Evidently you are unaware of the focusing power of a fresnel lens. [...]...concentrated solar power is under-utilized as a power source, and is very viable given the focusing power of cheap and available lenses and equipment.
I'm looking at a natural gas backup generator. A whole house unit which can supply 100amp service costs around $4,100 installed with an automatic transfer switch. [...] At those costs you could outfit a house with enough cells to produce the same amount of power for around $5,000
No. Minimal, but complete and fully functional, off-grid homepower systems start at $30,000. 100 amps would be 120,000 watts, and at $10/watt homepower systems that can supply that load start at $120,000. The fossil-fueled generator is a bargain in comparison.
The only thing the book you referenced said is, "The principal health impact of solar energy is in the coal that must be burned to produce
The book covers solar risks more extensively than that. Here are Cohen's comments on the electrocution problem: "What about the dangers in repairing the complex electric conversion systems? Over a thousand Americans now die each year from electrocution, and the power-conditioning equipment needed for a solar electricity installation would represent a major increase in this risk." http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.htm l
"In construction, the LLE... is... 38 days for those involved with heating, plumbing, and electrical wiring."
"All electrical energy technologies bring with them the risk of electrocution, which has an LLE of 5 days for the average American. Note that this is far higher than the effects of generating nuclear electricity even if we accept the estimates of the nuclear power opponents. If solar electricity is generated and power conditioned in homes, it would probably multiply this effect manyfold." http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.html .
This has sod-all to do with claims of thousands of people plummetting from roofs.
Cohen says, "If photovoltaic panels on houses become widespread, how many people would be killed and injured in cleaning or replacing solar panels on roofs, or in clearing them of snow?" And many people might also insist on installing their own solar power collection systems, so this comment of Cohen's is also relevant: "Also, there is much more construction work needed for solar installations than for nuclear; construction is one of the most dangerous industries from the standpoint of accidents to workers." Both of these comments can be found here: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.htm l
If you wonder how this translates into thousands of people dying from falling off of roofs each year, it might be helpful to remember that small accident risks scale and that the United States has a population of ~290 million.
If your solar electricity is being generated at home, then (as was pointed out at the link you were referring to) it needs to be processed and conditioned at home. This increases the electrocution likelihood beyond that of grid power.
Perhaps, but I haven't exactly been shaking with fear since I got an extra circuit breaker box added; I doubt solar cell circuitry would be a major danger to my life.
The question was not addressed to whether homepower solar would be a major danger. The question was addressed to whether homepower solar would kill thousands of Americans every year, and the answer is, "Yes." The chances of dying in an automobile accident are low for the average American, yet 42,000 Americans die in automobile accidents every year anyway. The situation is similar for homepower solar.
you have a chance of getting electrocuted at home. This is irrelevant to whether that comes from solar, nuclear, coal, etc.
If your solar electricity is being generated at home, then (as was pointed out at the link you were referring to) it needs to be processed and conditioned at home. This increases the electrocution likelihood beyond that of grid power.
And no one has said you said it was free. (Please see the previous comments where this has been pointed out to you.) .
there IS NO FUEL COST.
And, applying the same standards, nuclear/coal/gas-turbine/petroleum also have no fuel costs. .
Go *buy* a solar array
Yes. You on the right track. A solar array is analogous to mining equipment. And the land you put it on is analogous to mineral rights. There is nothing free about solar electricity's fuel that is not also free about nuclear/coal/gas-turbine/petroleum electricity's fuel. If you want to ignore the cost of mining U3O8, then it is as free as sunlight.
How about solving problems of radioactive waste disposal
How about applying comprehensive cost/benefit analyses? .
The pebble bed idea is a small step forward
That would not have been my conclusion. .
we should devote our ressources to increased efficiency
Everyone has a hobby. Some hobbies are expensive and kill people - energy efficiency does both, and I am not the first person to point this out. See Bernard Cohen, for example. you might want to ask yourself, "What is the true cost of a negawatt?" .
renewables
What is renewable that nuclear/coal/gas-turbine/petroleum are not? Answer: nothing, unless you apply a double standard. Applying a single standard, solar is no more renwable than nuclear, coal, gas-turbine, or petroleum. Applying a single standard, solar is no more sustainable than nuclear, coal, gas-turbine, or petroleum.
