Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 107   Go Down

Author Topic: The American Constitution  (Read 83513 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14506
    • Flicker photos
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #820 on: June 25, 2019, 05:03:05 pm »

Oh, how can I forget.  As a medium format camera landscape shooter, I put over 50 pounds of Mamiya RB67 equipment and tripod in my trunk.  How would I get around without a car? 

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4928
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #821 on: June 25, 2019, 05:32:09 pm »

In America, the shift is going to crossover SUV's, not traditional SUVs.  Crossovers are basically sedan bodies with a SUV look and higher cabin sitting positions.  Frankly, my regular sedan drives smoother but the higher view in a SUV is nice.  And safer to drive.  But the drive is coarser.  Well, you do have a choice. 

Arguing that it's more fun to take a bus falls on deaf ears.  There's nothing like rolling up the windows, putting on some great music sound speakers, and getting comfortable in an auto from the garage in your house to the place you're going.   I also love just driving around.  Getting out in the country driving country roads are an escape.  I think you've forgotten how much fun it could be.

I think this is the generational difference that is setting millennials apart from others. 

Technically I am a Xennial, but I hate driving, I absolutely hate it.  I find nothing fun about it.  This is why I live in a city, so I don't have to drive for everything.  It's great going out for a dinner and drink, perhaps to meet friends, and not having to worry about getting a DUI because you had one extra drink.  It's great to be able to walk to the store and the bar and the park and anywhere else, and not dealing with traffic.  I cant believe people actually put up with traffic every day. 

The only time I consistently drive for are my photo shoots.  I have way too much equipment (like about 500 lbs of it) to bring any other way.  Even then though, I cant stand it. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #822 on: June 25, 2019, 06:09:32 pm »

Meanwhile, in the Commie America 🤣

“Fresno City leaders offer money to gang members in effort to reduce drive-by shootings”

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/in-effort-to-reduce-drive-by-shootings-fresno-city-leaders-offer-money-to-gang-members/

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4895
    • advantica blog
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #823 on: June 25, 2019, 06:10:23 pm »

Driving a car is becoming a luxury. I know people who gave up owning a car altogether, especially the ones living in Toronto downtown, or if they live in suburbs they are now forced into 7-year leases, to keep the monthly payments still affordable.  Renting cars is also more expensive than it used to be.

Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4895
    • advantica blog
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #824 on: June 25, 2019, 06:17:48 pm »

Oh, how can I forget.  As a medium format camera landscape shooter, I put over 50 pounds of Mamiya RB67 equipment and tripod in my trunk.  How would I get around without a car?
20 years ago, I carried 50 lbs of photo gear in a backpack and an extra bag, sometimes on rather challenging coastal trails. I downsized it now to about 10-15 lbs.
 
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #825 on: June 25, 2019, 06:18:36 pm »

Meanwhile, in the Commie America 🤣

“Fresno City leaders offer money to gang members in effort to reduce drive-by shootings”

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/in-effort-to-reduce-drive-by-shootings-fresno-city-leaders-offer-money-to-gang-members/

Still better to live in Fresno than subsidize red America with tax exempt status ;)

Man of God wants to kill gays.
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
    • Photographs
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #826 on: June 25, 2019, 06:26:17 pm »

Nuclear is safe because it is not an inherently dangerous power source, and this is due to the fact that it is good for business to have it that way.  If a nuclear power plant melts down, it is gone, done, no further ROI.  So it is good business to make sure it does not fail.  This is exactly what companies, on their own, are doing right now, trying to make it absolutely fool proof and come up with the next generation of reactors that are more efficient and powerful.  But government has gotten in the way so much so it is impossible to get a new nuclear plant built, and even harder with newer better designs. 

Pretty funny, there are safer better designs but because of how slow government runs, the government would rather you build an older type plant instead of a new one. 

The red tape is so thick that coal plants release more radiation then what nuclear plants are allowed to.  How silly is that. 

