@TMTisFree

Quote:

preponderance of evidences supports the evolution theory, nothing else

Yup that's what I said. Sorry you dislike the more layman's terms. Hint it does for GW too...

Quote:

My subtility-o-meter detects a 0/20 mark for BrianK: are solar panels usually located on seas/oceans? The response is no. Then your Earth surface is wrongly calculated.

No clue what your quip about some meter you have is all about.

As for solar panels located on seas and oceans the question isn't if they are but can they be? Certainly large parts of the oceans are out of question because the losses and cost to get the energy from the middle of the Pacific to the nearest land is likely going to be cost prohibitve. Even if we took 70% out for water, which is incredibly high, still means we have 30% of earth available. You do the math here the #'s still small. When a square mile of solar is given the # seems large. In perspective to the overall amount of land, it's tiny. Now consider that not only can we put things on buildings, which reuses the land. We can also put solar on the sides of buildings, which increases the overall area available.

As for no floating solar. There are floating solar panels. They have certain problems, such as heavy waves. And here's a company working on helping mitagate the problems. http://www.sunengy.com/watch-the-lsa-in-action/ -- Creativity meets engineering. Also we can build towers to mount the solar on which brings the panels above the waves but still uses ocean land. Like you said before humans are identifying and using the resources.

@BrianK

Awesome device. Want one. Hundred!

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Dandy

The French Embassy in Germany has analysed this document (PDF) sourced from the German energy agency (DENA). The analysis says that from 2012 onwards, if nuclear phase out is maintained, Germany will not be able to produce enough electricity and that in the best scenario deficit will reach almost 12 GW in 2020 and up to 21 GW in the worst but more probable scenario (increase of demand). Such scary report has been probably paid by Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear/etc. EDF will nevertheless be happy to supply our ideological neighbours with safe nuclear power surplus in forthcoming years, helping them to keep current lifestyle...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

You seem proud of the total irrelevance of your kitchen experiment (I skip the various and usual ad hominem). You are assuming conditions in my fridge fairly represent real world Artic conditions: no wonder why AGW hypothesis lasts so long. I could have concluded 'Who is the crackpot physicist then?' but I will retain this time as ridiculing in just one sentence your desperate attempt to appear bright is enough (pleasure) -- and calling you a 'physicist' is not having due recognition for the real ones.

A note: before doing any experiment, a little thinking of its relevance to real world is not losing time.

(In addition, if I would have something to do with my fridges, I would have experimented making ice-creams or sorbets (I have delicious citrus, oranges, etc just sitting there) because it is far more interesting. But eh, it's me.)

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Yup that's what I said. Sorry you dislike the more layman's terms. Hint it does for GW too...

It can not when the overwhelming evidences (no CO² fingerprint, low climate sensitivity, no CO²/temperature correlation, no decadal warming, etc) do not point to.

Quote:

Creativity meets engineering. Also we can build towers to mount the solar on which brings the panels above the waves but still uses ocean land. Like you said before humans are identifying and using the resources.

Beware, you are engaging the Cornucopian way of though...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Germany is buying millions of barrels of oil (per day) today, how would buying electricity be any different?

Last edited by olegil on 10-Sep-2009 at 10:04 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

Awesome device.

I wonder how they clean panels out of salt: self cleaning glass works for organic compounds by photo-catalysis but I don't know for minerals.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil

Quote:

how would buying electricity be any different?

I am not the one pushing the 'energy independence' argument as a subterfuge to the ideological abandon of nuclear, coal, oil, etc energies. Whatever you do in energy production, you will always be dependent of some other. I am happy Germans (will) spend money with us. As we say here: we have no oil, but we have ideas.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Perhaps because alarmists are always scaring people with Artic ice melting at the same period of the year each year?

I'm quite scared that you don't know the basics of science MO.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You are assuming conditions in my fridge fairly represent real world Artic conditions

Huh?

This experiment was to demonstrate that your assertion "If temperatures do not change much between 150 and 250 days, melting will not change much too" is totally wrong.

