I'm moving some of the discussion that developed in a different thread here...

The discussion is about using wind and solar power on all buildings and solar panels in the saharan desert...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
redarmy11

No, by using wind turbines in between each floor (incidentally, seems I was wrong about it powering 10 identical towers. A mere five, it seems):

“ http://www.alternative-energy-news.i...ng-skyscraper/

Each turbine can produce 0.3 megawatt of electricity, compared to 1-1.5 megawatt generated by a normal vertical turbine (windmill). Considering that Dubai gets 4,000 wind hours annually, the turbines incorporated into the building can generate 1,200,000 kilowatt-hour of energy. As average annual power consumption of a family is estimated to be 24,000 kilowatt-hours, each turbine can supply energy for about 50 families. The Dynamic Architecture tower in Dubai will be having 200 apartments and hence four turbines can take care of their energy needs. The surplus clean energy produced by the remaining 44 turbines can light up the neighborhood of the building. However, taking into consideration that the average wind speed in Dubai is of only 16 km/h the architects may need to double the number of turbines to light up the building to eight. Still there will be 40 free turbines, good enough to supply power for five skyscrapers of the same size. ”

---------------------------------------------------------------------
EmptyForceOfChi

“ Originally Posted by redarmy11
No, by using wind turbines in between each floor (incidentally, seems I was wrong about it powering 10 identical towers. A mere five, it seems): ”

its a good idea, they could make so many improvements on all of the modern buildings for energy supply, i think all buildings should be built with turbines and solar pannels as standard.

we could solve all of the worlds energy crisis with solar, wind and hydro powers, the deserts of the world are not even used much, we could erect huge amounts of solar systems in the deserts, im sure the calculatios have been done in the past, and i bet we only need to use 1-2 deserts to solve most of the worlds power supply problems,

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

redarmy11
“ Originally Posted by EmptyForceOfChi
i bet we only need to use 1-2 deserts to solve most of the worlds power supply problems, ”

Not even. The red squares indicate the areas that would need to be equipped with solar plants in order to meet current energy requirements
for the world, Europe and Germany respectively:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Fullneed.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------
EmptyForceOfChi

“ Originally Posted by redarmy11
Not even. The red squares indicate the areas that would need to be equipped with solar plants in order to meet current energy requirements
for the world, Europe and Germany respectively:”

lol so what are we waiting for? oh yeah i forget the leaders dont actualy care about advancing. because they are assholes.

peace.

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

Discuss. ;)

Well, let's not forget the transmission of all that power from the Sahara to southern California. That ain't gonna' be cheap!

Hey, I'm sorry, but it's going to be nuke power plants ...we might as well get on with it. Windmills are fine in some locations, but those things are HUGE and it takes lots of 'em ...and they're ugly as hell.

Nukes. That's the answer, so ...get with the fuckin' program!

Baron Max

Hey, I'm sorry too - but we're cutting you out of this deal. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Get with your own fuckin' program.

Gas hydrates represent one of the world's largest untapped reservoirs of energy and, according to some estimates, have the potential to meet global energy needs for the next thousand years.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/highlights/2004/0408gas_e.html

http://www.pulseplanet.com/archive/Oct96/1315.html

How about hydropower? Apart from its environmental concerns, nowadays
19% of world electricity (715,000 MWe) is still supplied by hydropower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower).

I've recently made an overdue move into the alternative energy business. I'm learning that what I had suspected, what attracted me to the business really is true: We live in environments that are humming with energy, and everyday people can harness that energy by their own initiative, and satisfy reasonable energy needs.

How to impliment it varies widely, not only in the macro regional scale, but micro with respect to specific sites. The installations I have thus far been involved with all began with a site survey. Recommendations to clients vary considerably within the local area, as to the most abundant resources, and most cost-effective energy conversion and storage equipment. The technology is now arriving to harvest energy on a localized, personalized, and decentralized scale- exploiting solar, hydro, and wind power alone or in combination. Solar is most often the best single answer in terms of return on investment and reliability.

We are about to enter fascinating and revolutionary times. Power will become distributed and decentralized. Some years later, I expect that production/manufacturing/nanoassembling will also. Because the evolution of technology is accelerating and will drag slow-to-adapt societies behind, there is a momentous fight brewing between the centralized powers of the past, and the millions like you and me who are on the cusp of becoming self-powered, self-empowered, and much more independent.

We are about to enter fascinating and revolutionary times. Power will become distributed and decentralized. Some years later, I expect that production/manufacturing/nanoassembling will also. Because the evolution of technology is accelerating and will drag slow-to-adapt societies behind, there is a momentous fight brewing between the centralized powers of the past, and the millions like you and me who are on the cusp of becoming self-powered, self-empowered, and much more independent.Who is this guy? Where's the gloom and doom hype I'm used to?

I guess that guy gave up on oil? :rolleyes:

"Where's the gloom and doom hype I'm used to?"

The "gloom and doom" is part of the momentous fight I mentioned above. How ugly that already is, and how it is likely to worsen, isn't directly pertinent to this thread. Suffice it to say that there are powerful people and corporations who are ruthlessly trying to hold onto outdated centralized profit structures.

"I guess that guy gave up on oil?"

Hardly. I still have 2 airplanes, and all the usual fossil-fuel-burning gadgets. But I'm getting ready for the coming changes, head first.

Every country must come up with its own solution, the UK could be powered
by wave energy producing electricity, making some future electric vehicle
attractive, but i think we will end up with nuc.

But I'm getting ready for the coming changes, head first.
That's what I meant. A paradigm change for you.

You know... before someone changes outside, one must go through an inner transformation... :)

i am sorry to interupt you in your nice conversations. but i have to tell you something importend.......Not one country of this world. not one of the oikonomic powers, not one of the big companies and financial gigents would ever allow to anyone to provide any alternative power or energy. why? because than they would loos "power"......

Why put solar panels in Africa? Politically unstable, sandstorms that ruin them and just a plain unstable culture.

Can't you just put them in the Southwest USA...? You can be as wishful as you want but in the end, it will be a mix of solar, wind, hydro, nuke, clean coal and more in the future.

Barry

Intermittent alternative energy like solar, wind, water, etc (not hydrodams or geothermal) can only replace 15-25% of the electric grids power sources, unless "storage" power plants are built that can store power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and then dump that power on the grid when the grid demands it and the sun and wind are not cooperating. It is not that hard: hydrodam storage has been going on for years, now there is development of compressed-air underground storage and Sodium-Sulfur batteries (cheap, efficient and can survive years of cycling) but these exist on small few megawatt pilot levels, we would need gigawatts of storage to replace 50% or more of our energy supply with intermittent alternatives.

Can anyone calculate how much surface space exist on all the roof tops and all the parking lots in the USA?

Most houses can use 3000 Watt Solar systems very easily on their roof top and it can supplement most needs (Light, Refrigerator, TV, Computer etc). That can be done now.

There was a plan to use massive capacitor banks to store energy for peak use. The idea did not take hold. The utility capacitor banks used today are mostly to smooth out transients.