Then you might know that industrial solar plants (the cheapest per watt) runs about $10/watt, whereas nuclear, coal, gas-turbine run about $1.5/watt. Since solar collection devices run about $3/watt, reducing the price of solar collection devices to zero (cheap solar - something to perhaps get excited about?) would leave a cost per watt of $7 which is a deficit of $5.5/watt in comparison to nuclear/coal/gas-turbine.
You said it had no fuel cost and I was referring to fuel cost and pointed out that your analysis of it being zero where fossil's fuel cost is non-zero is fallacious.
And you said it here again:
the device is entirely capital based and has no fuel cost.
If solar has no fuel cost then neither does fossil unless you are applying a double standard. Fossil energy has, in fact, zero fuel cost as far as solar has zero fuel cost.
So you are saying that use of solar panels will lead to the destruction of our physical infrastructure
No, because it is well-understood by contractors and insurance companies that unmodified roofs cannot support solar panels without being destroyed. .
and the death of thousands?
The fact that widespread rooftop solar would lead to the deaths of thousand through accidents is well-established. One source that points this out is Bernard Cohen in his book The Nuclear Energy Option. He also points out in that book (Chapter 8, Understanding Risk) that, "All electrical energy technologies bring with them the risk of electrocution, which has an LLE of 5 days for the average American. Note that this is far higher than the effects of generating nuclear electricity even if we accept the estimates of the nuclear power opponents. If solar electricity is generated and power conditioned in homes, it would probably multiply this effect manyfold." So we have not only the accident risk for solar of falling off of roofs, but we also have the accident risk of electrocution.
Solar power is not free because it shines down on us for free any more than petroleum is free because it sits under our feet for free. Solar ultimately has extraction and processing costs just the same as petroleum has extraction and processing costs. Any method of looking at the costs of petroleum that analyzes petroleum as non-free also analyzes solar as non-free. Any method of looking at the costs of solar that analyzes solar as non-free also analyzes petroleum as free. If you're getting results saying one is free and the other is non-free, you're applying a double-standard.
> > Or how about putting nuclear power plants [yahoo.com] on the surface of the earth > it's somewhat offtopic to the discussion at hand, wouldn't you agree?
Because new grid-solar would compete against new grid-nuclear, nuclear is not offtopic.
I wonder what % of U.S. land area is rooftops & other available space.
Roofs are designed to perform certain functions, and those functions do not include the supporting of solar PV panels. When you put solar panels on unmodified roofs, generally at least the roof ends up destroyed if the whole building does not collapse. If, OTOH, roofs are modified such that they will support solar panels without being destroyed, many persons will die installing, repairing and cleaning those solar panels. This is because when people do work on roofs, they tend to fall off. These aspects of rooftop solar are pointed out on the premier solar-activist site http://homepower.com/.
- if the efficiency is high enough, you can generate a significant portion of U.S. electrical demand with solar.
Efficiency has nothing directly to do with economy, and regarding solar you can hear this straight from the horse's mouth at http://homepower.com/. If the efficiency is high enough, you might have something that excites people who know nothing about economics.
The specific reason for women to excel in certain professions is that the society has been forcing them all their life to do things and then take professions that are socially acceptable for women.
IO ERROR writes: > I certainly hope it isn't snake oil. > It would be nice to be able to watch > a DVD movie on my laptop all the way > through on battery alone.
Power is not energy. NiCad has more power per weight than LiIon. LiIon has more energy per weight than NiCad. This new technology might not give LiIon any more energy per weight than it already has.
kids (almost always white) selling powder cocaine were routinely released to their parents' custody & typically sentenced to counselling or restituion, while kids (almost always not white) selling crack were held in custody pending trail and very often sentenced to corrections. Even though it was the same chemical
Slashdot Mirror
Evidently you are unaware of the focusing power of a fresnel lens. [...] ...concentrated solar power is under-utilized as a power source, and is very viable given the focusing power of cheap and available lenses and equipment.
2 2+expensive
Fresnel lenses are neither cheap nor available.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fresnel+lenses%
So, if the absorbtion rate could ever be 100%, then we wouldn't be able to see the solar cells, right?
No. They would be black.
Cool idea for a REAL invisibility cloak!
Invisiblility implies shearness (see-through-ness). You can't see through perfectly black things that, by definition, absorb all light that hits them.
I'm looking at a natural gas backup generator. A whole house unit which can supply 100amp service costs around $4,100 installed with an automatic transfer switch. [...] At those costs you could outfit a house with enough cells to produce the same amount of power for around $5,000
No. Minimal, but complete and fully functional, off-grid homepower systems start at $30,000. 100 amps would be 120,000 watts, and at $10/watt homepower systems that can supply that load start at $120,000. The fossil-fueled generator is a bargain in comparison.
