Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: "Brad Guth" <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 01:36:05 +0000 (UTC)
"dave.walters" <dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170548179.510789.70190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Brad, you can't prove any of the things you are speculating below. You
argument is essentially: build be big enough space solar panels, and
let me bean the power back to earth, and I'll solve the energy crisis.
That's you in a nutshell. Solar has YET to pay for one net gain of
energy. Does that mean that people shouldn't put in on their roofs?
No. Does it mean we can't concerve? No. But you are on drugs if you
think you can reduce the electrical load of, say, Boston, in August by
'redesign'. This is why no one listens to you.
Yes I and the regular laws of physics can prove my speculations, as to
what I'm sharing is God's truth and nothing but the truth. No it's not
"essentially: build be big enough space solar panels, and let me bean
the power back to earth". If you folks could only read, as such you'd
know that it has absolutely nothing to do with space or that of our
moon's L1. It's purely terrestrial of solar/wind energy combined, all
the way to accomplishing those terrific energy density footprints of
37.5 kj/m2.
Only a true blue all-american naysay and otherwise infomercial spewing
bigot as yourself could have imagined otherwise. It also takes such an
anti-think-tank village idiot like yourself in order to create such
nasty perpetrated wars over the remaining fossil and yellowcake fuels.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
- References:
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: dave . walters
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Prev by Date: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Next by Date: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Previous by thread: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Next by thread: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