Wind Power is a better solution. Germany is building 1200 units of 5MW size massive Wind Power units in NorthSea....

Solar power using single chips and concentrated solar rays provide a cheaper solution.

Does it need to be only on rofftops?


;)

Most houses can use 3000 Watt Solar systems very easily on their roof top and it can supplement most needs (Light, Refrigerator, TV, Computer etc). That can be done now.

There was a plan to use massive capacitor banks to store energy for peak use. The idea did not take hold. The utility capacitor banks used today are mostly to smooth out transients.

Wind Power is a better solution. Germany is building 1200 units of 5MW size massive Wind Power units in NorthSea....

Solar power using single chips and concentrated solar rays provide a cheaper solution.

I would disagree printable solar panels (http://www.nanosolar.com/) are the future, and for dedicated power plants molten salt solar thermal is superior economically to concentrated photovoltics. Wind power is best for winding higher latitude places like the Dakotas, Solar will likely come to rule the south western states.

There are alternative energy sources, but nothing will power our world at the levels it is today. Furthermore, industrial production of things like solar panels and wind turbines aren't going to be powered by themselves.

There are alternative energy sources, but nothing will power our world at the levels it is today. Furthermore, industrial production of things like solar panels and wind turbines aren't going to be powered by themselves.

Again disagree, Peak Oil does not mean the end of civilization just the end of cheap oil. At $4 a gallon Coal-to-liquid becomes economical. Oil shale and tar sands are already being mined at exponential rates, there is as much as 3-6 trillion barrels of these unconventional oil sources (only ~2 trillion of conventional oil of which we have used half and are peaking). These horribly polluting alternatives of oil will have to compete with Non-polluting alternatives like biomass and electrification, and I'll put my bets on the clean alternatives in the long run.

Of course you could accuse me of being a technocrat, but the only other alternative would be to curl up and die (or at least kill off everyone else), so I rather try to convert no matter the odds then give up and put a bullet in my skull.

Civilization as we know it depends on cheap oil. It won't come to an end, but nothing will work on the same scale as now for some time to come. I'm not suggesting giving up on alternatives, but they won't let us avoid a major reduction of scale in our way of life. The production of things like oil shale and tar sands cannot equal light sweet crude. At some point, it takes more energy to extract and refine than you get in return. Combine that with ever increasing demand, and it points to collapse.

Is it really so bad to imagine an agricultural instead of an industrial based economy?

Civilization as we know it depends on cheap oil. It won't come to an end, but nothing will work on the same scale as now for some time to come. I'm not suggesting giving up on alternatives, but they won't let us avoid a major reduction of scale in our way of life. The production of things like oil shale and tar sands cannot equal light sweet crude. At some point, it takes more energy to extract and refine than you get in return. Combine that with ever increasing demand, and it points to collapse.

Is it really so bad to imagine an agricultural instead of an industrial based economy?

True the price the energy return is dropping, pump-less sweet crude was at 1 barrel used for every 50 produced, now tar sand is at 1:2-5. The crunch of peak oil is not that bad though, take the crunch from the 1970 peak of the USA oil supply: USA oil consumption dipped repeatedly and for several years and the USA economy survived (although the experiential growth experiences in the 50's-60's was and is a thing of the past).

I rather imagine a technocratic society, preferably a post-singularity one were we don't need to worry about food, water, mortality, etc anymore.

Is it really so bad to imagine an agricultural instead of an industrial based economy?

Nah, I fucking hate witches.

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/4766/film/hg/villager.jpg

3% of the world covered in solar panels can power the whole planet

3% of the world covered in solar panels can power the whole planet

Actually it less then that, but it still a significant amount of surface area, and then how do get power at night?

3% of the world covered in solar panels can power the whole planet

But you cannot at present produce solar panels without infrastructure based on fossil fuels.

Actually it less then that, but it still a significant amount of surface area, and then how do get power at night?

Batteries, or some other form of storage.

But you cannot at present produce solar panels without infrastructure based on fossil fuels.

Batteries, or some other form of storage.

First of all if we really needed to we could gasify coal into oil, to power all the mining machinery and economy needed to make solar panels, in the long run electrification of everything will remove any fossil fuel input.

I agree on the batteries but it going to require a titanic amount of them.

The production of things like oil shale and tar sands cannot equal light sweet crude. At some point, it takes more energy to extract and refine than you get in return. Combine that with ever increasing demand, and it points to collapse.
This also applies to present-day nostrums like E85.

I agree on the batteries but it going to require a titanic amount of them.
Electrochemical storage and its associated charging/inverting circuitry is all pretty inefficient anyway.

Exactly, production of fuel isn't the problem, there are ways. The problem is we have unnecessarily built a society that requires constant, ever increasing, affordable, and unsustainable sources of energy. The problem isn't what kind of car to make, the problem is an unrealistic expectation of how energy will be used in the future.

This also applies to present-day nostrums like E85.
Electrochemical storage and its associated charging/inverting circuitry is all pretty inefficient anyway.

Lithium Ion has 95% charge-discharge efficiency, Sodium Sulfar batteries have 86%, those aren't bad numbers, add in 90% inverter efficiency and it still is not bad.

Ethanol is energy positive depending on feedstock and location: Corn in Iowa, no, swtichgrass in Minnesota, yes.

Actually it less then that, but it still a significant amount of surface area, and then how do get power at night?

Thats true there must be a form of energy storage.

Rechargeable batteries :P

Got a serious question here, let’s just assume in the USA (as it is one of the leading energy users), what if each home located in residential suburbs were required to have or be given solar panels (with government incentives and financing the home owners who would pay for them) and those panels provided enough electricity to power that one house and one street lamp out front, then say the older office buildings and high rises with little roof space were kept on the regular power grid wouldn’t the single homes in their numbers using solar power reduce enough energy needs to effectively cut the power consumption in half and then the regular grid could then be placed on alternative energy like solar panels erected in other sites and also connected to wind power and other sources? I guess my question goes back to if all the single homes having solar panels would this be a way to reduce the energy consumption by half?

...Ethanol is energy positive depending on feedstock and location: Corn in Iowa, no, swtichgrass in Minnesota, yes.Can you support that claim for switchgrass in Minnesota? It may be true, but it seems to me much too much is still unknown to make that claim.

Lets start the focus on the energy expended to make the enzymines needed to get close to the stating point of sugar cane juice. ("close"as there will be many different sugars, not just sucrose, as the product of the enzymztic cleaving of cellulose.)

It has been estimated that it takes a 1/4 pound of enzymes for each gallon of alcohol. - Co-founder of Mascoma, Charles Wyman, a environmental engineering professor of University of California at Riverside.

Will you try to separate these sugars with a centrifuge? Or try to find some set of yiests that will not interfer with each other? or sequentially process with different yiests? If the yiests make different alcohols like ethanol and butenol etc, how will you separate them? Do you need to separate them?

Point is there are a lot of unknowns even about the processes still and very little about their "post-solar" input energy requirements.

Can you support that claim for switchgrass in Minnesota? It may be true, but it seems to me much too much is still unknown to make that claim.