Insofar as Boeing, what's your point.  I believe the accident was caused by a programing glitch no one realized existed until an accident occurred.  It's tragic but how do you foresee it until after the fact.  Most responses on how the government could have prevented it are filled with hindsight bias.  The government did nothing, nor would have been able to, to prevent it.  And do you really think Boeing is fixing the problem due to government?  No!.  They are fixing it because they want to continue selling planes.  If they ignored it, no one would want to fly in a Boeing plane and they would loose business.  It just make sense to fix the problem. 

It also makes sense to make planes safer and safer as time goes on.  Do you really think a company would make planes to the same safety standards of the 30s if they could?  Come one, you're being irrational. 

Cars you say, well the cars of 30 years ago were not less safe because of less red tape.  They were less safe because innovations we have today had not yet been invented.  The government did not just all of a sudden think up some safety innovations and products and force them onto the car makers.  The car makers thought of these things and implemented them before the government even had a whiff of them.  Stop kidding yourself. 

Ahhh, the smog of Pittsburgh.  Guess what, no one really knew how bad smog was for your health pre 1940s. The industries let it get that bad simply because no one, including them, knew any better.  It was not until the 1948 Donora smog crisis that people started to take it seriously, Of course, when they found out how unsafe it was, they cleaned it up.  So what is the point?  It is a great example of a local government getting together and implementing a policy that hd direct results.  Not a large federal government run amuck with regulations, some of which no one can really explain.



Actually Joe, I agree with you.
Of course it makes sense for companies to make an effort to stay in business. It also makes perfect sense for them to make a profit. But if profit requires cutting corners, well then.

Air pollution was known as far back as the 13th century:
https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/water-and-air-pollution

In the latter part of the 13th century, in an effort to reduce air pollution, England’s King Edward I threatened Londoners with harsh penalties if they didn’t stop burning sea-coal. However, the king’s regulations–and those of subsequent leaders–had little effect.

People back then didn’t know the science of pollution but they certainly knew where the problem was coming from.

As for the Donora tragedy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog

Lawsuits were filed against U.S. Steel, which never acknowledged responsibility for the incident, calling it "an act of God".[3] While the steel company did not accept blame, it reached a settlement in 1951 in which it paid about $235,000, which was stretched over the 80 victims who had participated in the lawsuit, leaving them little after legal expenses were factored in. Representatives of American Steel and Wire settled the more than $4.6 million claimed in 130 damage suits at about 5% of what had been sought, noting that the company was prepared to show at trial that the smog had been caused by a "freak weather condition" that trapped over Donora "all of the smog coming from the homes, railroads, the steamboats, and the exhaust from automobiles, as well as the effluents from its plants."[4][7] U.S. Steel closed both plants by 1966.

So “act of god” and “freak weather conditions” were the defense of the factories. Right.

Also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_St._Louis_smog

Clearly it was known how air pollution was created.


As for Boeing, from Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

The 737 MAX's new Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), part of the automated flight controls, was suspected of sending each aircraft into a dive in response to erroneous data from an angle of attack (AoA) sensor. With FAA's agreement[1], Boeing did not include information about MCAS in flight crew manuals, and pilots only learned of the system after the Lion Air crash. U.S. pilots confronted Boeing for omitting MCAS documentation and made aviation safety reports about the airplane's uncommanded maneuvers. Aviation engineers criticized Boeing's safety analysis for allowing MCAS to exceed certified limits of control and to repeatedly pitch the airplane down, while using only one of two AoA sensors, which created a single point of failure. In addition, a cockpit indicator did not warn pilots when the two sensors differed. Boeing asserted the indicator was not critical, but said mistakes in the software disabled it. Boeing insisted the aircraft was safe, but admitted that MCAS was a factor in both accidents. The company said its communication about the 737 MAX was unacceptably inconsistent.

And there’s more here, in which the CEO tries to blame the pilots of the two crashes:
https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/boeing-ceo-puts-partial-blame-on-pilots-of-crashed-737-max-aircraft-for-not-completely-following-procedures.html


As for cars:
https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/timeline/index.html

The first Federal Safety Standards for cars become effective January 1, 1968. These new standards help protect drivers against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction or performance of motor vehicles.

