My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:58:02 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"David G. Nagel" wrote

Hydro and it's problems.

Problems? What problems? Last I checked, hydro was clean, non polluting,
and has the advantage of helping to control floods.

Lot of ecological side effects. Good for short term flood control, but
may cause problems long term. A lot depends on the area where the dam
is located.

What sort of "problems"?

Blocking fish that need to swim upstream to spawn, destroying upstream
habitats by submergence, forcing subsistence farmers off their land and
moving them into overcrowded and polluted cities...
--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:58:02 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"David G. Nagel" wrote

Hydro and it's problems.

Problems? What problems? Last I checked, hydro was clean, non
polluting,
and has the advantage of helping to control floods.

Lot of ecological side effects. Good for short term flood control, but
may cause problems long term. A lot depends on the area where the dam
is located.

What sort of "problems"?

On 2007-10-21 14:58:02 -0700, "Morgans" said:


"David G. Nagel" wrote

Hydro and it's problems.

Problems? What problems? Last I checked, hydro was clean, non polluting,
and has the advantage of helping to control floods.

Here in the west there is considerable pressure to dismantle the dams
already in place. They are being blamed for weak salmon runs (as if
over-fishing and the recovery in the seal and sea lion population have
had nothing to do with it), concentration of heavy metals near the
dams, flooding of "critical habitat," and just about every other sin
people can think of.

There are environmentalists who believe that the worst possible thing
that could happen to the earth would be for someone to discover a
cheap, non-polluting source of energy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

These are the same people who think that we should get rid of all the people
of the world except for a few hundred of their fellow believers.


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:200710240644108930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-10-21 14:58:02 -0700, "Morgans" said:


"David G. Nagel" wrote

Hydro and it's problems.

Problems? What problems? Last I checked, hydro was clean, non
polluting,
and has the advantage of helping to control floods.

Here in the west there is considerable pressure to dismantle the dams
already in place. They are being blamed for weak salmon runs (as if
over-fishing and the recovery in the seal and sea lion population have had
nothing to do with it), concentration of heavy metals near the dams,
flooding of "critical habitat," and just about every other sin people can
think of.

There are environmentalists who believe that the worst possible thing that
could happen to the earth would be for someone to discover a cheap,
non-polluting source of energy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Mike Spera" wrote:

If I recall the article I read a few years back correctly, conventional
glass covered solar panels require more energy to make than they will ever
produce in their entire lives. Anyone have any data?

http://jupiter.clarion.edu/~jpearce/.../netenergy.pdf


ABSTRACT
A number of detailed studies on the energy requirements on the three types of
photovoltaic (PV) materials, which make up the majority of the active solar
market: single crystal,polycrystalline, and amorphous silicon were reviewed.
It was found that modern PV cells based on these silicon technologies pay for
themselves in terms of energy in a few years (1-5 years). They thus generate
enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31
reproductions)depending on what type of material, balance of system, and the
geographic location of the system. It was found that regardless of material,
built-in PV systems are a superior ecological choice to centralized PV
plants. Finally, the results indicate that efficiency plays a secondary role
to embodied energy in theoverall net energy production of modern solar cells.

"Mike Noel" wrote in message
. ..
Blocking fish that need to swim upstream to spawn, destroying upstream
habitats by submergence, forcing subsistence farmers off their land and
moving them into overcrowded and polluted cities...
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Yes, I suppose floods are not THAT bad...especially when the Feds can then
bail them out.

Enjoy your futures.


http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:58:02 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"David G. Nagel" wrote

Hydro and it's problems.

Problems? What problems? Last I checked, hydro was clean, non
polluting,
and has the advantage of helping to control floods.

Lot of ecological side effects. Good for short term flood control, but
may cause problems long term. A lot depends on the area where the dam
is located.

What sort of "problems"?

In article ,
Morgans wrote:

"Edward A. Falk" wrote

... With solar panels on the roof to charge it,
it becomes pretty green.

Unless you park it for a few weeks between uses, solar cells don't come
close to providing enough power to make it a viable charging option.

Ooops. My bad. I meant the roof of my house.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article ,
Mike Spera wrote:

If I recall the article I read a few years back correctly, conventional
glass covered solar panels require more energy to make than they will
ever produce in their entire lives. Anyone have any data?

Energy payback is about a year. They have an official lifetime of 30
years*, so it's a 30-1 energy profit over their lifetimes.. This is about
on par with oil pumped from the mid east and better than anything else.
The worst is ethanol with a 1-1 energy profit.

(*that 30-year number is all the manufacturers are willing to guarantee.
I'm told that the actual number is closer to 250.)

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Morgans wrote:

"Edward A. Falk" wrote

... With solar panels on the roof to charge it,
it becomes pretty green.

Unless you park it for a few weeks between uses, solar cells don't come
close to providing enough power to make it a viable charging option.

Ooops. My bad. I meant the roof of my house.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

So you charge it at night from the solar panels?

Or perhaps you charge batteries in the house on good weather days, and
then transfer to your car at night?

Sunlight
(with losses) Solar panel on house
(with losses) Battery in house
(with losses) Battery in car
(with losses) motor.

This is pretty green?

How many good weather days will it take to drive to work once?

Al G

If I recall the article I read a few years back correctly, conventional
glass covered solar panels require more energy to make than they will ever
produce in their entire lives. Anyone have any data?


http://jupiter.clarion.edu/~jpearce/.../netenergy.pdf


ABSTRACT
A number of detailed studies on the energy requirements on the three types of
photovoltaic (PV) materials, which make up the majority of the active solar
market: single crystal,polycrystalline, and amorphous silicon were reviewed.
It was found that modern PV cells based on these silicon technologies pay for
themselves in terms of energy in a few years (1-5 years). They thus generate
enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31
reproductions)depending on what type of material, balance of system, and the
geographic location of the system. It was found that regardless of material,
built-in PV systems are a superior ecological choice to centralized PV
plants. Finally, the results indicate that efficiency plays a secondary role
to embodied energy in theoverall net energy production of modern solar cells.



Interesting, but this study readily admits in both paragraphs under
"Introduction" that total LCA (life cycle analysis) for the
gathering/mining of the raw materials, transportation of all materials,
entire production of the cells, glass panels, metal frames, batteries,
wiring, electronics, and disposal/recycling of all components is too
difficult and that each individual system would have to be quantified
independently.

Thus, their conclusions above are based only on "Net Energy Analysis"
(the study of only the PV cells themselves).

I would like to believe there is a solution to the energy problem. Not
sure yet if PV is it.

Thanks for the info and research. It was interesting.

Mike