Solar Panels

[Mike Halmarack]

Clear to you perhaps. I have noticed that you enjoy a certain "clarity".

[Doctor Drivel]

There is..

You got it..electric motors

75% of a car's tank of fuel is wasted. It is cheaper, and envormentally better, to pour the fuel in a turbine, make electricity, send to homes or charging points, charge a battery in a car and run a car on a small electric motor - the Toshiba battery can be 80% charged in 3 mins, 100% in 5. Only 5% of the enrgy stored in a battery is wasted. Electric cars do not pollute at point of use, and the lungs of millions of people in cities will be spared (it is worth doing for that alone). Battery technology has come along way in the past 5 years and all is here now and feasible. Not only that there is the "just introduced" batteries that will make matters even better, and as time moves on battery technology will improve even further as competition takes hold.

Current cars are scrapped because they are uneconomic to repair. The body and suspension may be sound and management system may have gone, so scrapped they are. They are complex and inefficient. Electric cars have little to them and will last a hell of a time, about twice that of current cars. So, imbedded energy in making cars is far less too. All adds up. You know it make sense.

....and on and on.....

[Steven Briggs]

In message , Matt writes

Yeah, but when a single dam failure kills 15000 in India, and there have been a number of other dam failures over the years, it soon adds up. Quick Google : e.g Hoover dam, 96 fatalities during construction. Although of course a different era in terms of construction site safety. This is absolutely not to knock renewables, but to put into context the irrational fear of nuclear. I spent my childhood 10 miles from Sellafield. I know old friends who work there now, I know of people from the village killed there.

[meow2222]

Feel free to quote numbers of deaths in the coal and nuke industries, only then will will the relevant data be presented. A tale of a single incident tells us very little.

NT

[Mike Halmarack]

I do feel free, thanks. Do you believe that "devastating effects" are gauged only in terms of direct loss of human life?

[meow2222]

While I agree the figures dont support the popular hysteria surrounding nukes, I cant say I'm entirely at rest with some of the figures quoted here.

only 31? That sure doesnt jive with anything I've read.

ditto

estimated... according to.... Maybe, but its hardly established.

This old chestnut has nothing to do with western power industries, nothing at all. It tells us nothing about how safe or otherwise our industies are here.

which power industry was this connected with?

it would help to have figures for deaths and terawatt-hours, as the above are not easy so to check, and the 31 figure for Chernobyl is hard to swallow.

NT

[Steven Briggs]

In message , [e-mail] writes

I agree with your thoughts, I did quote the source (Nuclear Industry Association / Paul Scherrer Institute) so I think some bias can be expected. Quoting against TWh undoubtedly puts nuclear in a "good" light, due the high baseload generally placed on such plants, i.e. lots of TWh generated. Could not the same also be said for coal though?

Lies, damned lies and statistics ;-)

[meow2222]

no numbers = no point.

NT

[Mike Halmarack]

You want numbers, you make 'em up!

[meow2222]

I already said where they came from, you're just too behind the curve to notice I dont make things up, or understand why. I may be incorrect at times, but I dont just make it up.

Numbers can be disuputed, challenged, and corrected if in error, building a clearer picture as we go along. Its one of the reasons we use them. If you have another number for how much a =A32000 pro solar systems save, feel free to give it. No-one has been able to offer any such yet.

If my numbers are wrong, please correct them. One of my purposes here is to learn.

NT

[Mary Fisher]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ................................

[Mike Halmarack]

You don't understand why, what?

That's because others make it up for you perhaps?

I've got nothing against numbers when used beneficially. I often use them when I'm doing woodwork. Nothing fancy mind, I'm only a d-i-y sort of chap.

When "We" start using numbers that's when my eyes start to glaze over. They're not called NUMBers for nothing you know.

Father Coleman who used to visit our school was a great representative of "WE". He used to take some time and care explaining the the difference between the "WE" he represented and the riff-raff he was currently addressing was that "WE" knew what Jesus meant when he said "I Am Who Am", whereas, the riff-raff would never understand what it meant if they recited it daily like the Catechism.

Priest aren't the power in the land that they used to be. Scientists are filling that niche now, attended by their fine feathered acolytes and good lay personnel.

I do feel free, thanks. I concede that your numbers are bigger than my numbers by, at the very least, a whisker.

I'm sure your numbers are very nice dear, you play with them all you want. I'm sure you'll learn a lot.

Once the mechanism is in place to charge for and tax sun and wind, the NUMBers will probably change pronto.

[David Hansen]

On 11 Mar 2006 07:50:23 -0800 someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

Incorrect.

Perhaps not all messages have propagated to the news server you are using.