NHTSA is officially established by the Highway Safety Act. NHTSA is responsible for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This is accomplished by setting and enforcing safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and through grants to State and local governments to enable them to conduct effective local highway safety programs.

In addition, NHTSA investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, sets and enforces fuel economy standards, helps States and local communities reduce the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of seat belts, child safety seats and air bags, investigates odometer fraud, establishes and enforces vehicle anti-theft regulations and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety topics.


And then there’s Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at any Speed. The book helped usher in many safety features, but the conservative group Human Events voted it an honorable mention in its Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries list. LOL.

And from Wikipedia:
Senate hearings prompted by the book led to the creation of the Department of Transportation and the predecessor agencies of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1966.

Interestingly, in 1966 GM conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation(and I thought Libertarians were a peaceful lot) for which Nader successfully sued.

As for nuclear power, the U.S. Regulatory Nuclear Commission is curiously without much information regarding safety. So the RNC has its share of critics, much of it being its lack of enforcement of station problems.

————

PS I’m well aware of the benefits of innovation of the private sector. How could one not be in this digital age? But believing that companies are inherently moral and ethical is either Pollyannish or cynical.

As that old joke goes, Take Google...please.

The End.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14506
    • Flicker photos
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #827 on: June 25, 2019, 07:49:04 pm »

No one is suggesting we shouldn;t be good stewards of the environment or have safety on our minds.  The question is where to stop.  Let me give you an example for a personal decision in this area. 

NYC building codes require not only smoke detectors in new office building construction to alert on fire.  But also to install water sprinkler systems that will put out fires when detected.  The sprinkler portion used to be an option but is now mandatory like smoke detectors.

However, there are no requirements for sprinklerization in single family home like yours and mine although codes require home smoke detectors.  Why not?  Aren't you and your kids valuable enough to have them?  Why only at the office?  Well, no one is stopping you from including them when your home is being built or adding them afterwards.  However, it costs money and there are certain aesthetic complaints where sprinkler heads have to be installed in ceilings.  But the main objection is money. People figure smoke detectors are enough.  They don't want to spend money on sprinklers.  But only sprinklers will put out the fire.  Meanwhile, in 2017 in the USA, 2,630 people, or 77 percent of all fire deaths, occurred in the home.

So here is the moral and financial conundrum.  Should your local building codes require sprinklerization?  Will you now install them anyway?  (PS- I don;t have them in my home but do have smoke detectors.  However, these alert locally.  They are not tied to the fire department or to my central service burglar company).


https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2018/September-October-2018/Features/2017-US-Fire-Loss-Report/Overview-of-the-2017-US-fire-experience

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #828 on: June 25, 2019, 11:32:05 pm »

We're here  in beautiful Banff,  enjoying nature.   It's so much fun to read a couple days worth of posts that pretty much repeat all the arguments from the climate change thread that Ray and I moderated a while back.   The same wrong stuff keeps getting posted when some simple research could get you the correct answer.   It's too difficult to collect things via a tablet so I shall not try.   I'll just settle back,  ignore those who should be ignored,  and chuckle over the rest.   

Good to see renewable energy in a thread about this Constitution.
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4895
    • advantica blog
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #829 on: June 26, 2019, 01:27:37 am »

I'm glad that you are enjoying Banff, Alan. No point getting distracted by the discussions about renewable energy and American constitution. Not only are the Rockies beautiful at this time of year, but Canada boasts also one of the most reasonable prices for cocaine.

A new UNODC report was published stating that in 2017 585,000 people died from drug overdoses worldwide, 70,0000 just in USA. Production of cocaine rose 25% relative to previous year. 70% of it grown in Columbia. Canada ranks second in the world for cocaine use, partly due to a good dealer network and bargain prices.

Quote
Despite being the most expensive drug in the world, the price of cocaine in Canada compared to the rest of the world might make it hard to quit. It costs about $85 per gram here compared to the global average of $120.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-ranks-second-in-the-world-for-cocaine-use-and-feeling-conflicted-about-it-report

Just watch out for bears. In 2010, there was a delicate situation in the neighbouring province, where a sloth of bears was recruited to guard a small marijuana farm.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/quot-grizzly-quot-discovery-during-b-c-drug-bust-1.543597
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4895
    • advantica blog
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #830 on: June 26, 2019, 02:26:12 am »

Follow up on renewable energy from Germany. Due to breezier weather than usual, last year they achieved very respectable results from their wind farms.