The only thing the book you referenced said is, "The principal health impact of solar energy is in the coal that must be burned to produce
m l
... is ... 38 days for those involved with heating, plumbing, and electrical wiring."
l
m l
The book covers solar risks more extensively than that. Here are Cohen's comments on the electrocution problem: "What about the dangers in repairing the complex electric conversion systems? Over a thousand Americans now die each year from electrocution, and the power-conditioning equipment needed for a solar electricity installation would represent a major increase in this risk."
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.ht
"In construction, the LLE
"All electrical energy technologies bring with them the risk of electrocution, which has an LLE of 5 days for the average American. Note that this is far higher than the effects of generating nuclear electricity even if we accept the estimates of the nuclear power opponents. If solar electricity is generated and power conditioned in homes, it would probably multiply this effect manyfold."
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.htm
.
This has sod-all to do with claims of thousands of people plummetting from roofs.
Cohen says, "If photovoltaic panels on houses become widespread, how many people would be killed and injured in cleaning or replacing solar panels on roofs, or in clearing them of snow?" And many people might also insist on installing their own solar power collection systems, so this comment of Cohen's is also relevant: "Also, there is much more construction work needed for solar installations than for nuclear; construction is one of the most dangerous industries from the standpoint of accidents to workers." Both of these comments can be found here:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.ht
If you wonder how this translates into thousands of people dying from falling off of roofs each year, it might be helpful to remember that small accident risks scale and that the United States has a population of ~290 million.
The question was not addressed to whether homepower solar would be a major danger. The question was addressed to whether homepower solar would kill thousands of Americans every year, and the answer is, "Yes." The chances of dying in an automobile accident are low for the average American, yet 42,000 Americans die in automobile accidents every year anyway. The situation is similar for homepower solar.
you have a chance of getting electrocuted at home. This is irrelevant to whether that comes from solar, nuclear, coal, etc.
If your solar electricity is being generated at home, then (as was pointed out at the link you were referring to) it needs to be processed and conditioned at home. This increases the electrocution likelihood beyond that of grid power.
I never said solar was free.
And no one has said you said it was free. (Please see the previous comments where this has been pointed out to you.)
.
there IS NO FUEL COST.
And, applying the same standards, nuclear/coal/gas-turbine/petroleum also have no fuel costs.
.
Go *buy* a solar array
Yes. You on the right track. A solar array is analogous to mining equipment. And the land you put it on is analogous to mineral rights. There is nothing free about solar electricity's fuel that is not also free about nuclear/coal/gas-turbine/petroleum electricity's fuel. If you want to ignore the cost of mining U3O8, then it is as free as sunlight.
How about solving problems of radioactive waste disposal
How about applying comprehensive cost/benefit analyses?
.
The pebble bed idea is a small step forward
That would not have been my conclusion.
.
we should devote our ressources to increased efficiency
Everyone has a hobby. Some hobbies are expensive and kill people - energy efficiency does both, and I am not the first person to point this out. See Bernard Cohen, for example. you might want to ask yourself, "What is the true cost of a negawatt?"
.
renewables
What is renewable that nuclear/coal/gas-turbine/petroleum are not? Answer: nothing, unless you apply a double standard. Applying a single standard, solar is no more renwable than nuclear, coal, gas-turbine, or petroleum. Applying a single standard, solar is no more sustainable than nuclear, coal, gas-turbine, or petroleum.
I do know something about economics
Then you might know that industrial solar plants (the cheapest per watt) runs about $10/watt, whereas nuclear, coal, gas-turbine run about $1.5/watt. Since solar collection devices run about $3/watt, reducing the price of solar collection devices to zero (cheap solar - something to perhaps get excited about?) would leave a cost per watt of $7 which is a deficit of $5.5/watt in comparison to nuclear/coal/gas-turbine.
The numbers can be verified here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/
Didn't say it was free.
You said it had no fuel cost and I was referring to fuel cost and pointed out that your analysis of it being zero where fossil's fuel cost is non-zero is fallacious.
And you said it here again:
the device is entirely capital based and has no fuel cost.
If solar has no fuel cost then neither does fossil unless you are applying a double standard. Fossil energy has, in fact, zero fuel cost as far as solar has zero fuel cost.
