Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lady Alyx

"Live Earth"

44 posts in this topic

ahem...knock knock knock...guess you did not read my comments on solar panels...ahem..and yes the price keeps falling, as I can see that myself on our hi-tech solar cells. Our panels are made to work in the extremes of space for 15 years, on earth they will last longer.

People who are already using this actually sell power back to the grid, they make money.

And you still havent sold me on how engines are clean..perhaps cleaner but not clean. We have to change our mentality about the concept of 'change'. We are creatures of habit have have a hard time adapting unless we are forced to, then it's amazing on how we adapt, just like we did with earth's weather patterns through time.

The sun is also moving away from us, but the solar events currently we are going to go through and yet to come is what is affecting us as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady Alyx as I understand it the solar panels manufactured at your company are to be used on satellites. It's is also my understanding that these satellites are maintained at an orbit higher than most space debris and thus although not existing in a perfect vacuum are much closer to it than any where on earth. Were these panels to exist inside the belt of space debris orbiting this planet I may see it differently but I can't imagine the owners of these multi million dollar machines allowing them into an orbit were dust particle size debris travels at several thousand miles an hour and hits with an impact many times that of a gun shot. Thus protected and without snow,hail,rain,sand, or sleet to attack them these panels have different stresses to contend withthan there teresstrial conterparts. Hence I do not see how there longevity in space can be compared to longevity on earth. Although one would presume the vast temperature extremes and the necessary allowances for this give them great protection from seasonal change not everything made for space lasts longer here. In truth my camping tent is much more durable here on earth than the skin of the lunar lander which was so thin the astronauts could have easily punched through it little lone a good late summer thunder storm. In addition to the panels the wiring, sealant,etc. can also fail leaving yet another maintenance worry. Granted this happens now so it's repair is not a major deal. Yes the people who already have solar power do sell some power back to the grid but those who do not have the money for a large enough battery grid and or don't live in say Florida or Southern Cali. also use electricity either from the grid or from a natural gas generator during periods of low or no light. All that being said however the panels you work with or vastly different than those I have come into contact with and although I would be surprised to see these panels last in excess of 15 years here on earth it wouldn't be a great shock. As for clean vehicles what is your standard a zero emissions vehicle which either uses a massive battery array causing pollution with the mining for it's materials and there disposal or a hydrogen fuel cell which although emitting no green house gases while in use does reguire that we use the same pollution plagued methods of oil drilling for what is also (sans nuclear production) essentially a nonrenewable resource. For my own sake a naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder car that makes roughly the same power as a 60's muscle car while producing less air pollutants than a 5 hp Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine from the early 90's is pretty d*** clean. In addition this is by no means the climax of such developments. These generalities of which I speak are over 8 years old now. With constant improvements at every level from the afore mentioned lawn mower engines to the Detroit 60 series that I push around this country. Recently Honda announced that it would be bringing a diesel powered economy car to these shores so clean that it would pass with ease the restrictions enacted by C.A.R.B.. Add in biodesel fuel and we have a low emissions vehicle with the fuel efficacy of a hybrid, what on an individual level would amount to a vast reduction in foreign oil consumption, and the ease of maintenance found only in a diesel motor. To end this I'd like to agree with you on this quote "We are creatures of habit have have a hard time adapting unless we are forced to" On this I totally agree hence my disbelief in solar going mainstream. Without a giant and pressing need to do so we will for the most part cling to the old ways of doing things. Depending on Govt. regulations and the major corporations of this country to make the changes we would if of course it wasn't so inconvenient.

P.S. I did read your comments on solar panels as I am not in the habit of posting to a thread without reading prior comments first. I simply do not see how getting a solar panel in space to last better than a decade (something we have been doing for roughly 4 decades now) applies to the same panels placed on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a little searchin' the price fer a solar conversion be @$20,000. Thats after rebates and tax incentives. A system this size will eliminate a $100 a month electric bill. Longevity in the Arizona sun? I'd need ta see proof of at least 20 year before even considerin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vehicle thing...I personally don't think we're there yet. Someone has to find a better way to transport people that is acceptable to them and the only way to do that is to explore all these other, inefficient ways. (This is why the government getting to strongly behind any of them is a mistake. Then again, like a good Libertarian, I think the government pouring money into most private ventures is a mistake.)