Quote
The share of renewable energies in electricity consumption increased significantly in the first six months of the year. Above all, the windy weather meant that green electricity has covered 44 percent of electricity consumption. This results from calculations of the energy association BDEW. For comparison: In the same period last year, it was 39 percent. The largest amount of green electricity was  produced with 55.8 billion kilowatt hours of wind turbines on land: They delivered 18 percent more than in the first half of 2018. Wind power at sea even increased by 30 percent to 12 billion kilowatt hours.

Solar plants supplied around 24 billion kilowatt hours, one billion more than in the same period of the previous year. From other sources of energy - especially biomass and hydropower - came to 36.7 billion kilowatt hours, 0.5 billion more than in the first half of 2018.

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windkraft-boom-oekostrom-anteil-in-deutschland-steigt-auf-rekordwert-a-1274318.html
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4928
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #831 on: June 26, 2019, 07:02:45 am »

Follow up on renewable energy from Germany. Due to breezier weather than usual, last year they achieved very respectable results from their wind farms.

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windkraft-boom-oekostrom-anteil-in-deutschland-steigt-auf-rekordwert-a-1274318.html

And what happens when you get a year like 2016 when it was less sunny and less windy? 

I suspect they burn more coal since that is what they do.  France will just continue to use its nuclear power without worrying about emissions. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4895
    • advantica blog
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #832 on: June 26, 2019, 07:51:41 am »

Well, you can look at the situation as half sunny and mostly windy, or partly cloudy and not so windy.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4928
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #833 on: June 26, 2019, 08:08:48 am »

Well, you can look at the situation as half sunny and mostly windy, or partly cloudy and not so windy.

Listen, I do not mean to confrontational here; I know I come off as so.  It's just that wind/solar has so many problems that are unavoidable with such a small amount of power outsource per acre with a very high cost of production, why bother even trying.  Not to mention there is no real life proof what so ever that using wind/solar helps lower carbon emissions.  We should be concentrating all of our attention on nuclear, which I think is where we eventually will end up.  I just want us there in a couple decades not 5 or 6. 

Anyway, just because it is not sunny does not mean it will be windy, and vis versa.  They just got lucky in 2018, and I'd rather not rely on luck. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #834 on: June 26, 2019, 08:19:06 am »

And what happens when you get a year like 2016 when it was less sunny and less windy? 

I suspect they burn more coal since that is what they do.  France will just continue to use its nuclear power without worrying about emissions.


But it does worry about emissions: Paris, for one, is a city regularly at danger levels of pollution and diesel is (or is about to be) banned from some cities. There may or may not be immediate pollution from nuclear plants, but I am far from convinced about its relative safety in the grander scheme of things. There is never something for nothing, not even lunches. Hell, it's the first law of physics!

Parts of the UK have over thirty-foot tidal rises/falls. The Bay of Biscay has amazing storms and waves. That energy can be harnessed, when there is a will. As with the rest of the alternatives to the unsustainable status quo, people with different beliefs cite costs today, without drawing any comparison with the alternative, future costs which are going to be far greater than monetary ones. Spending what sounds like a lot of money today to secure a future - a viable future where we can live on the surface of Earth rather than copy the mole, is still a more sensible bet than opting for cheaper today, the hell with tomorrow and future generations. I care about them: they are me.

There are no such tides in the Mediterranean; indeed, it has been shown that the Straits of Gibraltar have silted up in the past, leading to the the Med drying out: the proof has been found in the sediments. That said, there are deserts in many of its bordering countries, deserts of no use to man other than for the exploitation thereof for energy-producing farms. China has done a lot of this already, and not because it sees coal as its sustainable future - more as its suicide. The Chinese have never been fools.