Lets start the focus on the energy expended to make the enzymines needed to get close to the stating point of sugar cane juice. ("close"as there will be many different sugars, not just sucrose, as the product of the enzymztic cleaving of cellulose.)

It has been estimated that it takes a 1/4 pound of enzymes for each gallon of alcohol. - Co-founder of Mascoma, Charles Wyman, a environmental engineering professor of University of California at Riverside.

Will you try to separate these sugars with a centrifuge? Or try to find some set of yiests that will not interfer with each other? or sequentially process with different yiests? If the yiests make different alcohols like ethanol and butenol etc, how will you separate them? Do you need to separate them?

Point is there are a lot of unknowns even about the processes still and very little about their "post-solar" input energy requirements.

First of all many of us are moving away form enzyme adding and more toward the holy grail of single pot reactors. Third they don't use "yeast" rather engineer prokaryotes, Such as the use of cellulosic bacteria with there metabolism crippled to only produce ethanol (or another singular product) instead of ABE fermentation. There are a plethora of research avenues, some at commercial pilot pant phase. Here a good place to overview:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/cellulosic_ethanol/index.html

I'm betting on Bacteria

I don't know how, because I know nothing about biology. But they're going to program some kind of bacteria to do something really strange, and it's going to make us efficient and clean fuel. The downside will be that if it touches you it's potentially deadly.

Got a serious question here, let’s just assume in the USA (as it is one of the leading energy users), what if each home located in residential suburbs were required to have or be given solar panels (with government incentives and financing the home owners who would pay for them) and those panels provided enough electricity to power that one house and one street lamp out front, then say the older office buildings and high rises with little roof space were kept on the regular power grid wouldn’t the single homes in their numbers using solar power reduce enough energy needs to effectively cut the power consumption in half and then the regular grid could then be placed on alternative energy like solar panels erected in other sites and also connected to wind power and other sources? I guess my question goes back to if all the single homes having solar panels would this be a way to reduce the energy consumption by half?

Sorry, but that's very naive thinking. Even a house completely covered with PV panels cannot produce but a fraction of it's own needs - much less a surplus.

I'm betting on Bacteria

I don't know how, because I know nothing about biology. But they're going to program some kind of bacteria to do something really strange, and it's going to make us efficient and clean fuel. The downside will be that if it touches you it's potentially deadly.

Sure, they're working on genetically modifying bacteria to produce the enzymes to do the conversion - but where did you come up with this "potentially deadly" crap????

I'm betting on Bacteria

I don't know how, because I know nothing about biology. But they're going to program some kind of bacteria to do something really strange, and it's going to make us efficient and clean fuel. The downside will be that if it touches you it's potentially deadly.

doubt it. many of these organism are completely anaerobic and die from exposure to air.

...There are a plethora of research avenues, some at commercial pilot pant phase. Here a good place to overview:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/cellulosic_ethanol/index.htmlYes there are many near that stage. I hold shares in one of the most advanced (stock symbol VRNM) which is one of four to receive major DoE grant and last month became partner with BP with BP paying $90million ($24.5e6 now and 20.5 in 3 transfer in next 12 months) for rights to production technology and BP paying much more later if all goes well, including cost of the commercial plant etc. (They now operating pilot plant, 1.4million gallons/year. Plant cost $60 million).*

I.e. BP will also fund the commercial scale plant when it its design is finalized and make both expertise in global distribution and management available to this relatively tiny company. I bought them as Diversa (before they merged with Celunol) because I liked their approach to the problem (dissecting the guts of termites to take advantage of nature cleverness) and because if even cellulosic’s alcohol never can compete economically with tropical sugar cane alcohol, at least they would still exist because they sell many enzyme products to industry, including major food processors, and to farmers (something mixed in to cattle food mainly)

I have lost about 2/3 of my initial investment on paper. It has always been a back up "plan B" for me as I have financial interest more than order of magnitude greater in Brazil's second largest sugar/alcohol producer, San Martinho. I.e. I continue to think in the end, nature's system, tropical sugar cane, will beat economically anything man can make up. She usually does. (The best cloth is still cotton, best shoes are leather, best houses are baked clay, best water is from spring, etc.)

I thank you for the recent link to yet another idea. The one which seems most promising to me is the "no light algae" approach which feeds the algae sugar now as its energy input and can be grown in compact tanks, not large 2D solar energy collectors. I.e. a "divide and conquer" approach. No cost for field of pipes, pumps and plastic bags for birds to punch holes in etc. and no structures in the field - let sugar cane capture the solar energy cheaply and then crush it but feed the sugar water, not to yeast, but to "GMed algae" for production of oils. (Diesel fuel)

I will go study your link now. Thanks again, but you have not yet supported your claim (I think) that switch grass is energy efficient; however, energy efficiency is not the important consideration for ANY solar system. Economics is, as there is more than enough land (like deserts or even oceans) where the solar photons are now just becoming heat. (They will, in the final analysis, always just turn to heat, but we can get useful work from them in the process if we are smart enough.)
------------------
*One think I also like about them is they are paying attention to the supply problem - working with framers in several souther states etc. A commercial scale plant cannot just assume their input will come from some saw mill. An assured supply, under contract, with lots of land collecting the sunlight is required. We are talking about 100s of years in a steady state system, not one-time rape of some near-by forest.

Sorry, but that's very naive thinking. Even a house completely covered with PV panels cannot produce but a fraction of it's own needs - much less a surplus.

R.O, you're in the dark ages here.
In Australia homeowners are regularly supplying power back to the grid with "grid-connect" systems and we have a love affair with big homes and big consumption here.
Solar and wind power will save the planet at the eleventh hour. It's happening. China is a MAJOR player, don't believe all the hype, sure China is polluting like crazy but mercifully they are extremely active in the areas of solar and wind energy.
The world is only a couple of breakthroughs away from solving its energy problems. The concerted effort which is finally being put in will pay big dividends.
Five to ten years will show a massive swing in technology and lifestyle.
If we can just hang in there long enough.

Billy T,

What kind of energy efficiency? Conversion efficiency, depending on the process it between 150% and 600% verse input.

Billy T,

verse input.

Nobody is going to get poetic you idiot.
Versus will suffice.

R.O, you're in the dark ages here.
In Australia homeowners are regularly supplying power back to the grid with "grid-connect" systems and we have a love affair with big homes and big consumption here.
Solar and wind power will save the planet at the eleventh hour. It's happening. China is a MAJOR player, don't believe all the hype, sure China is polluting like crazy but mercifully they are extremely active in the areas of solar and wind energy.
The world is only a couple of breakthroughs away from solving its energy problems. The concerted effort which is finally being put in will pay big dividends.
Five to ten years will show a massive swing in technology and lifestyle.
If we can just hang in there long enough.

Innacurate statement - feel free to prove me wrong. Show some solid data, please. I doubt you can come close to supporting your ambitious claim.

We sell back to the grid here, also. But there's still NO way a single home can even meet it's 24-hour power needs, let alone supply others.

Innacurate statement - feel free to prove me wrong. Show some solid data, please. I doubt you can come close to supporting your ambitious claim.

