Your link comes from Senator Inhofe, who is well known for misleading rhetoric. You also seemed to have missed the fact
that he's now in the minority. His ad hominem attach on Cullen is despicable. Please ask him when he is going to say anything
related to reality when you see him on Friday.
--
Oh, what's the point?
On the other side of the conflict, the resignations have been forced as a result of the publicity surrounding their nefarious activities.
Of course, the revolving door takes the sting out. -- Good morning sunshine: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The word protestant comes from the word protest and in this case I think it is the administration that doth protest too much. Their reservations do not seem to be held in good faith. Nor are they using good faith methods in support of thier beliefs.
A few items back engineer-poet posted this link: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/solix_and_ color.html which
claims to get to jet fuel-like stuff: "The algae oil can also be refined into other liquid fuels, including ethanol and jet fuel."
In this case they can leave out the intermediate step of making sugar and take advantage of the higher photosynthetic productivity
of algae over rooted plants. I wonder if the two groups should get together to try to further process the algae biologically
to get increased yields? ---
Candy is dandy but SOLAR is quicka in 40 US states but not Costa Rica: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Well, no my argument was an event that is 50-50 every 20 years. Half of them you say Phewwww! and the other half, well
lots of people die. Take a look at the list, the distribution is disturbingly well populated. On Yucca Mountain, a permanent repository
which the courts have essentially killed, the problem is attempting to engineer on time scales that are geological.
Permanent storage does not work because we can't make permanent work. This is the reason that transmutation is the only
responsible option on the table right now. Doing this with lower energy inputs should be the main focus of research. Glass
does not stand the test of geological time. Ask any beach. ---- If you could get solar for cheaper than nuclear right now wouldn't you? http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The problem is actually physical. Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nucl ear_accidents
we can estimate a Chernobyl sized event every 40 years if we allow one 50-50 nail biter (such as the incident last
year in Sweden) per big event. This means that about 100 sq miles per year of arable land are made essentially permanently
uninhabitable. This nuclear waste is basically too expensive to clean up.
I've heard of making glass and I've heard of spreading it thin, but your idea of spreading it thin and making it into glass
is interesting. This is a little more energy intensive that people have been willing to go so far and may still come
up against worries about leaching which killed Yucca Mountain.
---
Solar: it's cheaper http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Generally, if it is down in the sig, it's a burma shave-style thing. I'd like people to get solar power on their roof
and for a lot of people, going to http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html is the
best way to do this. I decided to list everyone I knew about because I'm pushing this hard and might get kind of annoying,
as your question suggests might be happening, and I don't want people turned off the system just because it's me. Also,
the number of people adoping the system is growing exponentially and about 10% of those getting the system are also
deciding to sell it too. That means, I think, that before too long we'll have quite a lot of us selling and it does not
hurt to work as a community on this.
If it is in the body (above the sig) then the blog subject is relevant (IMHO) to the discussion. So, in the parent of
your comment (mine), the Amway marketing method is pretty relevant to how quickly renewables are adopted which is the
main theme of engineer-poets' essay. Marketing is indeed a technology as it is pretty carefully engineered. And, it is THE
way that people learn about a product or service. You don't read a news article about or review of a product if the producer
has not pushed the product first. Word-of-mouth is the oldest form of marketing but it has been tweeked pretty substantially
in the past century. As you can see, I'm an acedemic. I haven't sold anything since an odd job in the eighties. If
you want to hear from an expert on this watch: http://www.theneighborhoodlive.com/common/presenta tion.htm. This a
pitch, but it covers why the marketing method leads to rapid adoption.
In the second link, I might have just linked the flywheel directly, but I wanted an easy way to acknowledge who I got the link from and that is there in the blog. Energy storage is very important in a renewable energy based economy and this technology
recommends itself in many ways over alternatives such as batteries or biomass storage for some applications. Both batteries and biomass storage (sorry engineer-poet) have environmental drawbacks and scale issues whereas flywheels fall in with wind turbines
in terms of scalability and end-of-use issues. You'll see on the Real Energy Blog that I'm inspired by William McDonough, not
to say that engineer-poet does not take end-of-use issues seriously, he does, but he does not yet routinely include these in
calculations such as the energy in vrs. energy saved estimates whereas McDonough does. On the EcoAction Committee (see blog),
we've run over many of his ideas independently but have not, as yet, decided to push them largely owing the impact on land use
(which he is trying to address) and air pollution (which he is also working on).