To end this I'd like to agree with you on this quote "We are creatures of habit have have a hard time adapting unless we are forced to" On this I totally agree hence my disbelief in solar going mainstream. Without a giant and pressing need to do so we will for the most part cling to the old ways of doing things. Depending on Govt. regulations and the major corporations of this country to make the changes we would if of course it wasn't so inconvenient.

I think a lot of people are becoming more earth friendly aware, particularly in the upcoming generations as I said previously. This is what I suspect will be the force driving the adoption of green energy generation. Back when we were talking about GW, I indicated that whatever else it has done, it has brought environmental issues to the fore of many people's minds. That seems like a good thing to me. (It's allocating large chunks of our money to "combat" it (via taxation) that I am against.) I have read that in 50 years people will look back on this recent era of media-orchestrated fear mongering (GW, health scares, over-protectiveness and you name it) and laugh at how naive we all were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitman, I enjoyed reading your post. Good notes! Yes I agree while our design for space is different than for terrestrial I was simply pointing out the fact that it is a clean source of energy. I was not stating that people put solar panels on their homes but they can if they want, you have notated here the cost and I am well aware of the costs. What I was eluding to was the Solar Fields that can be set up in the desert etc for energy. We also have built solar cars, but they are only going into the races. The battery cars have a long ways to go before they are clean as well as you stated, and can perform to do a reliable job on the highway.

There is another mode that is still not tackled here but in use for ages in 'the old country' and that is trains, electric trains. Also electric roads that you car joins with as you enter was one topic that is brought up from time to time. The super collider I thought at one time was also supposed to be a new venue as well for this concept. But that whole idea got shelved. Innovations of technology will have to prevail for cleaner energy...it will have to, unless we want to keep going down the dirty road untill everything suffocates one day. Just look at the toads and frogs disapearing, they are indicators.

We may have to give up our precious cars one day for mass transit if we keep the road we are on.

solar fields forever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One 'o the biggest hurdles is convincin' the general public that more horsepower is not the answer. 60 mpg is attainable NOW with decades old technology. No not wi' magnets on the fuel lines an 2 oz 'o acetone per gallon or any 'o that bogus dark arts engineerin' crap. An honest, simple, long stroke, small displacement engine could do it NOW! Would you be willin' ta buy a car that went 0-75 in say, 20 seconds? Would ya be willin' ta give up all the extra electrical an chrome goodies ta save weight? What would ya trade fer better mileage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's a better response than wot I got 10 year ago fer the same post on another board. Problem is if ye wants or needs an SUV ye can get one fer a resonable price. Ya can't get a 60 mpg car less'n ya makes it yerself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We may have to give up our precious cars one day for mass transit if we keep the road we are on.

Good luck with that argument.

This is part of the reason I don't think we're there yet on vehicles as I said before. You have to make something that will satisfy what people really want. There are only a small fraction of the population that are going to sacrifice the freedom of owning their own transportation in the name of environmental consciousness. Independence is ingrained in the US culture.

This is one of the reasons the politicians and various groups who promote GW are doing so - to try to convince people to sacrifice their independence (in more ways than just vehicles) basically in the name of protectionism and future safety. They are thinking in Win/Lose game theory terms. For them to win, we must all lose some of our independence and freedom of choice. I think that's part of the reason they're having such a hard time with the environmental cause. The whole anthropogenic GW theory is just that...a theory. One with all kinds of holes in it as I've pointed out elsewhere. When you try to shove it down people's throat...when you try to shove anything down people's throats...they resist. Especially intelligent, independent people.

However, when solar gets into the competitive range of pricing...we will have a Win/Win scenario in game parlance. Until we get there, the environmentalists and politicians are fighting an uphill battle IMO, based on threats and fear which are often vague and practically untenable. This strategy rarely works in the market for very long, so they've turned to the government - which can make the protection of things vague and untenable into an institutionalized art form. Restrictions imposed by the government can be very hard to remove - even when their purpose is no longer valid. I don't see how this is a step forward, especially regarding a theory with so many possibilities for being incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morgan Dreadlocke I think in the near future we will see 60mpg cars with 200+ pony's and of respectable size. Indeed perhaps one day the 60mph suv will come about. I see this future not as a revolution but as a continuation of the current status quo in the auto industry. Unlike in the late 70's and early 80's when meeting smog restrictions meant little motors with even less power todays motors are cleaner and meaner. Why efficiency , with multi port fuel injection,electric engine fans, serpentine belts, etc. more power is made with less waste. I agree that a 60mpg car is possible but I do not want to make said trade offs and with a little more time most likely won't have too. (I LOVE TORUGE)

Lady Alyx A solar power field built in the desert sounds good to me and would meet the stupid simple requirement for the home owner. In regards to mass transit it's gonna have an uphill battle in this country for multiple reasons (including the physiological ones mention by Mission) but the most pressing of all is infrastructure(in the physical line at least). Europe is smaller than the Good Old U.S.A. and hence isn't as worried with this as you can see with their more advanced cell network and the numerous countries now offering fiber to the curb Internet service. Our existing rail roads (as I have been told) are not ideal and are potentially unsafe for high speed passenger service. Replacing these would not happen without a demand for rail service in this country as the Govt. can't afford it and the private sector sees no profit in it. No one wants to ride the bus and the Nancy Hank stopped make'n her rounds in these parts many moons ago. In addition in the rural area where I live mass transit could be as much a environmental disaster as a help. I also don't see electric cars ever getting "there". They have failed to meet the challenge of the internal combustion engine twice already (Turn of the last century and the late 80's early 90's) and without a revolution in battery tech (which our best and brightest have been working for without success for several decades now.) I can't see them ever becoming successful.

Mission I still see wind beating solar long term but agree whole heartedly on keeping the Govt. as hands off as possible. Or as Charles De Montesquieu put it, "Unnecessary laws weaken the necessary ones."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Europe is smaller than the Good Old U.S.A. and hence isn't as worried with this as you can see with their more advanced cell network and the numerous countries now offering fiber to the curb Internet service.

Not to mention that their approach is much more socialist than ours and can more easily get away with legislating things. There are a group of people in the US that want it to be more socialist which I don't comprehend. Our freedom and independence is what made the US what it is today (Just as socialism has made Europe what it is today.)

Our existing rail roads (as I have been told) are not ideal and are potentially unsafe for high speed passenger service. Replacing these would not happen without a demand for rail service in this country as the Govt. can't afford it and the private sector sees no profit in it.

As you said, the US is too spread out to make rail transit the only answer. I don't know what the problems with the rail lines are, unless it's related to grades, turn radiuses and so forth. Or it could be that the equipment just isn't up to snuff. I was just reading about a company that's going gangbusters selling concrete railroad ties, though. They're more durable and last longer than the wooden ties. Isn't that sort of cool? Old tech applied in a new tech way to an old problem. In the article, they did explain how the rail lines have deteriorated because they're not worth fixing yet. This may or may not have anything with their suitability for rapid rail travel, however.

In addition in the rural area where I live mass transit could be as much a environmental disaster as a help. I also don't see electric cars ever getting "there". They have failed to meet the challenge of the internal combustion engine twice already (Turn of the last century and the late 80's early 90's) and without a revolution in battery tech (which our best and brightest have been working for without success for several decades now.) I can't see them ever becoming successful.

When it becomes win/win, that will change. While many intelligent people are probably working on this problem, there isn't the galvanized will to do this yet. Haven't you ever noticed that whenever we have a real problem, we apply our collective creativity and solve it? (Speaking of fuel efficient cars, remember the introduction of the fuel injector on the heels of the gas "crises" in the late 70s? It was so much more fuel efficient than the carburetor that it practically doubled the number of miles we could get from the existing fuel supply. That's American ingenuity for you. It's also an example of why all this idiotic handwringing over "limited natural resources" is a waste of psychic energy. When it gets down to the wire, we apply the creativity that freedom and imagination support and solve the problem in ways no one has ever thought of.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission my understanding as to the railroads was the joining of the rails. Where as we use an old school plate and bolt system tracks for high speed trains are welded together. I can't say as I rember the introduction of electronic fuel injection as I was born in Dec. of 79 but I did read an intresting article in Hot Rod a few years back. (I can't rember when reletivly recent though) Where the editors tried to once and for all end the carb vs. injector debate in perfomance motors. Through extinsive dyno testing they found that a carb and injection system make the same power and fuel mileage when correctly tuned. The problem of course is that no one can or will keep a carp tuned to that level of perfection. The computer can correct for altitude, fuel quality, etc. The carb has to be adjusted by hand. A little off topic that but figured you might like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mission my understanding as to the railroads was the joining of the rails. Where as we use an old school plate and bolt system tracks for high speed trains are welded together.