We sell back to the grid here, also. But there's still NO way a single home can even meet it's 24-hour power needs, let alone supply others.

Give me a day, finding links is not what I do but I will go close or better.
Have more faith.
Most of the world still does not have power needs outside the light of the sun and the heat of a burning coconut husk or cowpat.

Give me a day, finding links is not what I do but I will go close or better.
Have more faith.
Most of the world still does not have power needs outside the light of the sun and the heat of a burning coconut husk or cowpat.

I'll be looking forward to it - or to a retraction of your claim.;)

That last sentence has no place in this discussion. My question has to do solely with Oz. Tossing out red herrings gains you nothing.

I'll be looking forward to it - or to a retraction of your claim.;)

That last sentence has no place in this discussion. My question has to do solely with Oz. Tossing out red herrings gains you nothing.

Not red herrings, the real thing but I'll find something to brighten the day.
We are nowhere near as far from sustainable energy as you might think.
Australia is heading in the right direction, the usual players will be there too, Sweden, Canada and believe it or not China!
The area I'm in is pushing hard for 50/50 by 2020..meaning 50% alternative energy by 2020 and the next few years will seem daunting then the floodgates will open and the reality be easy. Sorry to be coming across like an evangelical christian at this point. There's only one thing for me to do, show some facts. Like I said, a day or two.

...Conversion efficiency, depending on the process it between 150% and 600% verse input.Is there reference for this?

I liked Henry Gibson's comments on your link article, which in part were:
"Growing some of the enzymes for fermenting the cellulose in the {leaves and stalk of} crop is an cunning approach. {he now quotes from article:}

"Integrating high-efficiency endoplant enzyme crops with biofuel production and distribution systems is projected to double per-acre ethanol yields, reduce the cost of cellulosic ethanol by 20%, increase farm income per acre by 25%, and relax pressures on farmland availability and water use." {It needs more than a 50% reduction in cost to fairly compete (without subsides.)}
...
Now that the plant breeders are turning their attention to the fuel potential of the non-crop biomass, it is very likely that they will be able to substantially increase the fuel co-product yield.

The article mentions applying the technique to sugar cane. Sugar cane combined heat and power plants already generate all of their process heat and electricity by burning some of the bagasse, and even generate a surplus of electricity for export to the grid. {yes, as I recal about 10% of the lectric power in Brazil} According to wikipedia, not all of the bagasse is currently used in Brazil because Brazil has cheaper Hydro Electric Power available. If the excess bagasse could be fermented into biofuel instead, it would increase the potential for large quantities of biofuel to be exported to the USA to supplement US ethanol supply and displace imports from OPEC. Congress needs to make a deal with Brazil on a tariff structure which facilitates clean biofuels from both the USA and Brazil while taxing fossil fuels to fund their external costs such as military expenditure in the Persian Gulf. ..."

I agree 90% with Henry, but US should not grow any bio-fuels, IMHO, if can import them cheaper. Why add to the US debt (with subsidies) and taxes of Joe American just to make the cost of his driving higher than it needs to be? Tropical sugar cane alcohol is NOT like oil, available only from a few producers who support the terrorists financially. There is not much danger and much to be gained by trading with ~50 different nations that can grow tropical sugar cane on tiny fraction of their land* (less than 2% of Brazil's farm land used for sugar cane. If the bagasse also became alcohol less than 1% would supply 100% of Brazil's liquid fuel need and leave plenty for export.)* to earn the funds to buy US made high value added products.***
-------------------
*Brazil is making 3 million of world's most advanced cars this year. Sells the best most efficient and SAFESTcorporate jets (One collided with large Boeing, killing about 300 people in it as it broke into two pieces high in the air, but Embraer's tiny jet flew on for 30 minutes more to land safely with no one even injured and only missing part of one wing and part of the tail. - Not surprizingly, the order book is now full for next three years of production capacity. If you have a used one you can sell it for 20% more than a new one delivered more than three years from now.) Embraer** also has best 80 to 120 seat jets on the market and world's only alcohol powered crop dusters etc. - Reason for mentioning this is to show that Brazil is not just a backward agricultural society with little need for liquid fuels, but many that could grow tropical sugar cane (like Cuba) are. If they put even 0.1% of their land into sugar cane production they could escape form big oil's grip on their economies, and 1% of all such tropical land would easily supply ALL US's needs if US drivers used smaller cars like Europeans and Brazilians do instead of gas hogs.

**In interest of full disclosure, I own a lot of Embraer's ADRs

***US’s number one problem is NOT energy, or even liquid fuel, it is the stupidity of its poorly educated masses, who vote. That is why GWB and years of Republican control of government has been able to send US into deep depression, but I am getting off thread so will stop.

Add Brazil to the Swedens , Canadas and Australias as a "smallish" economy making profound headway.

The only alternative to hydrocarbon energy is human stupidity.

"Carbon fuels will dominate the 21st century's global energy economy." -- Peter R. Odell, 2004

"Neither we, nor our grandchildren, nor their grandchildren will live to see the end of the oil era." -- Karl-Heinz Schult-Bornemann, 1997

Oh! Oil!* Spud kowtows and points his not insignificant arse ( you know, the one the sun shines out of) towards Mecca or Oilismastery.
Oil will dominate the first tenth of the 21st century and will henceforth be cringingly regarded as the greatest mindfuckingly obvious mistake since overfishing.
OIM, I hate myself for giving you oxygen. I hope this makes you happy!

The only alternative to hydrocarbon energy is human stupidity.

"Carbon fuels will dominate the 21st century's global energy economy." -- Peter R. Odell, 2004

"Neither we, nor our grandchildren, nor their grandchildren will live to see the end of the oil era." -- Karl-Heinz Schult-Bornemann, 1997

Wrong as usual.:bugeye:

The solution is for the world to get serious about building the newer nuclear plants (fission) which could completely break the dependence on oil in 20 years. And it would still carry us through to the point that fusion becomes a practical reality.

I was accused of living in the Dark Ages but that (dis)honor belongs to YOU more than anyone else!

Read-Only, you are a clever guy, Nuclear is far preferential to oil based energy but is nowhere near as clean and sustainable as solar/wind/tidal.
The fact that the we can put men on the moon and survey Mars, yet still not have a balanced energy system is more about our machismo than our intelligence.
Tidal power alone can power our planet( regular, massive and reliable), let alone the daily smacking we get from the sun.

The solution is for the world to get serious about building the newer nuclear plants (fission) which could completely break the dependence on oil in 20 years.
Obviously you have no clue how much oil is required to construct and maintain a nuclear power plant and to mine the uranium.

ohh! Unranium!

Dickhead!!

Read-Only, you are a clever guy, Nuclear is far preferential to oil based energy but is nowhere near as clean and sustainable as solar/wind/tidal.
The fact that the we can put men on the moon and survey Mars, yet still not have a balanced energy system is more about our machismo than our intelligence.
Tidal power alone can power our planet( regular, massive and reliable), let alone the daily smacking we get from the sun.