If you had actually done the experiment (you know, the kind of thing one would expect of a scientist who finds herself wondering about a strange and to her unexplainable situation --- here the fact that acrtic summer temperatures don't change a lot, yet annual average temperatures do), you would have found that the statement is backwards.

The actual physical reality is: "The amount of melting changes in precisely such a way as to ensure that temperature does not change much".

That physical reality holds true wherever you have melting ice --- In the tropics, in your fridge, in Death Valley, in the wine cellars of France, and, yes indeed, even in the arctic. It also holds true for ice cream and sorbets, although with those being mixtures and the various constituents having different melting points, the effect is not nearly as clear to see --- *and* seeing as the experiment involved letting things melt, doing it with ice cream would be a bit of a waste.


You can call me a crackpot all you want (seeing as you decided to "retain" rather than "refrain" from doing so, I shall consider it done :), but that does not change that I understand why humans sweat, and you apparently do not. It does not change that I, from the very start, pointed out that the arctic summer temperatures being constant over time was to be expected, and that you in contrast found it remarkable (as evidenced by the fact that you kept, and keep, remarking on it). It also does not change the fact that you presented data and interpretation, and a statement on the things one has to do to interpret the data correctly, only to have me point out that you did not do those things, that your interpretation was in fact the exact opposite of what the data showed, and also that the source you ascribed to the data was not the source of significant parts of the data, anyway.

Calling someone a crackpot is all well and good --- but it has a lot more impact if you can, at the same time, show why they are a crackpot. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than "my fridge ain't the arctic, dude!"...

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Beware, you are engaging the Cornucopian way of though...

No idea what a Cornucopian way of though is?

I like your optimism when it comes to humanity being resourceful and using other elements within our environment. What has been observed here is that optimism doesn't extend to renewables. We found the floating solar panels you believed to not exist.

@umisef

Quote:

his experiment was to demonstrate that your assertion

But it's a model.. All models are discountable by definition don't you know that?! How unscientific of you.

@BrianK

Quote:

Not sure what ownership problems you run into? Here the building owner is the one that owns the solar. Now they can contract out the maintenance of the system to a 3rd party if they like.

I mean that the state can't mandate that every suitable roof should have solar collectors. At best it can provide incentives. At present some will do it for some perceived financial gain - solar heating for instance, and some will do it because they consider it right to do or will go down well with the public as in a supermarket say going solar as one chain in the states has been doing - so the takeup is at best spotty. Then of course there are people like me who has three thermal solar units in need of refurbishing, the best of which would do us nicely. They are not doing much leaning against a tree.

Quote:

Not sure how much power collection in transit in feasible. Power transfer is always lossy so one will never get more power in than what they take out.

I do not think continuous collection as in trolley buses is at all feasable or desirable. Rather I think that collection in transit requires storage that can be very rapidly charged from a low voltage source, then switched to power the motor when needed, therefore two capacitors say. It might be possible but not probably likely.

Noel

@Dandy

Quote:

I already heard some moaning that photovoltaic installations would only make sense in equatorial countries. This is not true. We have several so called "zero energy homes" - even here in North Rhine-Westphalia/Germany ( Zero Energy Homes ).

What is true is that PV and solar heating installations are more effective closest to the sun so if you want to set up a really big installation the equatorial zone is better. However, if the only desert near a large population centre that is also guaranteed clear skies happens to be the Gobi a PV installation can still be useful as the Chinese seem to believe.

Some time in the early 80s I read about an experimental house within the arctic circle that made much use of passive solar heating when available.

Noel

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree ... As for solar panels located on seas and oceans the question isn't if they are but can they be? Certainly large parts of the oceans are out of question because the losses and cost to get the energy from the middle of the Pacific to the nearest land is likely going to be cost prohibitve. Even if we took 70% out for water, which is incredibly high, still means we have 30% of earth available. You do the math here the #'s still small. When a square mile of solar is given the # seems large. In perspective to the overall amount of land, it's tiny. Now consider that not only can we put things on buildings, which reuses the land. We can also put solar on the sides of buildings, which increases the overall area available. As for no floating solar. There are floating solar panels. They have certain problems, such as heavy waves. And here's a company working on helping mitagate the problems. http://www.sunengy.com/watch-the-lsa-in-action/ -- Creativity meets engineering. Also we can build towers to mount the solar on which brings the panels above the waves but still uses ocean land. Like you said before humans are identifying and using the resources.