If there is going to be anything that will scare the politicians into cooperation, it's going to be mutual survival. I am sure that, sooner or later, the world will be split into zones that produce different, exclusive products for worldwide distribution. Drive through France, fly over much of Britain, and you see lands that are very fertile, better used producing food than cars or tractors: do the same on your way to Nairobi and another truth hits you in the face. Frankly, without looking at the world's bigger picture rather than focussing on the national political and religious, there appears to be little chance of any worthwhile future. There is no need for each tiny country to try to be self-sufficient in all aspects; better to get real and combine across the world than try to dominate. Nobody can; sooner or later all empires crumble.

The thing is, those who still champion fossil fuels never try to explain what happens to all those escaping pollutants. Yes, some carbon falls back down and may be absorbed by the remaining jungles; where do they imagine the lighter than air gasses go? They can't escape gravity even though they may not sink down into more dense air and down to the ground.  All they can do is gather as different layers of toxic cloud. Has everyone forgotten about acid rain, and what it has done to bits of Scandinavia in the past? Much of northern Scotland is apparently what passes for photographic heaven for some people. Do they know that they are looking at a moorland that used to be forest, as it still would be but for our pollutants over the years?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 08:26:35 am by Rob C »
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4895
    • advantica blog
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #835 on: June 26, 2019, 08:32:33 am »

Listen, I do not mean to confrontational here; I know I come off as so.  It's just that wind/solar has so many problems that are unavoidable with such a small amount of power outsource per acre with a very high cost of production, why bother even trying.  Not to mention there is no real life proof what so ever that using wind/solar helps lower carbon emissions.  We should be concentrating all of our attention on nuclear, which I think is where we eventually will end up.  I just want us there in a couple decades not 5 or 6. 

Anyway, just because it is not sunny does not mean it will be windy, and vis versa.  They just got lucky in 2018, and I'd rather not rely on luck.

Yes, they got lucky in 2018. On the other hand, in the future, there will be more efficient solar panels and wind turbines, bigger and cheaper batteries, and other sources of renewable energy.  I agree on the nuclear energy and coal plants can be always used as a backup or in peak periods.

BTW, in Ontario sources of electricity include nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, gas and biomass. Coal plants have been phased out several years ago.
Logged

Kevin Gallagher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 958
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #836 on: June 26, 2019, 08:42:19 am »

We're here  in beautiful Banff,  enjoying nature.  It's so much fun to read a couple days worth of posts that pretty much repeat all the arguments from the climate change thread that Ray and I moderated a while back.   The same wrong stuff keeps getting posted when some simple research could get you the correct answer.   It's too difficult to collect things via a tablet so I shall not try.   I'll just settle back,  ignore those who should be ignored,  and chuckle over the rest.   



Yes, yes, it's been MONTHS since you last reminded us!


Edit: formatting only
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 01:01:13 pm by Jeremy Roussak »
Logged
Kevin In CT
All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal
 George Orwell

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4928
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #837 on: June 26, 2019, 08:51:06 am »

Yes, they got lucky in 2018. On the other hand, in the future, there will be more efficient solar panels and wind turbines, bigger and cheaper batteries, and other sources of renewable energy.  I agree on the nuclear energy and coal plants can be always used as a backup or in peak periods.

BTW, in Ontario sources of electricity include nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, gas and biomass. Coal plants have been phased out several years ago.

We have already far past the inflection point on gains in the efficiency of solar and wind.  Future gains will be very small while require larger and larger investments.  The physicists whom I have listened to who have looked into this all agree.  We are near the capacity of what solar and wind can give us.  Not to mention, why rely on a technology that only produces power 10% to 30% of the time. 

Insofar as batteries, they are a horrible option.  As mentioned before you loose 20% to 40% of power when you charge a battery and use the energy later.  Having a modern grid to draw power from is a much better and cheaper option.  For this to work, you need a base line power source, which wind and solar will never be due their intermittency.  Only nuclear and fossil fuels can do this. 



