Re: Solar, not nuclear

"bill" <ford_prefect42@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170568185.473600.129300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Brad, it would be a little less impossible to believe a word
you say if you were to back it up with something other than "these are
honest to god numbers" and instead SHOW US THE FUCKING NUMBERS.

You're absolutely right; It's based upon the foundation/footprint
energy density of 37.5 KJhr/m2, although I'd thought that was sort of a
given since most of the KW terminology usage is usually based upon the
hourly give or take. Sorry for my not getting the basic meaning of your
topic feedback/flak, whereas getting my honest dyslexic open mindset to
focus all the way down to understanding your perverted naysay closed
mindset level of always looking to disqualify upon anything that isn't
your idea to begin with, has often been easier said than done.

I've already been there and done that, having provided those numbers
that is. Whereas it's currently becoming off the shelf at 37.5 KJhr/m2,
as the potential footprint of energy density capability of what a
solar+wind derived alternative can deliver upon average. That's
utilizing the 100 meter diameter wind turbine of 3.5 MJhr and the 50
meter diameter PVs along with a similar to PV amount of Stirling energy,
or simply raw solar extracted thermal units as rather easily stored as
whatever heated fluid that's derived per installation, all situated upon
the same foundation/footprint that we can all safely live with.

A joule of energy is still equal to a watt of energy, in other words; 1
joule/second = 1 watt/second. I know that's a wee bit complicated to
appreciate, but if you can't manage a 1:1 ratio of math, then what else
can I or anyone else do?

I'd thought yourself and others of your kind were a whole lot smarter
than all the rest of us outsider village idiots combined. Do we also
have to hold your infomercial spewing pecker while you're at the urinal?

I'm not saying we can't do better than 37.5 KJhr/m2, as well as in the
future seeing 50 KJhr/m2 as representing what should be obtainable from
a given foundation footprint, that's accommodating a composite of such
modern solar and wind derived energy per tower. Trust me, it's not even
close to being rocket science.

First you said 50 KW/m2, and then you switched it over to 50 KJ/m2,
now which is it,
Unlike yourself, I obviously do make more than my fair share of silly
mistakes, though usually honest and more than obvious enough that even a
certified mainstream village idiot as yourself shouldn't have had any
problems in getting my drift. So what's the difference? If I'd meant
to say kwhr, that would obviously be quite different than having
specified kj, whereas kw, KW or kj, KJ are essentially one in the same
energy unit as per second. However, a KJhr is also the same as a KWhr
that's usually stipulated in American slang as simply though incorrectly
as KW. Once again, so what's the difference? (perhaps nothing, except
the matter of fact that you're nothing but a certified village idiot
moron, or perhaps something much worse since you're always looking for
ways of bashing or banishing whomever's rocking your mainstream status
quo boat of sustaining those big-energy cartels)

I challenge you to prove to me that lighting can be provided at 1/100
of the energy per lumen compared to flourescent, or that a 90% efficient
furnace can be made to produce 10 times the heat per btu of input, or
for that matter that a house that's insulated to R49 (attic) and R19
(walls) can be made to require 1/100 the btus to heat/cool.
Where the hell did all of that naysay fortified interpretation come
from? Your mainstream polished naysayism is unsurpassed, as not even
Hitler was that naysay/negative or anti-truth.

Obviously you and others of your Old Testament thumping and/or whatever
faith-based kind haven't heard of or having elected to banish my basalt
composite R1024/m (U = .00097656 j/m2/k) insulation, that's actually a
bit structural and fire proof none the less.


curious how you plan to produce products such as food, clothing and
appliances at 1/100 the current energy requirements, and don't bother
trying the bull*** line about the disposability of the current
manufacturing processes, those things exist for good and real reasons,
such as technology advances making planned obsolescence necessary, and
other engineering aspects you're probably incapable of comrehending.
You're one of those all or nothing types, arnt you. A serious naysayer
on steroids without so much as a stitch of remorse to boot. You'll
interpret down upon anything into the nearest space-toilet in order to
suit your Old Testament status quo. How sad and pathetic of yourself.

If you're so all-knowing and other wise wizardly smart, lets see some of
your topic constructive related contributions, including whatever polite
math corrections plus whatever else your closed mindset can muster.


The fact is, life involves energy, and the only way to reduce by
85% the energy requirements of the world is by killing 90% of the
people in it, is that your plan?
We americans are really good at currently wasting 90% of the available
energy that's involved in our everyday life. Obviously it'll still
demand nearly the same degree process energy for creating many products
such as glass, silica, steel, aluminum and countless plastics and other
stuff that's extensively derived from the same spendy coal and oil we're
running ourselves out of, while we continually rape and pollute the
living crapolla out of mother Earth. However, as it stands there's not
a sufficient supply of domestic energy for accomplishing such major
productions of such energy intensive products, so we're summarily
screwed because of folks exactly like yourself that can't manage to pull
your own pants down before taking yet another energy consuming crap.


this bull*** to excuse your opposition of nuclear power (the only
thing that with current technology can fill the requirements for on-
demand energy in a carbon neutral way) are resonsible for the
continued use of fossil fuels.
I have absolutely nothing against the honest workings of nuclear (those
darn nuclear efficient French seem to have that energy coffin nailed
shut), other than the truth that's to behold that's simply not being
openly shared by those in charge of squeezing our private parts. We'll
need, as a global energy consuming species, at least 5% nuclear derived
energy. At a near future population of 1e10 folks (unless that's
moderated by WW-III), 5% is worth 0.5e9 individuals receiving at least a
kj/soul = 0.5e9 kj/second worth of our global energy that'll likely be
derived from nuclear.

That's worth a 1800 GWhr output, or roughly 18 of those 100 GWhr nuclear
plants running full tilt 24/7 and 364+ days per year after year, with
more of the same on the way as our global population growth fails to
slow, and where each and every one of us wants their very own SUV and
those energy consuming 100" HDTVs parked in each and every room of our
2000 square foot/soul habitat (making our average fully air conditioned
family home worth 8000 sf + an Olympic sized heated pool or simply a his
and her set of heated lap pools).
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.

Quantcast