Oh, ah. I can see why that would be a problem. I grew up by a railroad track. We used to collect all the detritus in a barrel - plates, spikes, these J hook things that hold the rail in some fashion...I recall that there is definitely a gap (about 1/2" or so) in the rails which might present a failure point when traveling at high speed. hit repeatedly.

Through extinsive dyno testing they found that a carb and injection system make the same power and fuel mileage when correctly tuned. The problem of course is that no one can or will keep a carp tuned to that level of perfection. The computer can correct for altitude, fuel quality, etc. The carb has to be adjusted by hand.

B) I had a finicky carb on one of my cars. It got so bad that the car wouldn't run properly. Lord knows what the emissions on that beast were... Nobody seemed to be able to fix it so it worked completely correctly. So I, for one, was glad to see the back of them. (The Delorean came out at the very beginning of the fuel injector revolution - it had mechanical fuel injection - like large trucks! Quite a thing to look at - like Davy Jones face.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Investor's Business Daily:

Tempest In A Teapot

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 7/25/2007

Global Warming: A private firm's downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

A reasonable response is: They can't. But the global warming climate of fear did not blow in on the soft breezes of reason, but by the storm winds of emotion.

Forecaster WSI Corp. said Tuesday that the season ending Nov. 30 will bring 14 named storms, six of which will grow into hurricanes, three of them major. WSI's initial forecast was for 15 named storms, eight hurricanes and four majors.

Why the change? "Because," said WSI forecaster Todd Crawford, "ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring."

Could it be that the 2007 hurricane season is turning out to be as overrated as 2006? Remember last year's predictions — that we were in for a brutal spell of storms? It had been quiet, they said, and we were due for a series of Katrina-like hurricanes. But as we wrote last November, as the much-dreaded '06 season whimpered to a close, the storm year came in like a lamb and went out the same way.

For years, the Greenshirts have told us that emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from man's addiction to fossil fuel-based energy are turning the planet into a sweltering hothouse. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change has projected a temperature increase of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit for the 21st century due to the greenhouse effect.

As a result, alarmists say, ice caps will melt, glaciers will thaw and sea levels will rise as much as 20 feet, causing floods and death in low-lying areas. Storms are also predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity.

To prevent this coming Category 5 cataclysm, we're supposed to shell out trillions of dollars and gladly adopt Spartan lifestyles. Instead of trying, as their grandparents did, to see how many bodies they can squeeze into a telephone booth, today's college kids are expected to see how many they can get in a Prius.

Yet the fact remains: The local weatherman can't forecast more than about 10 days out, and neither can the experts tell us how warm, or cool, the planet is going to be in 2100, 2075 or even 2050.

Even short-term predictions have been off. James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a 0.45-degree Celsius (0.81-degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature from 1988 to 1997. But in reality (a place environmental activists rarely visit) the increase was a mere 0.11-degree Celsius.

We hope no one in Hansen's neighborhood relies on him to tell them when it's going to rain or when they'll need a coat and hat.

Setting aside the hubristic notion that alarmists know what the right temperature is, too many other factors besides the greenhouse effect influence climate for them to declare they know exactly, or even approximately, what's coming. Solar activity, for instance, is among the most powerful, as are the El Nino and La Nina phenomena.

We also question the concept of a "global" temperature. How could such a thing be measured when weather stations dot rather than blanket the Earth? Danish physicist Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen, made sense earlier this year when he said it's "impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.

"A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system (and) climate is not governed by a single temperature," he said. "Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. , which make up the climate."

The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists.

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

Amen, brother! ;)

And my last post on this topic. :lol:

(You may now commence with bashing the above as nay saying by the "wealthy elite".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing on how the $$$$$ people say there is no Global Warming...and the arogant ones as well "who think Humans can do no harm and we are the demi-gods of earth and can do what we want" chime along. (That was not intended for any posters..just a statement in general). I again trust what NOAA has to say and many of the scientific community...the world is changing...I am sure there are things the planet is doing by itself due to it's own evolution, but the tons of crap we have spewed into the atomosphere since erven the year 1900 has added up to alot, think of what you see on the road ahead of you and multiply that by all the cities, then the factories and what they spew. Lawnmowers, blowers everything that spews and multiply that...alot of drek going into our beautiful world. Just think of it..this world is sooo so miraculous, life itself is the most beautiful miracle of all, we are so lucky it happened here and we are alive to enjoy it. But for how long, we can't keep thinking we don't do anything destructive, that's what we do conquer and destroy.

The reason I mentioned that we must change one day about that, is not an issue if we want to, to serve the general need, but a MUST do attitude, or eventually we will be forced one day, when" your great grandchildren are here to scratch their heads and say Why did they not see it coming". Sure, there's plently of oil, yeah let's use it till we choke. I say why...we have the technology let's use it.

I watched the movie AI for the first time this week, I even had to go out and rent it, so I could watch it in detail with no commercial interuptions. I was thinking about the cars used in that film. I also thought it was interesting that they also used Global warming in the film, even though it was about Artificial Intelligence and how we would relate to it.

Conceptual vehicle/bike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny, I just saw AI for the first time about a week ago. (The Stan Winston studios book lead me to it.) I thought the GW stuff was irritating - it's based on that misbegotten 20 foot rise in sea level thing. (What is the IPCC predicting now...20" over 100 years? 17"? Anyone for 15"?)

The NYC buildings in the water was a cool digital effect, though. Didn't they do that in The Fifth Element too? I know the basic concept was a central feature in Waterworld. They used it in the graphic novels for Cadillacs and Dinosaurs too...Hollywood sci-fi sure has gotten a lot of mileage out of one activist's unsubstantiated statement about rising sea level. (BTW, this is a common source of such incorrect statistics - activists, having no number, make one up to satisfy a reporter who wants a number to wrap his story around. This gets reported, often without correct source references, and then gets re-reported and re-reported until no one is sure where the original statistic came from. Since it's been so widely reported, however, you can find gobs of sources for a number someone basically pulled out of their...ear.)

Anyhow, AI...what a bizarre movie. I kept wondering how they were going to manage to generate sympathy for robots. In fact, I don't think they managed to - it sure didn't work for me. They kept trying to impart this emotional appeal and show how intolerant people were to...robots. How do you feel sorry for a robot? Even the "love" chip that the little boy robot had...so what? It came across to me as if it were just special programming, not genuine love. I did like the supertoy teddy bear, though. He seemed to be the most intelligent character in the movie. The Gigolo Joe robot was sort of cool in a way, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny most people don't like that movie for those two facts, I guess I am in the small community STILL, that does believe that this is possible with the sea table rising, they have proved it many times that it is, by the measurements they take.

In regards to the humans not having a heart for robots, well I guess that is the heartless nature most humans have, look how we treat animals and the planet. I for one had passion for the robot. A novel I was working on back in the 70's stated the same concept human love for a robot, but it was the central character, but the robots are always pursued..by oh so demigod humans again. We are trully wretched I believe and will bring about our own demise. I could have love for a robot...I can't get rid of my teddy's for the same reason.

I could not help thinking of this "The Roads Must Roll", by Robert Heinlein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to the humans not having a heart for robots, well I guess that is the heartless nature most humans have...

We are trully wretched I believe and will bring about our own demise.

See, I think that's entirely a matter of your perceptive lens. If you look for people to be heartless, that's what you will find. If you look for people who are understanding, that's what you find. How do you perceive the world? That's how it is for you.

So are there genuinely heartless people? I don't think so, actually. They just don't have heartfelt conviction for the same things as you do. (Despite the spate of movies and TV shows about serial killers. You'd think there was one on every street corner. I will go so far as to propose that even they, in their twisted way, care about something. Perception. (Plus they are psychologically damaged. I don't think most people are psychologically damaged to such an extent. Some people are, but they are the exceptions. I don't see where making the rules about human nature based on the exceptions is a wise course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solar is my bet. Other than the need for space to place the panels and the storage problem (which is ubiquitous to all alternative energy schemes), it seems like the best and cleanest option to me. Unless something more cost effective that we haven't thought of or popularized yet shows up.

I was reading The Economist the other day and came across an article on making wind power a more effective alternative energy option. Since they are one of those bizarre publications that put everything in their magazine on-line for free, you don't have to subscribe like I do and can actually see the article here.

Very, very interesting. I didn't know DC could actually be transmitted as efficiently (and actually, it sounds like more efficiently) than AC power! I had always been taught otherwise. What really amazes me is the idea of storing energy by doing things like compressing air and moving water when energy is abundant and then releasing it and using it to drive turbines and such when the energy is not. Clever! Damned clever! See what I mean about better technology coming along? This is using one natural, alternative energy to actually create another latent form of alternative energy for future use. That is amazingly cool, even if there is going to be some overall energy loss in the process.

Give it time and it will be sorted out. Human creativity is practically limitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0