I should add, I think solar is great on roofs, but not in solar farms.  If you own a single family house and you want to install solar panels, I would be all for it.  If it was not that my roof will need to be replaced in a hand full of years, I would consider it.  But I'm not installing panels only to have to have them removed and reinstalled when the roof is replaced.  However, solar farms make no sense.  There are much better uses of land, even if you just leave it alone for nature to use, especially when you consider a nuclear plant used significantly less land and produces a lot of power on demand.  I am against wind turbines anywhere.  They kill large predator birds regardless of position, which is not good for the environment. 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 09:09:19 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #838 on: June 26, 2019, 09:08:21 am »

Insofar as batteries, they are a horrible option.  As mentioned before you loose 20% to 40% of power when you charge a battery and use the energy later.

Which still beats wasting 100% of the solar/wind energy because it isn't harvested, to begin with.

There are numerous other possibilities for storage of energy, like hydro-pumped or other kinetic energy based systems, air-compressed storage, Salt basins, conversion to Hydrogen gas, etc. They all have less than 100% efficiency, but that only changes the Total-Cost-of-Ownership, in particular, and the time it takes to break even. It will be a combination of technologies that need to be used in tandem, and regionally distributed (the wind usually blows somewhere else if not here, same for solar energy farms in addition to privately owned PVs).

There are also alternatives like Tidal energy, or Geothermal energy that need to be developed further if local geographic situations offer opportunities.

And in the longer term, Thorium reactors look promising.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4928
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #839 on: June 26, 2019, 09:27:23 am »

Which still beats wasting 100% of the solar/wind energy because it isn't harvested, to begin with.

There are numerous other possibilities for storage of energy, like hydro-pumped or other kinetic energy based systems, air-compressed storage, Salt basins, conversion to Hydrogen gas, etc. They all have less than 100% efficiency, but that only changes the Total-Cost-of-Ownership, in particular, and the time it takes to break even. It will be a combination of technologies that need to be used in tandem, and regionally distributed (the wind usually blows somewhere else if not here, same for solar energy farms in addition to privately owned PVs).

There are also alternatives like Tidal energy, or Geothermal energy that need to be developed further if local geographic situations offer opportunities.

And in the longer term, Thorium reactors look promising.

Cheers,
Bart

Please stop kidding yourself. 

Why spend so much money on wind and solar and then so much more on batteries, or whatever else, when you know you will be loosing at least 20% of the power generated.  It makes no damn sense.  Just spend the money on a reliable base load power source, such as nuclear. 

Hydro-basin and using water storage to spin turbines later can only work when there is a dam like design.  These are expensive to build.  Plus, you can't use salt water due to it corrosiveness.  So you need to use fresh water, and there are a lot better things to do with fresh water then letting it sit somewhere.  (Fresh water is only 1% of the total amount of water on the planet and is more valuable then people think.) 

Converting water to Hydrogen requires a lot of energy, which is why nearly all commercially available hydrogen comes from other sources, like fossil fuels.  I don't see this working either. 

I don't know how much energy it takes to compress gas, but I am assuming a lot more then can be harvested by releasing it. 

You're whole argument that wind blows somewhere and the sun shines somewhere ignores the financial fact that in order to take advantage of that, you need to build many multiple wind/solar farms and long range transmission lines with the knowledge that most of the time, the majority of them will not be producing and transporting power.  This is an incredible waste of resources and money better spent elsewhere.  Not to mention the shear amount of land required for a plan like this will put a great toll on the environment. 

Tidal energy is a lost cause; on the small scale, it may work, but not so great.  The reason, since waves don't actually move the water laterally (only up and down), you cant just place a turbine in the water and have it spin.  You need to build a devise which takes advantage of the vertical movement of the water and then transfers the energy through levers and gears to a turbine.  This makes it it a fairly complex machine that needs to be built with many points for failure over time.  Not to mention having something constantly half submerged half exposed in a salt water environment will greatly accurate rust and deterioration. 

Geothermal is great, where you can use it.  Unfortunately these areas are not so common. 

Yes, Thorium reactors do look promising.  We have good nuclear technology now, and that is where we should be putting our money in while waiting for Thorium reactors to become available. 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 09:45:58 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 107   Go Up