So, I was very excited to see his work, which is so congruent with what we've been looking at, and thought the two links would be
a help. I hope I've answered your question, but if not please let me know. ---- What!?!? No solar link???
Regarding wind, at the cost level it is competitive with solar but it has more troubles fitting in. HOAs don't always want
the towers needed to get the turbines into the wind flow. Some places are just sheltered. A plant that makes wind turbines
has a similar advantage to one that makes solar panels: As it continues to produce, it is just making more and more capacity.
A coal plant has fixed capacity and so you need to build another, but then you put a greater strain on fuel supply so it gets more
expensive instead of cheaper. So, both solar and wind production facilities should make electricity somewhat less expensive going
forward. Right now, the convenience of roofs has us concentrating on solar and we can offer fixed rate long term contract
at the same rate people are paying now. Wind should be offered in the future though. Take a look at any of the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html to find out more. The calculator is set to an
estimated 2.1% annual rate increase for utility supplied power compared to about 4.1% between 1969 and 2005, years when the inflation
adjusted cost was the same http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_39. pdf. You'll enjoy the fact that the only
place we don't compete yet is with hydro in the North West, another renewable.
Most people who are in sales are also customers. The first installs will be in September. Many people are choosing to wait until
installs occur so you're hesitation is pretty natural. What is different here is the scale, a very large production facility and
the sales model, rental rather than purchace. The customer experince so far is signing up and sending in some paper work. If you
have questions about the contract terms, I'd be happy to answer them. Pick me out of the list at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. The others there can help you as well.
OK, yes you've missed the whole gist of the argument but you've made it yourself. Solar is now cheaper than subsidizes nuclear
power. Nuclear has already taken its scale advantage and can't get cheaper without more subsidies. Solar has further to go in
scale. So, it displaces nuclear power, not on the basis of taste, as educated as the european sort may be, but on the basis of price.
So, again, I invite you to save some money: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html.
Details are hereby requested. I've also looked with some interest at what is going on at http://www.lenr-canr.org/ in terms
of transmutaion. We need some serious solutions to nuclear waste because we have a very serious problem as things stand now.
I'm a little confused by you response. You feel that goverment control was the problem for Chornobyl yet government control is the
solution here. I used Chornobyl simply to scale the cost of a nuclear accident, not its probability. If there is an accident
with containment failure then Chornobyl is what it looks like. Assuming our government control
and your bottom line argument are correct and nuclear power in the US is perfectly safe and no accident can possibly happen, then
why not repeal Price-Anderson since there should be no chance of liability where no accident can happen?
On the other hand,
it is in the interest of the shareholders to run the nuclear plants as cheaply as possible, so subsidies help on that end and really we
are just looking at tax payer financed profits. I think you were correct in the first place. Nuclear power is not possible without
government subsidy. So, a market distortion, that has likely delayed the development of renewable energy, is what this is really what this
is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
While scientists are being muzzled, you don't have to be. Check out http://stepitup2007.org/.
Not just prices for tortilla but most other grains (substitution) and animal products (feed) will likely go up http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm. But this has more to do with politics as usual and
farm subsidies that environmentalism. May environmentalist are skeptical of bio-fuels. http://gp.org/committees/ecoaction/eco_2006_04_25. shtml
Setting up a situation where food and fuel compete is a Republocrat endeavor.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Don't eat your seed corn: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
All Overlord posts are to be moderated Funny!
Your link comes from Senator Inhofe, who is well known for misleading rhetoric. You also seemed to have missed the fact that he's now in the minority. His ad hominem attach on Cullen is despicable. Please ask him when he is going to say anything related to reality when you see him on Friday.
--
Oh, what's the point?
The passive voice is fine. The reports are clear on who is doing this and why. IMHO, you are setting up a strawman here.
s -selling-solar.html
Solar as an matter of fact: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In fact, some have resigned in protest.c le/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html d etails/ccsp-resignation/ is another.
s -selling-solar.html
Susan Wood is one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Rick Piltz http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/
On the other side of the conflict, the resignations have been forced as a result of the publicity surrounding their nefarious activities. Of course, the revolving door takes the sting out.