Go for it! All the solar/wind/tidal combined will never be enough to meet the energy needs of the entire world. And, in case you haven't noticed, those needs are growing by leaps and bounds.

Energy is what makes technology work - alternative sources are nice, I like them myself - but they will never ptovide enough by themselves alone.

There are also some pretty serious concerns about what harvesting tidal energy might do to the ecosystem. Similar but evem more profound than what hydroelectric dams have done to hamper fish migration and reproduction.

Obviously you have no clue how much oil is required to construct and maintain a nuclear power plant and to mine the uranium.

Obviously YOU have no idea that energy is energy. You can do all those things with electricity replacing the oil. Silly, silly boy!!!

...Tidal power alone can power our planet( regular, massive and reliable), let alone the daily smacking we get from the sun.Both tidal and wind power have a serious problem related to the fact that the power level they must work in goes a the cube of the wind speed or wave hight. For wind power there are at least two economical solutions to this problem, I know of, but none* known for direct tidal power.

You can design a tidal system to withstand the greatest wave expected in say 35 years but not pay back the capital cost of that design in that time unless selling the energy at very much higher cost than current cost. This is because to numerically illustrate with "guestimates":

If the average wave height is 2 meters and the one "rogue wave" in 35 year is 40 meters and the peak power designed for is 10,000W the power from the typical wave is ~10^4 / (20)^3 = 10/8 = 1.25W It is not that bad on the average as some of the time the waves are 6 meters tall and then you get (6/2)^3 or 27 times more power (~33W). At best I think you might be get 40W average output power from the generator designed for 250 times greater power level! Very hard to make money with that 24/7 capital cost eating you alive by selling average of 40 W on 24/7 basis.
-----------------
*I have thought about this problems some. I think it might be possible to solve it, by making an automatic sinking when waves are rough system. Or better still forget about direct use of the waves. Instead let high tide and waves fill a shoreline lake and drain it at constant power level back to the sea thru water turbines for 1/3 of the time. Then the capital cost 24/7 is only 3 times more than you are using 1/3 of the time, not a couple of hundred times greater.

Billy T,

There are many references for that: keep reading from the link I provided. honestly I would give you the references if I could remember which articles from there they were.

As for wave power I would think the best possible design put forward is the "anaconda (http://www.bulgewave.com/)" a giant rubber tube, considering it simplicity it could make wave power very cheap, but wave power is where wind was 20 years ago.

...As for wave power I would think the best possible design put forward is the "anaconda (http://www.bulgewave.com/)" a giant rubber tube, considering it simplicity it could make wave power very cheap, but wave power is where wind was 20 years ago.Great name for it as it swallows the water, but I do not see how it produces anything but very low quality heat in the rubber. There is a similar attempt with long chain of rigid segments that flex as the waves go by the chain of them. Pistons linking adjacent segments then capture useful power.

I like best the bi-directional turbine (spins same way in bi-directional flow). It just sits in the air stream thru tube at top of otherwise top-sealed, anchored, hollow, float with large diameter. (As peak of wave lift the water level slowly inside the huge hollow cylinder inside the hollow of the float, the air escapes thru the turbine with high speed (hydraulic piston multiplier) and keeps spinning the same rotation sense as the falling wave surface "sucks” the air back down thru turbine into the hollow interior of the anchored float. - Very simple, cheap, and hard to destroy.

I, as once out of sight of land sailor, however, have great respect for the power of sea. If this system is to be there, at anchor, for 30+ years, my money is on the sea to win the struggle.

Great name for it as it swallows the water, but I do not see how it produces anything but very low quality heat in the rubber. There is a similar attempt with long chain of rigid segments that flex as the waves go by the chain of them. Pistons linking adjacent segments then capture useful power.

I like best the bi-directional turbine (spins same way in bi-directional flow). It just sits in the air stream thru tube at top of otherwise top-sealed, anchored, hollow, float with large diameter. (As peak of wave lift the water level slowly inside the huge hollow cylinder inside the hollow of the float, the air escapes thru the turbine with high speed (hydraulic piston multiplier) and keeps spinning the same rotation sense as the falling wave surface "sucks” the air back down thru turbine into the hollow interior of the anchored float. - Very simple, cheap, and hard to destroy.

I, as once out of sight of land sailor, however, have great respect for the power of sea. If this system is to be there, at anchor, for 30+ years, my money is on the sea to win the struggle.

two-way turbines are also very inefficient.

You did not read the link? waves convert to bulge waves in the giant rubber tube and salt water inside, these bulge waves travel down (or up) the tube were the tube is divided into two zones, a high pressure and low pressure zone, one-way valves (also made of nothing but giant ruber flaps and a plastic ring) lets in the peak of the bulge waves into the high pressure zone, and the trough of the bulge waves into the low pressure zone, as a result water is pumped into the high pressure zone and out of the low pressure zone, a one-way turbine runs continuously to equalize the two zones... heat lost in the rubber is minimal, energy is converted to electricity, and the design is much cheaper and less-maintenance demanding than Pelamis Sea Dragon.

I would bet on solar energy, fingers crossed on printable solar cells. (http://www.nanosolar.com/)

R.O, you're in the dark ages here.
In Australia homeowners are regularly supplying power back to the grid with "grid-connect" systems and we have a love affair with big homes and big consumption here.
At what load? Residential electrical service in the US is 200 amps at 240 volts, which equates to 48kW.

two-way turbines are also very inefficient.
You did not read the link? ...I would bet on solar energy, fingers crossed on printable solar cells. (http://www.nanosolar.com/)Again in a solar system, efficiency is only important to the extent that low efficiency increases cost. (The "fuel" costs nothing and will become heat no matter what man does.)

For example Si solar cells will never exceed theoretical limit of 22% and in practice 12% is good, but higher efficiency can reduce area, structural, copper wire etc demands /cost so is good, it not too costly to achieve. One problem with PV solar cells is that the BOS (Balance of System) costs, which include the insulated coper wires, periodic cleaning, repair and DC to AC converters etc. are at least half the cost. Things like the anaconda or the Hydrolic water piston wave energy system (or wind mills) are relatively small in area com compared to the area the effectively capture energy from. (Just as you TV antenna pulls energy from much larger cross section of the advancing EM wave that its physical cross section.)

No didn't see any text, just a movie. From what you say it is quite like the system I described basically an indirect use of waves to pump air thru turbine. I like my vesion better as fishing boat hitting large steel float will be what is destroyed, but the prop (or nets steel wires) will cut (or slice thru) the rubber of yours etc. Also what about a piece of drift wood or floating bottle swallowed and keeping one of the valves struck open? Seems like that would shut it down. Going out in boat to fix is negative energy production as well as cost.

IF you want to be serious, focus on the life cycle (30 years) cost, not the cleveriness or efficiency of the system. SCRBHTB (Simple, Cheap, Rugged; Brings Home The Bacon.)

Again in a solar system, efficiency is only important to the extent that low efficiency increases cost. (The "fuel" costs nothing and will become heat no matter what man does.)

