Electric Sonex

Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

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

Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

wrote in message
ups.com...


Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

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

Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.

Peter

On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:


What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A nice example of that is one of the citations used to 'prove' that
the 'Simpson' report could not be correct. (
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm )

In the report electricity is reduced to a commodity, the decision to
heat the tea-kettle with atoms or fire determined strictly in
accordance with economic principles. All of which is hilariously
wrong. Indeed, the profound depth of ignorance reflected in the
report is what lead to the Enron scam.

At the rate we're going I've a hunch thinking for yourself is liable
to become a Terrorist Activity :-)

-R.S.Hoover

On Jul 27, 1:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

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

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



Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.


Uh huh. Consider, for example, the widely-held misconception that
nuclear power plants are more energy efficient than fossil fuel
plants.

--

FF

On Jul 27, 6:54 am, " wrote:

...

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.


I've read that a similar approach is used to 'prove' that ethanol
production consumes more energy than is recovered by burning
it. Sunlight is included in the input side of the budget.

Of course that's perfectly correct, but don't forget to do the
same for fossil fuels...

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want
wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

Rich S.


Hee hee. I really must pay more attention to the news!

Peter

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.


That has always been a problem with high aspect ratio, low rpm wind
turbines. When the air is foggy (or even especially moist) the impact
of the blades causes the water vapor to condense. The liquid water is
then slung off the blade in the arc of its rotation. Where it
collects on the ground it promotes growth that attracts birds which in
turn attracts raptors to feed upon the birds. Unfortunately a
stooping hawk is a classic case of tunnel vision and they often fly
into the arc of the turbine. Of course, that makes the area safer for
the ground-foragers whose numbers tend to increase, which attracts
raptors from even farther away... as well as scavengers to feed upon
the slice & diced hawks. Interesting cycle. Here in California the
wind farm in Altamont Pass (E. of San Francisco ) is the main killing
ground but the other wind farms are doing their best to catch up.

But of course, that can't be right. After all, everyone know wind
power is environmentally friendly :-)

-R.S.Hoover

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:


Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

That's basically an old wives tale.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
else that sounds remotely plausible.

Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:


Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want
wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

That's basically an old wives tale.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
else that sounds remotely plausible.

Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

Wayne ............

My wife and I toured the wind farms in Eastern Washington two years ago and
spoke with the landowners and neighbors of the machinery. Without exception,
they *all* welcomed the presence of these machines. One farmer who, until
wind power arrived, was poor as a churchmouse, moved me with his tearful
description of how he now will be able to send his children to college.

Far from NIMBY, there are open arms waiting, and hoping, that their land
will be found suitable.

Old age also kills birds, but that does not mean that the killoff of raptors
by turbines is not significant. You know what they say about statistics!
My cat also loves an afternoon snack with either Chip or Dale. Yum!

Rich S.