But, this is not completely free. There is a $500 deposit once you approve the design of the system.
One thing that confuses people about how this works is the idea of net metering. The system is designed to meet
100% of you power use over a year. It is not designed to meet you peak power use. Under net metering you build
up kWh credits when the Sun shines and you are not using all of the power, and you use those credits at night or
on cloudy days. The key thing is that the credits last for a year so the seasonal differences in power production
and power usage can match up annually. There is good information on net metering laws at http://www.dsireusa.org/.
Please remember that this is a startup and it is going to take time to get going. No money will be collected until
the panels are ready for installation!
I was actually saying that leaving carbon in the ground is the most secure, not putting it back in. If we need to pull it
back out of the atmosphere, then I agree that mineralization is the most reliable, but if we do need to pull it out, then I
kind of think that a few quarries won't do the job and we are going to have to use biological methods. I'm considering competing
for the prize in this by making ocean seeding profitable through the induced fishery. Let me know if you'd like to work on this. I don't think I can pull it off without some help.
On the "we have ten years" thing. We don't actually know it we have plus ten or minus ten. Feedbacks could already be underway that
reducing emissions can no longer hold back. This would be the situation where we would need to pull carbon out of the atmosphere quickly.
We could also have room for a doubling of CO2 with major species loss only happening at the poles and a gradual loss of coastal cities
but no runaway feedback.
I terms of the equivalent solar forcing, the IPCC report has quantified errors, and thus is persuasive regarding the origin of the warming.
The models about the future seem a little biased though. You can read about my take on that at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html.
It is sad that we have not yet joined Kyoto even though we participated in the negociations. It is quite possible that our efforts on ozone
depletion will have been wasted because we no longer have the credibility to work on treaties about the content of the atmosphere. What shall we say now to this situation? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/business/23cool. html
So far the most effective form of cabon sequestration is to leave it in the ground, though there is some advantage to shifting from
coal to gas. It is not at all clear from the article that the deposits drilled here are in any danger of being releases through, say,
warming. So, they seem like candidates for a leave it in the ground approach.
The insurmountable problem I see for cosmoclimatology to be explanatory for the recent (4 decades) of warming is that solar activity
has been pretty constant. On the other hand, paleoclimatological issues are, as you point out, more open to interpretation. If you
follow the links in the wiki article, you'll find that nearby supernovae have been invoked, which might be a more powerful cosmic influence.
As you will note in Svensmark's physics/0612145, great reliance on greenhouse mechanisms is required for recent trends so that basically no cosmic signal is invoked there as far as I can tell.
I think for recent warming, it is not so much a "who done it" thing as an issue of being sure all the data are looked at. On this it is
more like being deer caught in the headlights. Does this really mean splat? For past warming and cooling, I think we are still looking
for better proxies to really get a clear understanding.
There has been an ongoing effort, especially by the Navy, to figure out ways to exploit these deposits. The rapid release of the methane
may be a hazard to drilling and shipping and is also considered a possible cause for rapid climate change in the past. --
Solar really is clean. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I like your idea of a deposit, but why not require a deposit for incadescents? The cost saving for a CFL is about $40. Why not make
this plain by charging a deposit of $40 for an incadescant? You get your money back once you turn it in, but you do get the information
at the point of purchace that you are wasting your money.
Carbon trades at $3.75/ton on the Chicago Climate Exchange http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/. They don't do an avoided
emissions credit but they are working on it. For a CFL that replaces a 60 W incadescent at 13 W and lasts for 7 years with
4 hours of use per day the avoided electric use is 0.49 MWh and so using the low conversion rate that the exchange uses for
renewable electric power http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/publications/p df/CCX_Renewable_Offsets.pdf based on displacing gas turbines this comes to 0.18 ton of carbon, or $0.74.
There was no consensus on this topic. There still isn't. There is controversy surounding the first paper in Science because there
were neutron sources near the setup. A later paper seemed to have accounted for this and reproduced the results. Now there is a
third paper where different experimenters reproduced the results. There are other labs that are having trouble doing this.
This is completely different from global warming. Most of the field has been over the data many times, they get the same result. When
something comes out that says it might not be right, the flaw in the analysis is quickly found. Everyone has roled up their sleeves
on global warming, has worked it through. That is why there is consensus.
Consensus is not a vote. One person can hold the whole thing up if they feel their reservations have not been addressed. A consensus
document requires the assent of everyone involved. There is no minority report. It produces the most conservative position possible
given the data.
Now, many people will say that science does not work that way, and they are correct. The science part is already done. The consensus
report is a review of the science, not new science. The need for a consensus report is owing to the request of policy makers for information
about what the science says. If you want to get involved in questioning the science, you need to steer clear of the consensus report and
go back to the data. Is there a problem with the thermometers? Are the Mauna Loa measurements affected by development in Kona? Yes,
there could be all these problems that somehow got past peer review, but you have to find them. And since there has already been a lot
of checking with consistent results all over the place, you're going to have your work cut out for you.
