that would complicate our simple comparison of solar cells and plants."

Photosynthesis produces more than 5000kg the pure coal (in form of the dry plants) per 1 hectar. And are plants and lands where no need of the water, the fertiliser and the trace elements.

But the first step is the depopulation to have the free land. It take place now.

I bet that the future is for the dry plant fired generators. S*

Photovoltaic cells cost so much and are delicate enough that they typically break down they break even. If you look at the capital investment, cost to maintain and life expectancy, break even point and ROI (Return On Investment) they don't look so good. Professor David Feiman recorded this back in 2008. He merely concentrated sun onto one small spot but never explained how a photovoltaic cell could convert that much sun into electricity.

Has somebody come up with small solar cell that can convert that much sun to electricity without burning up?

You have missed the real beauty of CO2.

YMMV. :-)

Mikek

Not true. They have on average a 7x return on the energy investment making them if you install them somewhere sensible (not in the UK).

They are not great but they can be made to work at sub tropical latitudes and the extra skin on the roof slows heat ingress with additional improvements to interior cooling requirements.

It would need *VERY* active cooling to survive that stress since a 4" aperture focussed is more than enough to light a cigarette from. Imaging concentrators are poor for this application anyway as they must track the sun.

Non imaging flux concentrator designs borrowed from HEP neutrino detectors work much better. The most basic is two plane mirrors either side of the flat panel forming half a hexagon eg. \_/

Fancy ones are either spirals or easier to make parabolic troughs moved closer together so that each side focusses light at the base of the opposite one. A light gain of 10x is possible although again you do have to get the heat away from the PV or efficiency suffers.

It is fairly easy to prove for the more advanced geometries than any light ray that enters the front aperture will hit the solar cell.

Here is a paper on one family of such designs not behind a paywall

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

The true beauty is when it's in beer, or a rum+coke.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Photovoltaic cells cost so much and are delicate enough that they typically break down before they break even. If you look at the capital investment, cost to maintain and life expectancy, break even point and ROI (Return On Investment) they don't look so good. Professor David Feiman recorded this back in 2008. He merely concentrated sun onto one small spot but never explained how a photovoltaic cell could convert that much sun into electricity.

Has somebody come up with small solar cell that can convert that much sun to electricity without burning up?

Not that much.

If you wait long enough. It's still a lot less energy per day (power) than you'd get out of solar cells or a thermal solar generating plant occupying the same area.

Until your plants have used up whatever was in the ground when you started.

You'd lose.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The study extends only to 2040, which does excuse them from paying much attention to climate change.

One more example of what "the opposition" is not publishing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
>  
>  
> ?-)