OT: The Power Grid Will Fail within 36 Months

a) Average yield is roughly equal to 5 hours' output of the panel's peak rating, per day. b) Your price is for panels--you'll still need wiring, installation, and an inverter.

Even so, prices are making good progress--just a few years ago the price was $6/watt, and dollars were worth more back then.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Mr. Obama's not very clever that way.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

My 401K is doing OK; not gaining at terrific rates but certainly not losing. About a third of the money in there was "free", too.

I love telling an "I-told-you-do", "I told you so".

Nonsense. It's income redistribution, backwards.

Of course, your whole argument here is based on the fallacious assumption that CO2 is "bad."

If you got rid of all the CO2, all the plants would die, and people would forget to breathe - it's CO2 in the bloodstream that triggers the breathing reflex.

And what makes you think that an atmosphere has the same characteristics as a glass roof anyway?

Thanks, Rich

Ah, I see you're also an elder in the Church of Antismokerism. And it's interesting to note that in a post that's ostensibly a reply to my post, you start referring to me in the third person.

Trying to recruit new believers, by speaking to the audience at large?

Good Luck! Rich

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

until the power goes out.... besides,often max power consumption is when it's TOO HOT,and AC is used. when it's cold out,you can always put on another blanket or dress warmer,but when it's hot out,it's hard to cool your house.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

and the counters/judges/supervisors-of-elections are Democrats.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

ditto for Seminole County,Florida.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

A red herring. Though, few combustion furnaces will operate without power.

That certainly depends on the region and supply sources.

True, but another red herring.

The trick is to maximise the amoint of meony you can get out of the goose while making its life progressively more difficult. In fact, the long term plan is to get coal-fired power plants to "sequester" their CO2 output by burying it underground rather than venting it to atmosphere. It would roughly double the cost generating electricity by burning coal, but if the emission tax is high enough the power generators will do it, rather than going bankrupt

James Arthur has some deeply ingrained delusions about non-Republican politicians, which blind him to the possibility that they might be a little more subtle than their Republican equivalents.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

lly

Last Saturday we went to the funeral of our ex-next-door-neighbour, who had been a smoker all her life and died of small cell lung cancer

- disease that is rare in people who don't smoke and even rarer in people who haven't been exposed to side-stream cigarette smoke.

My father also smoked until late in life, and died of kidney cancer - he gloated a bit about it not being lung cancer, and I didn't have the heart to tell him that kidney cancer is about twice as likely to kill smokers as non-smokers.

No point in trying to persuade you - you've got false religion.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"Rich Grise, Professional AGW Denialist" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net...

Well, you originally stated a fact about the production of CO2, which I corrected:

I assume that, because you are not arguing the information I have presented, you accept its truth (i.e., nuclear fuel requires some CO2 emission). So, apparently, I haven't been arguing with you, we've been in agreement on this subject.

I haven't said a thing about the efficacy of CO2. If anything, your original statement implies a tacit acknowledgement of that fact (i.e., suggesting an alternative to a problem), so I guess you're arguing with yourself!

This is your brain ... Rich is your brain on drugs ;-)

I doubt people would forget to breathe since CO2 is produced internally, but extremely low CO2 levels would kill plants.

The fact that the Earth isn't a ball of ice (which happened once, a very long time ago).

As I recall, the amount of "greenhouse effect" can be calculated pretty easily, and comes out to better accuracy than blackbody radiation alone would predict. (Blackbody comes out something like 30C too low; adding in the greenhouse effect gets the predicted value within a few degrees of measurement. I suppose the remaining error comes from cloud cover, wind patterns, differing rates of emission between the equator and poles, spectral emissions and so on.)

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

No, my religion is very real: Freedom is my worship word.

Thanks, Rich

Here we go again!

The obstacles are political rather than technical. The anti-nukers want it that way.

Radioactive material deep enough underground is a hazard to nobody and nothing.

For example, vitrified nuclear waste in a salt dome a mile underground that held petroleum for 200 million plus years is not going to be a problem. But USA has an artificial requirement for the waste to be retrievable, as well as monitoring requirements that appear to me to be artificial obstacles to permanent disposal solutions.

There is also the choice of dumping vitrified waste in polypropylene containers in depleted uranium mines - that have safely held radioactive materials (though lower-level) for 100 million plus years. Just have

30-40 or more meters of rock and/or dirt in all gamma ray paths to the surface, and tons of really hot stuff will be below background radiation at the surface. Add a security force and a security perimeter to the entrance of the depleted uranium mine to keep terrorists from stealing the vitrified radioactive waste.

And whatever happened to Yucca Mountain? The problem there sounds to me political more than technical - Obama promised during his campaign to abandon that for some reason - after 9 gigabucks were spent studying and working on that site. And the cost is being escalated by construction delays caused by underfunding.

And in 2009 the Secretary of Energy stated suitability of salt domes as part of argument against Yucca Mountain... Go figure...

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Except generating efficiency for grid power from fossil fuels is low, generally near or under 50% before transmission and distribution losses.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The same can be said for all the other energy sources, oil, gas, coal, wood.

tm

May i ask where are the sources of SULFUR-FREE coal?

...even WITH the sulfur and radioactivity..