There is definitely a prejudice (a useful one) asking extraordinary claims to really demonstrate themselves and the claim of table top
fusion is extraordinary. But, this prejudice is not a consensus, it is just an attitude. And it is not shared by everyone. Lab managers, for example,
will see an advantage in pushing something out prematurely since it can help in bringing in funding to have a contoversial topic flying
around.
I think I agree that if the alpha ends up with the energy is should knock a few things around. So, tracks found in detectors http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=223170 &cid=18073680 are the sort of thing you might expect. On the other hand,
the only framework of a thoery for cold fusion that I've seen that sort of gets me to nod my head a little involves selectively
boosting the d+d->He4 branch, which is based on quantum arguments. So, in so far as there is a theory, the direct production of
of neutrons would not be expected while I'm not do sure that spalation of neutrons induced by alphas on d, O or Pd is all that likely.
Neutrons are nice because you can measure them at a distance from the setup, but it they are not produced for physical reasons,
then non-detection is not a good deciding factor. In any case, DOE has recomended focused research in the subject area so we should
be seeing more sensitive instruments applied to the problem.
In our discussions of the aquifer on the ecoaction committee we have wondered if even a bison ecology could be sustained after
it is depleted. It feeds the Platte so that the flow there might become seasonal. Perhaps camels would do better? On the other hand,
not all agriculture is impossible without the water from the aquifer so I doubt that the present population there becomes unsustainable.
Insisting on regional food security is a very good way to assure global food security since a regional food security plan is likely to
be robustly sustainable and will have it's own surplus requirements that provide flexiblity in the case of a shortage elsewhere. The
shipping needs are also considerably reduced when regional food security is in place. I think though that the Hudson watershed, while
productive, would need to consider an increase in productivity if it were to establish regional food security. And, I would certainly
ask that you teach us down here how to grow apples so well if you decide to keep them all up there.
Making no claim to an understanding of the result, I would just point out that they were working with deuterium, a nuclear boson rather than
hydrogen, a fermion. In fact, hydrogen was used as a control. Theoretical work that I know of concentrates on direct to helium fusion
without any neutron production. The ideas that I am aware of, expressed by Scott Chubb, center on coherent boosting of a low branching
ratio D-D->He4 reaction.
With the bubble fusion, the idea is that it is conventional hot fusion on a small scale so D+D->He3+n would be more conventionally represented
and neutrons would be expected.
The Ogalalla Aquifer water is largely being exported to feed you. Bioregionalism is one way to counter this sort of imbalance. When it
comes to it, I hope that the example of Texas stepping in to help after Katrina is more emmulated than the way the Okies were treated.
Your attitude is likely to lead to make war -not install. -- We still wave Old Glory down at the court house... --Merle Haggard
An anonymous coward can still claim credit for the post by printing the post submission confirmation screen. In cases where there is a pay-per-post
arragement posting as an anonymous coward can boost the financial return. There is quite a lot of money behind getting these contrarian views
out there without tracable attribution to the funding source http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html.
The same issue arises with voter receipts. Those why buy votes can have greater certainty that they are getting what they pay for when
polling places give out receipts. In the case of the slashcode, the buyer can be even more certain. Showing no data after clicking submit
for anonymous cowards might help out with this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
But, this is not completely free. There is a $500 deposit once you approve the design of the system.
s -selling-solar.html.
One thing that confuses people about how this works is the idea of net metering. The system is designed to meet 100% of you power use over a year. It is not designed to meet you peak power use. Under net metering you build up kWh credits when the Sun shines and you are not using all of the power, and you use those credits at night or on cloudy days. The key thing is that the credits last for a year so the seasonal differences in power production and power usage can match up annually. There is good information on net metering laws at http://www.dsireusa.org/.
At least three shashdot users are selling rental contracts for this company and if there are more please let me know so I can add them to this list http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Please remember that this is a startup and it is going to take time to get going. No money will be collected until the panels are ready for installation!
I was actually saying that leaving carbon in the ground is the most secure, not putting it back in. If we need to pull it back out of the atmosphere, then I agree that mineralization is the most reliable, but if we do need to pull it out, then I kind of think that a few quarries won't do the job and we are going to have to use biological methods. I'm considering competing for the prize in this by making ocean seeding profitable through the induced fishery. Let me know if you'd like to work on this. I don't think I can pull it off without some help.
m ary.html.
. html
On the "we have ten years" thing. We don't actually know it we have plus ten or minus ten. Feedbacks could already be underway that reducing emissions can no longer hold back. This would be the situation where we would need to pull carbon out of the atmosphere quickly. We could also have room for a doubling of CO2 with major species loss only happening at the poles and a gradual loss of coastal cities but no runaway feedback.