--
Good morning sunshine: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe rence/scientists-signon-statement.html Let me be the first to welcome our new
congressional oversight overlords.
s -selling-solar.html
--
The future is NOT bleak, it's sunny: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The word protestant comes from the word protest and in this case I think it is the administration that doth protest too much. Their reservations do not seem to be held in good faith. Nor are they using good faith methods in support of thier beliefs.
s -selling-solar.html
Just as with the Catholic Church, we should expect a apology to be forthcoming in Oh... about 500 years.
--
Solar: its a revolution: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I think you need to rexamine the origin of your opinion since it sounds quite a lot like well funded talking points: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html...
s -selling-solar.html
FUD: Spreading Fear, Uncertainy and Doubt.
Science: Fearlessly following curiosity by using doubt to perfect experiment and quantify uncertainty.
Who wins?
--
Cheap Solar: It's reality based: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Ethanol is hyrophilic which means is needs a little more handling than gas. As a mix it usually works OK but with water in the mix cold weather can be a problem. That said, E85 makes sense so long as you're not competing against food production: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar: it beats plants: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
but your own: http://www.powur.com/mdsolar
--
An after thought.
A few items back engineer-poet posted this link: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/solix_and_ color.html which
claims to get to jet fuel-like stuff:s -selling-solar.html
"The algae oil can also be refined into other liquid fuels, including ethanol and jet fuel."
In this case they can leave out the intermediate step of making sugar and take advantage of the higher photosynthetic productivity of algae over rooted plants. I wonder if the two groups should get together to try to further process the algae biologically to get increased yields?
---
Candy is dandy but SOLAR is quicka in 40 US states but not Costa Rica: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Well, no my argument was an event that is 50-50 every 20 years. Half of them you say Phewwww! and the other half, well lots of people die. Take a look at the list, the distribution is disturbingly well populated. On Yucca Mountain, a permanent repository which the courts have essentially killed, the problem is attempting to engineer on time scales that are geological.
s -selling-solar.html
Permanent storage does not work because we can't make permanent work. This is the reason that transmutation is the only responsible option on the table right now. Doing this with lower energy inputs should be the main focus of research. Glass does not stand the test of geological time. Ask any beach.
----
If you could get solar for cheaper than nuclear right now wouldn't you? http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
My easy bake oven won't work with those! http://www.toysrus.com/sm-the-new-easy-bake-oven-- pi-2297810.html
s -selling-solar.html
----
Run YOUR oven on solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Well, the test worked so I'll try again.
l ear_accidents
we can estimate a Chernobyl sized event every 40 years if we allow one 50-50 nail biter (such as the incident last
year in Sweden) per big event. This means that about 100 sq miles per year of arable land are made essentially permanently
uninhabitable. This nuclear waste is basically too expensive to clean up.
s -selling-solar.html
The problem is actually physical. Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuc
I've heard of making glass and I've heard of spreading it thin, but your idea of spreading it thin and making it into glass is interesting. This is a little more energy intensive that people have been willing to go so far and may still come up against worries about leaching which killed Yucca Mountain.
---
Solar: it's cheaper http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I posted a reply last night but didn't see it show up.
The Stonehenge background.s -selling-solar.html
----
Solar rocks. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Generally, if it is down in the sig, it's a burma shave-style thing. I'd like people to get solar power on their roof and for a lot of people, going to http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html is the
best way to do this. I decided to list everyone I knew about because I'm pushing this hard and might get kind of annoying,
as your question suggests might be happening, and I don't want people turned off the system just because it's me. Also,
the number of people adoping the system is growing exponentially and about 10% of those getting the system are also
deciding to sell it too. That means, I think, that before too long we'll have quite a lot of us selling and it does not
hurt to work as a community on this.
a tion.htm. This a
pitch, but it covers why the marketing method leads to rapid adoption.