So you are saying that use of solar panels will lead to the destruction of our physical infrastructure
No, because it is well-understood by contractors and insurance companies that unmodified roofs cannot support solar panels without being destroyed.
.
and the death of thousands?
The fact that widespread rooftop solar would lead to the deaths of thousand through accidents is well-established. One source that points this out is Bernard Cohen in his book The Nuclear Energy Option. He also points out in that book (Chapter 8, Understanding Risk) that, "All electrical energy technologies bring with them the risk of electrocution, which has an LLE of 5 days for the average American. Note that this is far higher than the effects of generating nuclear electricity even if we accept the estimates of the nuclear power opponents. If solar electricity is generated and power conditioned in homes, it would probably multiply this effect manyfold." So we have not only the accident risk for solar of falling off of roofs, but we also have the accident risk of electrocution.
15% efficient solar panel gets it all free
Solar power is not free because it shines down on us for free any more than petroleum is free because it sits under our feet for free. Solar ultimately has extraction and processing costs just the same as petroleum has extraction and processing costs. Any method of looking at the costs of petroleum that analyzes petroleum as non-free also analyzes solar as non-free. Any method of looking at the costs of solar that analyzes solar as non-free also analyzes petroleum as free. If you're getting results saying one is free and the other is non-free, you're applying a double-standard.
> > Or how about putting nuclear power plants [yahoo.com] on the surface of the earth
> it's somewhat offtopic to the discussion at hand, wouldn't you agree?
Because new grid-solar would compete against new grid-nuclear, nuclear is not offtopic.
I wonder what % of U.S. land area is rooftops & other available space.
Roofs are designed to perform certain functions, and those functions do not include the supporting of solar PV panels. When you put solar panels on unmodified roofs, generally at least the roof ends up destroyed if the whole building does not collapse. If, OTOH, roofs are modified such that they will support solar panels without being destroyed, many persons will die installing, repairing and cleaning those solar panels. This is because when people do work on roofs, they tend to fall off. These aspects of rooftop solar are pointed out on the premier solar-activist site http://homepower.com/.
- if the efficiency is high enough, you can generate a significant portion of U.S. electrical demand with solar.
Efficiency has nothing directly to do with economy, and regarding solar you can hear this straight from the horse's mouth at http://homepower.com/. If the efficiency is high enough, you might have something that excites people who know nothing about economics.
How about the top of the stratosphere, supported by a helium floatation device?
Or how about putting nuclear power plants on the surface of the earth where they might be hooked up to homes and institutions?
Hmm. . . Good point. . . It says here that it's 1.47 kW/m^2
That website says: "The maximum value on earth is between 0.8 and 1.0 kW / m^2."
The specific reason for women to excel in certain professions is that the society has been forcing them all their life to do things and then take professions that are socially acceptable for women.
n +jensen+iq+girls+allik
...and genetically-mediated poor spatial abilities...5 0
...in addition to genetically-mediated feminine interests and outlooks:_ inevitability_of_patriarchy.htm
Actually, females have genetically-mediated low IQs (a deficit of 5.55 SD15 IQ points)...
http://www.google.com/search?q=nyborg+helmuth+lyn
.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=651
.
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/society_culture/the
You don't call any industrial process "clean" unless you are trying to con people.
l ean
c lean
c lean
.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22wind+power%22+c
(350,000 hits.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22solar+power%22+
(272,000 hits.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tidal+power%22+
(13,400 hits.)
but I must remind them that it wasn't all of Chenobyl which failed - just one unit, the other five kept running and are still running today
- 15/timeline.shtml
"The Chernobyl plant was closed in December 2000...."
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl
IO ERROR writes:
> I certainly hope it isn't snake oil.
> It would be nice to be able to watch
> a DVD movie on my laptop all the way
> through on battery alone.
Power is not energy. NiCad has more power per weight than LiIon. LiIon has more energy per weight than NiCad. This new technology might not give LiIon any more energy per weight than it already has.
kids (almost always white) selling powder cocaine were routinely released to their parents' custody & typically sentenced to counselling or restituion, while kids (almost always not white) selling crack were held in custody pending trail and very often sentenced to corrections. Even though it was the same chemical
Crack is not the same chemical as cocaine.
http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=12951
If it were the same chemical, why would anyone sell crack?
http://www.hitl.washington.edu
http://www.hitl.washington.edu
Why do people call short-screen formats wide-screen?