I terms of the equivalent solar forcing, the IPCC report has quantified errors, and thus is persuasive regarding the origin of the warming. The models about the future seem a little biased though. You can read about my take on that at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-sum
It is sad that we have not yet joined Kyoto even though we participated in the negociations. It is quite possible that our efforts on ozone depletion will have been wasted because we no longer have the credibility to work on treaties about the content of the atmosphere. What shall we say now to this situation? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/business/23cool
It's called an analog filter I think. http://www.analogsf.com/0704/issue_04.shtmls -selling-solar.html
--
The future of solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_uni t/2640/?letter=C&spage=26 Ooops....
Sam McGee?
So far the most effective form of cabon sequestration is to leave it in the ground, though there is some advantage to shifting from coal to gas. It is not at all clear from the article that the deposits drilled here are in any danger of being releases through, say, warming. So, they seem like candidates for a leave it in the ground approach.
The insurmountable problem I see for cosmoclimatology to be explanatory for the recent (4 decades) of warming is that solar activity has been pretty constant. On the other hand, paleoclimatological issues are, as you point out, more open to interpretation. If you follow the links in the wiki article, you'll find that nearby supernovae have been invoked, which might be a more powerful cosmic influence. As you will note in Svensmark's physics/0612145, great reliance on greenhouse mechanisms is required for recent trends so that basically no cosmic signal is invoked there as far as I can tell.
I think for recent warming, it is not so much a "who done it" thing as an issue of being sure all the data are looked at. On this it is more like being deer caught in the headlights. Does this really mean splat? For past warming and cooling, I think we are still looking for better proxies to really get a clear understanding.
Twice in one day I've answered myself. Do I hear and echo? I forgot to mention an application in desalination. See this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5553456.html
I made a lightbulb joke then complemented the poster?!? Mod the grandparent up!
I was going to tell you to go change a lightbulb, but then I realized you already did.
You're quite right on on topic.
This mixture forms all over the contenental shelves. And, as pointed out here, in Alaska as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate.
s -selling-solar.html
There has been an ongoing effort, especially by the Navy, to figure out ways to exploit these deposits. The rapid release of the methane may be a hazard to drilling and shipping and is also considered a possible cause for rapid climate change in the past.
--
Solar really is clean. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
From memory, 5600 K, nope, off by 180 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature .
s -selling-solar.html
White light is hotter than yellow light and blue light is hotter still, but emotionally we feel differently.
--
Catch the Sun before it turns to heat: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
to change a lightbulb?
All of them!
I find I get more light out for the candelabra base fixtures which make the fixtures useful for room lighting. Take a look at these: http://www.1000bulbs.com/products.php?cat=14-Watt- Candelabra-Base-Compact-Fluorescents-Light-Bulbs. I think the issue is the heat.
The decorative fixtures often have a 15 to 40 watt rating which you can circumvent with CFLs.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar is here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This 20 year bulb is cool, but expensive and less efficient that a CFLs. http://www.besthomeledlighting.com/product/OBS-80- 260-E27-96-WC
On the other hand, my outdoor lights are solar LEDs.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar, bringing light to your home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This one is a little pricey but it is dimmable: http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=28601 s -selling-solar.html
--
Be bright with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Ahhh... Reading Gary Snyder on BART... Wandering amid the redwoods... Tahoe in winter...
s -selling-solar.html
Why did I ever leave?
--
Get your soolar here CA: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I like your idea of a deposit, but why not require a deposit for incadescents? The cost saving for a CFL is about $40. Why not make this plain by charging a deposit of $40 for an incadescant? You get your money back once you turn it in, but you do get the information at the point of purchace that you are wasting your money.
s -selling-solar.html
Leave carbon behind, go solar. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Carbon trades at $3.75/ton on the Chicago Climate Exchange http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/. They don't do an avoided emissions credit but they are working on it. For a CFL that replaces a 60 W incadescent at 13 W and lasts for 7 years with 4 hours of use per day the avoided electric use is 0.49 MWh and so using the low conversion rate that the exchange uses for renewable electric power http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/publications/p df/CCX_Renewable_Offsets.pdf based on displacing gas turbines this comes to 0.18 ton of carbon, or $0.74.
- Compact-Fluorescents so just the
carbon savings are likely coming close to the cost of production.
2 95242023.s -selling-solar.html
You can get CFLs for 1.89 bulk retail http://www.1000bulbs.com/products.php?cat=13-Watt
At $0.09 per kWh electric cost, one also saves $44 per bulb.
So, why would legislation be needed? I think mainly to get people thinking.