If it is in the body (above the sig) then the blog subject is relevant (IMHO) to the discussion. So, in the parent of your comment (mine), the Amway marketing method is pretty relevant to how quickly renewables are adopted which is the main theme of engineer-poets' essay. Marketing is indeed a technology as it is pretty carefully engineered. And, it is THE way that people learn about a product or service. You don't read a news article about or review of a product if the producer has not pushed the product first. Word-of-mouth is the oldest form of marketing but it has been tweeked pretty substantially in the past century. As you can see, I'm an acedemic. I haven't sold anything since an odd job in the eighties. If you want to hear from an expert on this watch: http://www.theneighborhoodlive.com/common/present
In the second link, I might have just linked the flywheel directly, but I wanted an easy way to acknowledge who I got the link from and that is there in the blog. Energy storage is very important in a renewable energy based economy and this technology recommends itself in many ways over alternatives such as batteries or biomass storage for some applications. Both batteries and biomass storage (sorry engineer-poet) have environmental drawbacks and scale issues whereas flywheels fall in with wind turbines in terms of scalability and end-of-use issues. You'll see on the Real Energy Blog that I'm inspired by William McDonough, not to say that engineer-poet does not take end-of-use issues seriously, he does, but he does not yet routinely include these in calculations such as the energy in vrs. energy saved estimates whereas McDonough does. On the EcoAction Committee (see blog), we've run over many of his ideas independently but have not, as yet, decided to push them largely owing the impact on land use (which he is trying to address) and air pollution (which he is also working on).
So, I was very excited to see his work, which is so congruent with what we've been looking at, and thought the two links would be a help. I hope I've answered your question, but if not please let me know.
----
What!?!? No solar link???
Hum, do you think that the assumption of the rate of increase of electic rates is too high?
Regarding wind, at the cost level it is competitive with solar but it has more troubles fitting in. HOAs don't always want the towers needed to get the turbines into the wind flow. Some places are just sheltered. A plant that makes wind turbines has a similar advantage to one that makes solar panels: As it continues to produce, it is just making more and more capacity. A coal plant has fixed capacity and so you need to build another, but then you put a greater strain on fuel supply so it gets more expensive instead of cheaper. So, both solar and wind production facilities should make electricity somewhat less expensive going forward. Right now, the convenience of roofs has us concentrating on solar and we can offer fixed rate long term contract at the same rate people are paying now. Wind should be offered in the future though. Take a look at any of the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html to find out more. The calculator is set to an
estimated 2.1% annual rate increase for utility supplied power compared to about 4.1% between 1969 and 2005, years when the inflation
adjusted cost was the same http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_39. pdf. You'll enjoy the fact that the only
place we don't compete yet is with hydro in the North West, another renewable.
Most people who are in sales are also customers. The first installs will be in September. Many people are choosing to wait until installs occur so you're hesitation is pretty natural. What is different here is the scale, a very large production facility and the sales model, rental rather than purchace. The customer experince so far is signing up and sending in some paper work. If you have questions about the contract terms, I'd be happy to answer them. Pick me out of the list at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. The others there can help you as well.
I've added you to the list at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. Welcome!!!
OK, yes you've missed the whole gist of the argument but you've made it yourself. Solar is now cheaper than subsidizes nuclear power. Nuclear has already taken its scale advantage and can't get cheaper without more subsidies. Solar has further to go in scale. So, it displaces nuclear power, not on the basis of taste, as educated as the european sort may be, but on the basis of price. So, again, I invite you to save some money: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html.
Details are hereby requested. I've also looked with some interest at what is going on at http://www.lenr-canr.org/ in terms of transmutaion. We need some serious solutions to nuclear waste because we have a very serious problem as things stand now.
I'm a little confused by you response. You feel that goverment control was the problem for Chornobyl yet government control is the solution here. I used Chornobyl simply to scale the cost of a nuclear accident, not its probability. If there is an accident with containment failure then Chornobyl is what it looks like. Assuming our government control and your bottom line argument are correct and nuclear power in the US is perfectly safe and no accident can possibly happen, then why not repeal Price-Anderson since there should be no chance of liability where no accident can happen?
s -displace-nukes-first.html. Let them go extinct.s -selling-solar.html
On the other hand, it is in the interest of the shareholders to run the nuclear plants as cheaply as possible, so subsidies help on that end and really we are just looking at tax payer financed profits. I think you were correct in the first place. Nuclear power is not possible without government subsidy. So, a market distortion, that has likely delayed the development of renewable energy, is what this is really what this is all about.
Now the market is moving past those subsides so why worry that the plants are going to be shut down? They're dinosaurs: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewable
----
Not sold on solar? That's OK, just live off your neightbors like the nuclear industry does. Send them to http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user