For example Si solar cells will never exceed theoretical limit of 22% and in practice 12% is good, but higher efficiency can reduce area, structural, copper wire etc demands /cost so is good, it not too costly to achieve. One problem with PV solar cells is that the BOS (Balance of System) costs, which include the insulated coper wires, periodic cleaning, repair and DC to AC converters etc. are at least half the cost. Things like the anaconda or the Hydrolic water piston wave energy system (or wind mills) are relatively small in area com compared to the area the effectively capture energy from. (Just as you TV antenna pulls energy from much larger cross section of the advancing EM wave that its physical cross section.)

No didn't see any text, just a movie. From what you say it is quite like the system I described basically an indirect use of waves to pump air thru turbine. I like my vesion better as fishing boat hitting large steel float will be what is destroyed, but the prop (or nets steel wires) will cut (or slice thru) the rubber of yours etc. Also what about a piece of drift wood or floating bottle swallowed and keeping one of the valves struck open? Seems like that would shut it down. Going out in boat to fix is negative energy production as well as cost.

IF you want to be serious, focus on the life cycle (30 years) cost, not the cleveriness or efficiency of the system. SCRBHTB (Simple, Cheap, Rugged; Brings Home The Bacon.)

1) the system is closed cycle, there is not water intake and no chance of any seawater material getting inside the rubber structure.
2) There are .pdf of their scientific reports somewhere on their site, or you can do a scirus search.
3) I'll take the chances of a ship hitting a cheap rubber wave power generator over a ship hitting a expensive steel wave power generator any day.
4)Watt produced per area/volume of your product does not matter as much as cost per Watt produced, their for if printable solar panels are cheap enough per average/annual watt/h produced it will be worth it, According to nanosolar they claim they can get the price per watt down to the same as coal!

It unfortunate you got bannish, in general you were the kind of poster this forum needs.

It unfortunate you got bannish, in general you were the kind of poster this forum needs.
Yeah. That's bullshit.

Give me a day, finding links is not what I do but I will go close or better.
Have more faith.
Most of the world still does not have power needs outside the light of the sun and the heat of a burning coconut husk or cowpat.

Ok, I've been generous and have given you a bit over TWO days - yet I still see no proof from you that houses in Oz can produce enough power to run their homes for 24 hours and still produce a surplus beyond that.

Ready to submit a retraction of your claim?

Ok, I've been generous and have given you a bit over TWO days - yet I still see no proof from you that houses in Oz can produce enough power to run their homes for 24 hours and still produce a surplus beyond that.

Ready to submit a retraction of your claim?
Also curious how "tidal power alone can power our planet". Numbers always tell the truth. Sometimes their absence alludes to it.

Yeah. That's bullshit.

Well I have not really seen many of his posts, if he did something really bad I didn't see it (or look for it) so please tell me what happend (I want to see the baning for the lulz).

Read-Only,

I'll take that challange, but what are the limitations, roof space?

Well I have not really seen many of his posts, if he did something really bad I didn't see it (or look for it) so please tell me what happend (I want to see the baning for the lulz).

Read-Only,

I'll take that challange, but what are the limitations, roof space?

Just ordinary-sized homes, which is what he was alluding to. No McMansions - but that wouldn't matter much because their energy needs would also be much higher than average.

So go to it. ;) And I'm still waiting for his proof also.

Just ordinary-sized homes, which is what he was alluding to. No McMansions - but that wouldn't matter much because their energy needs would also be much higher than average.

So go to it. ;) And I'm still waiting for his proof also.

How many Kwh per day and year in usage? Is it in a temperate house or tropical, what it latitude? I think you said OZ as in Australia? Give me the dimensions of the house, with that and its latitude and at least the State or region its in, I could tell you how much sun hits it roof a year, how much electricity that could make, how much a panel system would cost. How about wind? Is it completely off grid or is it pay and sell gird (no batteries)?

Ok, I've been generous and have given you a bit over TWO days - yet I still see no proof from you that houses in Oz can produce enough power to run their homes for 24 hours and still produce a surplus beyond that.

Ready to submit a retraction of your claim?

No, and sorry I didn't respond in my own time frame ( my contact in the industry is so busy installing systems, tendering for big contracts etc. that my sci question pales into insignificance.) The fact still remains that many Australian homes ( and noting that Australia gets an inordinate amount of sunshine; where I live in the [relatively] cold southern part gets an average Winter sunshine rate of six or seven hours per day and double that in Summer, this is already taking sunless days into consideration before your sceptical mind jumps to that conclusion.) run exclusively on solar or, as the grid connect system is designed, take from the grid in times of greater need and supply back to the grid when in surplus. The government is well on board and gives incentives ( power supplied back to the grid is credited at a higher rate) and grants for businesses and start up funds for homeowners and loans to install solar systems payable at very low intersest over a long time period.
Anyway, from what I can gather, I think we're talking about 5 kilowatt systems or thereabouts for a standard home. Yes, at this stage it requires a lot of panels and a fair bit of money but we are trying help the planet out here.

My comment about tidal energy being enough to supply the planet's power needs is just a statement about the enormity of the resource, not about our current ability to harness it.

The sun has always provided more than enough power to keep this planet humming along.

I'm not an engineer, a scientist or the saviour, I just find myself gobsmacked at the wierd dichotomy between our ability to create and invent and progress in areas such as computer technology, space exploration and miltary might yet seem so hopelessly slow and uninspired to meet the challenge of clean sustainable energy.
The good news is, more money , brainpower and research is going in the right direction and I'm quietly optimistic that we'll make huge progress in the next decade or two.
I honestly believe we'll look back at this time with our collective head shaking at the era of excess and flagrant disregard for the health of the planet.
Read-only. I'll certainly find a link for you, be patient.

Here's the first page about grid connect I found.
They're talking about 3.5kw being enough for a household including an aircoditioner. Personally, I hate air conditioners BTW.http://www.solarshop.com.au/main/category17_1.htm

Here's the first page about grid connect I found.
They're talking about 3.5kw being enough for a household including an aircoditioner. Personally, I hate air conditioners BTW.http://www.solarshop.com.au/main/category17_1.htm

It would appear that you didn't pay close enough attention to the limited number of hours of useage of various electrical items.;)

Sure, during peak production times - sunny summer day, low load from the household - you can generate more than you are using and sell to the grid.

BUT that doesn't cover the 24-hour needs, especially on a year-round basis!

So, even with government incentives, etc., you still haven't met the test of your claim: that the solar-powered houses in Oz can meet ALL of their own electrical needs and also supply it to others, like office buildings. It just isn't possible. In "bursts and squirts", yes, but not on a full-time basis.

How many Kwh per day and year in usage? Is it in a temperate house or tropical, what it latitude? I think you said OZ as in Australia? Give me the dimensions of the house, with that and its latitude and at least the State or region its in, I could tell you how much sun hits it roof a year, how much electricity that could make, how much a panel system would cost. How about wind? Is it completely off grid or is it pay and sell gird (no batteries)?

Yes, Australia - the entire populated part of the country.

I would guess about 5Kw per day - but that does NOT include peaks nor air conditioners in the hotter regions. I would extimate the average house to be about 1,900 sq.ft.

I don't have the rest of the information - it's based on his claims, not mine anyway.

Again in a solar system, efficiency is only important to the extent that low efficiency increases cost. (The "fuel" costs nothing and will become heat no matter what man does.)

For example Si solar cells will never exceed theoretical limit of 22% and in practice 12% is good, but higher efficiency can reduce area, structural, copper wire etc demands /cost so is good, it not too costly to achieve. One problem with PV solar cells is that the BOS (Balance of System) costs, which include the insulated coper wires, periodic cleaning, repair and DC to AC converters etc. are at least half the cost. Things like the anaconda or the Hydrolic water piston wave energy system (or wind mills) are relatively small in area com compared to the area the effectively capture energy from. (Just as you TV antenna pulls energy from much larger cross section of the advancing EM wave that its physical cross section.)

No didn't see any text, just a movie. From what you say it is quite like the system I described basically an indirect use of waves to pump air thru turbine. I like my vesion better as fishing boat hitting large steel float will be what is destroyed, but the prop (or nets steel wires) will cut (or slice thru) the rubber of yours etc. Also what about a piece of drift wood or floating bottle swallowed and keeping one of the valves struck open? Seems like that would shut it down. Going out in boat to fix is negative energy production as well as cost.

IF you want to be serious, focus on the life cycle (30 years) cost, not the cleveriness or efficiency of the system. SCRBHTB (Simple, Cheap, Rugged; Brings Home The Bacon.)

Billy, a warning.
If you keep on making intelligent considered points like this, you'll get yourself banned. ;)

BUT that doesn't cover the 24-hour needs, especially on a year-round basis!

So, even with government incentives, etc., you still haven't met the test of your claim: that the solar-powered houses in Oz can meet ALL of their own electrical needs and also supply it to others, like office buildings. It just isn't possible. In "bursts and squirts", yes, but not on a full-time basis.

Read-only, I fear you're getting caught up in the semantics of the 'fine print' and missing the bigger picture but while you want to deal in semantics, I'll indulge you. Your assertion that "a roof full of p.v panels cannot provide but a fraction of said household's needs" is way off the mark and completely shit use of grammar besides.
* It should read 'can supply only a fraction of..' or 'can provide but a fraction of..' but I digress and semantics are not my go so back to the big picture, some households are ( I know this, a good friend, an organic producer is doing it) providing surplus energy( over a full twelve month period and beyond) back to the grid and getting paid cold, hard cash to do so and many households are producing the major percentage of their usage from their very own rooftops.
Community buildings, surf lifesaving clubs( an institution here) are providing most or all their power needs from rooftop wind-turbines and solar panels which have been completely funded by community action.

Please, accept that clean energy is possible and instead of shit-canning any positive information, open your eyes and your heart and put your not inconsiderable brainpower to good use.

Read-Only,

Well if you using 5kw as units, that house in australia with 176m^2 (assuming no angling for optimized production per latitude) would produce 225W per meter or 39.736Kw, assuming 15% efficiency on the panels that would be 5.96Kw, 90% efficiency on the DC-AC converter is 5.364Kw, so this house would produce on an average day in say Perth, Australia 107% of its electricity needs. Now if it was in Sydney though it would only produce 83% of its electricity needs.

If you want me to to more calculations you'll have to pay for my time.

Read-Only,

Well if you using 5kw as units, that house in australia with 176m^2 (assuming no angling for optimized production per latitude) would produce 225W per meter or 39.736Kw, assuming 15% efficiency on the panels that would be 5.96Kw, 90% efficiency on the DC-AC converter is 5.364Kw, so this house would produce on an average day in say Perth, Australia 107% of its electricity needs. Now if it was in Sydney though it would only produce 83% of its electricity needs.

If you want me to to more calculations you'll have to pay for my time.

Woot!

Read-only, I fear you're getting caught up in the semantics of the 'fine print' and missing the bigger picture but while you want to deal in semantics, I'll indulge you. Your assertion that "a roof full of p.v panels cannot provide but a fraction of said household's needs" is way off the mark and completely shit use of grammar besides.
* It should read 'can supply only a fraction of..' or 'can provide but a fraction of..' but I digress and semantics are not my go so back to the big picture, some households are ( I know this, a good friend, an organic producer is doing it) providing surplus energy( over a full twelve month period and beyond) back to the grid and getting paid cold, hard cash to do so and many households are producing the major percentage of their usage from their very own rooftops.
Community buildings, surf lifesaving clubs( an institution here) are providing most or all their power needs from rooftop wind-turbines and solar panels which have been completely funded by community action.

Please, accept that clean energy is possible and instead of shit-canning any positive information, open your eyes and your heart and put your not inconsiderable brainpower to good use.

Actually, my grammar is fully acceptable in the U.S. and the U.K. - I've no idea what the Aussie standards are. But that's completely beside the point anyway.

Let me make it clear that I have NO doubt that you can find isolated cases where a house is producing more power than it consumes - the same is true here. One can always find a few highly-efficient homes with good insulation, no air conditioning, that prepare only light (or even cold) meals and that perhaps only have a single occupant that is absent much of the day. Sure, those can produce a surplus of energy.

And windmills are a no-go in this context; it's about PV power only as that's what you started off talking about.

It's the OVERALL picture that I'm so highly doubtful of - your ENTIRE country as a whole and the production/usage on average. Which is what I took your original statements to say.

Yes, I absolutely LOVE "green energy" production! But I still maintain that it will never, ever be enough to meet energy demands all across the globe. Only nuclear will be able to do that.

Incidentally, I will be traveling out of state tomorrow and will be gone for a few days. So don't think I'm ignoring you - I'll catch back up when I return.

Yes, we're all on the same side.
Have a good trip.

Even a house completely covered with PV panels cannot produce but a fraction of it's own needs - much less a surplus.

it can, if done correctly,like so:

http://www.mrsharkey.com/solar.htm

also Id add wind generator for when the sun dont shine,
such as these,very efficient and quiet too.

www.windside.com

Billy, a warning. If you keep on making intelligent considered points like this, you'll get yourself banned. ;)Thanks, It is ironic, but I have just returned from a 3 day ban. I deserved it as I did spam quite a few (~20?) threads with the same brief post, directing readers attention to a longer post concerning my solution to the current economic crises and asking readers to contact their congress men/women if they thought my idea better than Paulson's.

I intend to make post about ones duty to violate rules (civil disobedance) but when doing so one must try to make the least inconvenience to others possible. Thus, immediately after spamming, I reported myself for doing so and promissed to clean up my spam, but the mod who banned me was quick and I am still catching up on 3 days of post so have not yet checked to see if all my spam is gone.

Other essential thing about civil disobedance is that you must feel so strongly about your cause, that you gladly accept the punishment. I did and also in my self report stated that I would accept it. In fact now than I am back, I praise the mod who, doing his job well, banned me. As a leader in the civil right movement of the 60s, I have a lot of experience about what works to advance your cause. It may be too late, now, but if you agree with following, I again ask your to tell your congressman so. (I do not expect to be banned again for being in partly off thread in my reply to you, but if I am, more than half of the poster are often 100% off thread and we can start new forum. :) )

It was actually a benefit to be banned - Kept me from waisting time here when US is in crisis. - While banned I did contact many congress men, (One replied with more than form letter). I posted comments in current issue of The Economist's two lead articles and refinded presentation of my idea to be as follows (I will return and replace following with link when it is posted in more appropriate thread.):


Paulson’s plan will fail because it treats only a symptom and not the cause of America’s financial illness, which is: Too many were persuaded to buy more house than they could afford by irresponsible, greedy writers of innovative new mortgage types. Everyone was operating on the “greater fool” theory and assuming the un-payable mortgage would clear later when the house was resold. Many of these mortgages writers knew it was a criminal Ponzi scheme, designed to collect large bonuses.

A real cure must:
(1) Restore liquidity to financial system. (Make the toxic paper worth face value.)*
(2) Get Joe American into housing he can afford.
(3) Transfer real assets, not toxic trash, to Uncle Sam.
(4) Not significantly increase US’s already excessive debt.
(5) Prevent repetition of the problem.

All five are simultaneously possible. See full details of how in OP (and vote in poll) here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2025940&postcount=1

------------------
*The "feet dragging" Republicans refusing to accept Paulson's plan, even with the CEO bonus caps etc., have a good point (as do I). We only need to insure that ALL mortgages will be paid in full, not buy them all. These Republicans no doubt want to give this job to private insurance compainies, but as the biggest (AIG) has already failed, that will not work.

Just a thought:

Since Joe is unemployed or very much underemployed, should not we work on that too as a priority? No jobs...means can not pay mortgage...means bankcrupty...means house price in the local going down ...means equity disappear etc.

No jobs also means Joe can not afford the house he is living in...means....

There is a massive unemployment issue because my friend works at the welfare office and the needs are going sky high....all due to unemployment...but no one tracks the welfare part....

...Since Joe is unemployed or very much underemployed, should not we work on that too as a priority? ...We are getting off thread (my new one, soon in Businesses & Economnics will be called "Paulson's plan -do it or not?" if not one there already.)

Yes jobs are essential, but there will be NONE if the dollar becomes worthless, so first prority of a job protection program is to prevent that, which excessive use of the printing presses can assure.

Well, more accurately: There will not be any fiat money paid jobs. Hunter / gather society do have lots of work to do and barter things. Getting to a sustainable Hunter /gather society in USA would be deadly, but the blood shed should help with soil fertility.

I do not expect the dollar to become totally worthless but it IMHO is very close to collapse, perhaps so much that new ones will be needed (To lop two zeros off the old ones - the old $100 bill is worth one "new dollar.")

Neither side in this is perfectly correct.
Regardless of precisely how much, wind & solar power can make a huge difference. The overall picture shows we should've long ago got this going to where it's common now.

Neither side in this is perfectly correct.
Regardless of precisely how much, wind & solar power can make a huge difference. The overall picture shows we should've long ago got this going to where it's common now.

Yes, but better late than never and surely advancements will come.

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/02/22/worlds-largest-solar-plant_2570.jpg

Underway in Phoenix, Phoenix gets the most sun in the US with little exception.

...Underway in Phoenix, Phoenix gets the most sun in the US with little exception.That is a solar thermal design. I think with the cooling towers in the two large linear structures.

Where does the water evaporated daily come from? I mention this to point out that although desert land is cheap, water there is not. Are they going to try some dry heat exchanger?

BTW - I see you are a "mobile ski machine" driver. Does your wife put lipstick on pigs? (or keep eye on the Russians, while hanging out the laundry)? :D

That is a solar thermal design. I think with the cooling towers in the two large linear structures.

Where does the water evaporated daily come from? I mention this to point out that although desert land is cheap, water there is not. Are they going to try some dry heat exchanger?

BTW - I see you are a "mobile ski machine" driver. Does your wife put lipstick on pigs? (or keep eye on the Russians, while hanging out the laundry)? :D

I don't know much about solar power. But the water supply in Phoenix isn't horrible. It's shared with LA. The price for LA Water down that man made canal is equivalent to large scale desalinization. Also currently the nuclear power plant in Phoenix I think sells electricity to LA.

So it seems likely that to subsidize creating desalinization plants in Ca, power would be given to Ca to offset the price.


Note: I am not actually Snowmobile driver, it's for the Mafia III game in Free Thoughts.

...So it seems likely that to subsidize creating desalinization plants in Ca, power would be given to Ca to offset the price. {of the desalinated water}...I think that is reasonable, but lowers the economic efficiency if part ot the power produced is given away instead of sold. Also the total capital cost must include the fractional share of the Desalination plant and the pumps and pipeline delivering it to Phoenix AZ area.

I am not against this installation, but do want people to understand better the economics. At least 3/4 of the cost of electric power is already the capital cost of the system. Making it from fuel free solar power may be necessary, but it will cost more. Nothing is as cheap a high temperature heat source as the coal furnace and a brick chimeny. Too bad they make so much CO2 and other pollution. What is true of solar power being more expensive is even more so of Fusion Power, with big vacuum systems, super conducting magnets, neutron shielding, neurton activation radiation control (D/T reaction assumed) etc. - very capital intensive system, even it it can be made to work.

My money, quite literally, is on nature's solar energy system liquid fuel system - sugar cane to alcohol. It is already cheaper energy than gasoline for typical new new oil fields; and a slightly negative (due to stored alcohol in ocean tankers and distribution pipelines port storage facilities and car fuel tanks) CO2 producer. If cellulosic alcohol works out then the entire sugar cane plant can be used with at least double the production per acre.

This is interesting.
Potential of wave/tidal power.

A few days ago I made an off the cuff remark that the world's energy needs could be supplied by the ocean alone, this was based on nothing more than looking out the window at the enormous power on display in the Southern Ocean.

Anyway, positive news.

http://http://www.carnegiecorp.com.au/files/asx-announcements/2008/Australia%27s%20Waves%20Cld%20Generate%2035%20of%2 0National%20Power%20Needs.pdf (http://www.carnegiecorp.com.au/files/asx-announcements/2008/Australia%27s%20Waves%20Cld%20Generate%2035%20of%2 0National%20Power%20Needs.pdf)

How about a biofuel that grows where few other things could? Jatropha. Already being used in Africa, China, indo china although there are toxicolgy issues with leave sand berries.

Better yet reduce energy overall energy consumption, improve technologies in renewables such as wind, water and solar. Can't be that far off surely??

This is interesting.
Potential of wave/tidal power. ...[/URL]Yes the potential is significant, but as always, the question is the cost of energy produced.

We should get some real data on that during next few years. A company in Portugal is leading the way. Three of their rigid segment "Sea snakes" are now producing commercial power off shore and dozens more will soon join them. I.e. this is not a "developmental test." - The segments are coming steadily off the assembly line and after assembled in a "snake" at sea, they work. The manufacture will make money, but the power company selling the power may lose money.

Each unit will support about 5000 modest, reasonably efficient, home's needs. Last week BBC had brief segment showing one at work.