LED street lights are begining to get going with a similar boost in efficiency and greater reliablility http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1171
--
Switch to solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
There was no consensus on this topic. There still isn't. There is controversy surounding the first paper in Science because there were neutron sources near the setup. A later paper seemed to have accounted for this and reproduced the results. Now there is a third paper where different experimenters reproduced the results. There are other labs that are having trouble doing this.
s -selling-solar.html
This is completely different from global warming. Most of the field has been over the data many times, they get the same result. When something comes out that says it might not be right, the flaw in the analysis is quickly found. Everyone has roled up their sleeves on global warming, has worked it through. That is why there is consensus.
Consensus is not a vote. One person can hold the whole thing up if they feel their reservations have not been addressed. A consensus document requires the assent of everyone involved. There is no minority report. It produces the most conservative position possible given the data.
Now, many people will say that science does not work that way, and they are correct. The science part is already done. The consensus report is a review of the science, not new science. The need for a consensus report is owing to the request of policy makers for information about what the science says. If you want to get involved in questioning the science, you need to steer clear of the consensus report and go back to the data. Is there a problem with the thermometers? Are the Mauna Loa measurements affected by development in Kona? Yes, there could be all these problems that somehow got past peer review, but you have to find them. And since there has already been a lot of checking with consistent results all over the place, you're going to have your work cut out for you.
There is definitely a prejudice (a useful one) asking extraordinary claims to really demonstrate themselves and the claim of table top fusion is extraordinary. But, this prejudice is not a consensus, it is just an attitude. And it is not shared by everyone. Lab managers, for example, will see an advantage in pushing something out prematurely since it can help in bringing in funding to have a contoversial topic flying around.
So, I hope you see what consensus really means. It is quite different from what you really mean which is prejudice.
-
Catch the new consensus before it forms: Get solar. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I think I agree that if the alpha ends up with the energy is should knock a few things around. So, tracks found in detectors http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=223170 &cid=18073680 are the sort of thing you might expect. On the other hand,
the only framework of a thoery for cold fusion that I've seen that sort of gets me to nod my head a little involves selectively
boosting the d+d->He4 branch, which is based on quantum arguments. So, in so far as there is a theory, the direct production of
of neutrons would not be expected while I'm not do sure that spalation of neutrons induced by alphas on d, O or Pd is all that likely.
Neutrons are nice because you can measure them at a distance from the setup, but it they are not produced for physical reasons,
then non-detection is not a good deciding factor. In any case, DOE has recomended focused research in the subject area so we should
be seeing more sensitive instruments applied to the problem.
In our discussions of the aquifer on the ecoaction committee we have wondered if even a bison ecology could be sustained after it is depleted. It feeds the Platte so that the flow there might become seasonal. Perhaps camels would do better? On the other hand, not all agriculture is impossible without the water from the aquifer so I doubt that the present population there becomes unsustainable. Insisting on regional food security is a very good way to assure global food security since a regional food security plan is likely to be robustly sustainable and will have it's own surplus requirements that provide flexiblity in the case of a shortage elsewhere. The shipping needs are also considerably reduced when regional food security is in place. I think though that the Hudson watershed, while productive, would need to consider an increase in productivity if it were to establish regional food security. And, I would certainly ask that you teach us down here how to grow apples so well if you decide to keep them all up there.
Making no claim to an understanding of the result, I would just point out that they were working with deuterium, a nuclear boson rather than hydrogen, a fermion. In fact, hydrogen was used as a control. Theoretical work that I know of concentrates on direct to helium fusion without any neutron production. The ideas that I am aware of, expressed by Scott Chubb, center on coherent boosting of a low branching ratio D-D->He4 reaction.
s -selling-solar.html
With the bubble fusion, the idea is that it is conventional hot fusion on a small scale so D+D->He3+n would be more conventionally represented and neutrons would be expected.
Both ideas are pretty facinating and with the claimed replication of bubble fusion, perhaps the numerous claimed replications of cold fusion http://www.lenr-canr.org/, will receive closer attention.
--
D fusion hot, D fusion cold, H fusion in the pot eight minutes old: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This is about bubble fusion. Those interested in cold fusion should look here http://www.lenr-canr.org/.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get hot fusion: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The Ogalalla Aquifer water is largely being exported to feed you. Bioregionalism is one way to counter this sort of imbalance. When it comes to it, I hope that the example of Texas stepping in to help after Katrina is more emmulated than the way the Okies were treated. Your attitude is likely to lead to make war -not install.
--
We still wave Old Glory down at the court house... --Merle Haggard
An anonymous coward can still claim credit for the post by printing the post submission confirmation screen. In cases where there is a pay-per-post arragement posting as an anonymous coward can boost the financial return. There is quite a lot of money behind getting these contrarian views out there without tracable attribution to the funding source http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html.
The same issue arises with voter receipts. Those why buy votes can have greater certainty that they are getting what they pay for when polling places give out receipts. In the case of the slashcode, the buyer can be even more certain. Showing no data after clicking submit for anonymous cowards might help out with this problem.