Re: Wow squared, pstuart
Posted by bobba on Aug 19, 2002 at 20:58
(208.58.229.68)Re: Wow squared, pstuart (pstuart)
Nuclear power is perhaps necessary for now,
Finally we agree on something. Not necessarily the necessity but at least the expediency.
but later when there will be a local nuke
near every corner store, noNo. Although I’ve seen such a thing proposed (you listening Dale? :-) , and it really didn’t look like such a terrible idea, I don’t think it’ll ever come to that. U.S. energy consumption has been fairly flat over the last couple of decades. I don’t see a serious trend increase in the works.
There is definitely a fixation with bad
things here, sort of like liking action movies
with a lot of blood and explosions instead of
something lik "Remains of the Day".Yea, I’ve been meaning to ask you why you fixate so?
Try this math: 20 100 watt solar panels made
in the good old USA, installed by local technicians
with a contract to maintain small hydrogen generators,Stop there for a sec. Much energy does each solar panel gather in kwh? How much does each cost to manufacture in Kwh and money. How long does each last? What is the maintenance on each? What do we do with them when we’re through? Problems that must be addressed Pstuart. I’m not being glib, I’m being serious.
the size of a BBQ roaster (by the way, any
insurance for these BBQ things?) . Ain't that profit
for someone?Profit depends on value and value is a subjective thing so it might well profit some. For example, those that live in the desert far from a more reliable electrical outlet. But what do you do with the hydrogen you generate? Let’s walk through it. It has to be created with a absolute loss of about 10% of the energy. Now it has to be compressed, which takes about a 30% of the energy. Now it has to generate electricity, which means another loss of about 20% of the energy. Gee, we’re already lost 60% of our initial supply and it’s getting dark. Still not a bad idea, just a very expensive one after all costs and losses are added up. I figure assembly line production could net me 50-60 cents per Kwh. I currently pay 6 (or 12, I forget, something like that)
Tokyo, yes, fabulous city run by a huge fleet of
propane driven vehicles, reducing the need for fresh air
stations (yes there was such things).Last I was in Tokyo (1994?), no such “propane” fleet existed and it wasn’t at all stinky – at least no stinkier than Philly.
Third world nations burn woodor coal, if available,
and use whatever energy needs at the lowest possible
cost. They sort of want to be in comfort but its difficult
with annual incomes of $100 a year.I agree. Oh, I’m gonna ignore the political commentary, though I know it makes you feel better to spout it, and skip right to the good part…
convert everything to emissions, and then the US is 25%
of the world, thus the other 3/4's head of states will make up
a new Kyoto without approval from the 25% head of state,
it is perfect, no resolution can be achieved, lets dump some
more CO2 .....yahooo!They can do whatever they want. If reducing CO2 is so important – though for the life of me I don’t know why – then wouldn’t reducing it by their share be the next best thing? No, and that is the real reasoning behind the accord. I’ll give you a hint – it has nothing to do with the temperature.