As I described in some earlier postings, I'd prefer solar panels floating around the planet in an orbit (unimpaired sunshine 24h/day on 7days/week of the 52 weeks/year). They could act as a sort of sunshade to hinder exactly that amount of sun energy to reach the ground that is released as heat by using the electricity the panel(s) collect (stable energy balance of the planet). If the orbit(s) is(are) calculated accordingly, the panel(s) could cast the shadow on desert areas, which should lead to the formation of low pressure areas there. Low pressure areas tend to bring rain - and so this way desert areas could be reforestated.
Technology for wireless transfer of the electricity from the orbit down to earth already exist, but might have to be improved.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Time lapse photography of glaciers LINK

A really impressive video!

I'm highly interested in TMTisFree's comment on the graph that shows the interrelationship between CO², temperature and sea levels.

But I think I already know some of the phrases he will come up with:
cherry picking, falsification of data, manipulated to support his point, political driven yaddayadda of an alarmist and the like...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @NoelFuller ... I've seen solar collecting windows, not sure the cost. Also, solar cells built into shingles for the roof.

"solar collecting windows": Did they produce heat or electricity or both?
(I have an idea at hand to produce both...)

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Quote: Although I imagine power collection while in transit, automated roadside charging stations are an immediately and practical probabilty and may be all that is necessary Not sure how much power collection in transit in feasible. ...

I would NOT be excited having to ride my bicycle through electromagnetic fields...

Last edited by Dandy on 11-Sep-2009 at 09:50 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy The French Embassy in Germany has analysed this document (PDF) sourced from the German energy agency (DENA). The analysis says that from 2012 onwards, if nuclear phase out is maintained, Germany will not be able to produce enough electricity and that in the best scenario deficit will reach almost 12 GW in 2020 and up to 21 GW in the worst but more probable scenario (increase of demand).

Not quite.
It says:
"...already from 2012 onwards not enough secured power station capacity to meet the annual maximum demand will be available in Germany as a location for business."

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Such scary report has been probably paid by Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear/etc. EDF will nevertheless be happy to supply our ideological neighbours with safe nuclear power surplus in forthcoming years, helping them to keep current lifestyle... Bye, TMTisFree

Again "not quite":
Maybe it escaped your attention, but the report clearly states:
"...
To meet the annual peak demand even imports of electricity from abroad are not an option. An actual UCTE study demonstrated that the available and planned European power station capacities will not be sufficiant to satisfy an higher German demand from 2015 onwards.
..."

So EDF might have massive problems to comply with your bold promise - they rather might even have problems to meet the electricity demand of France then...

But nevertheless - this is not in contradiction with what I stated:
"We're not that stupid to switch off all the "dirty" power plants first and then try to develop something clean with just a fraction of the former energy available. ..."

The report you linked states that even reaching the goal of 30 % regenerative electric power would not be sufficiant. This clearly demonstrates that without regenerative electric power the problem would even be worse.

And it furthermore clearly shows that even an extension of the operational lifespan of existing nuclear power plants just would set back that timetable by 10-15 years.

I would not accept taking the risk of an nuclear diseaster in the middle of the densly populated Europe, just to face the same energy bottleneck 10-15 years later.

For me the consequence from this report would be that we have to increase our electrcity production significantly - and we have to do it in a clean and regenerative way. Nuclear power certainly is NOT a "clean and regenerative way" to solve the problems.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Lies (in the form of a paper payed for by the US nuclear lobby - the author Bernard L. Cohen is/was member of the "American Nuclear Society" and won the American Nuclear Society "Walter Zinn"-Award) of Jan. 1983 are not going to contain any more truth if you repeat them in 2009.

hmmm much anger in this one.

Quote:

In strong contrast to you I worked on the fast breeder back then and have a deeper insight in what happened than you will ever have...

maybe so, but are you a Nuclear engineer?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

Time lapse photography of glaciers LINK

and your concern here is what?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker