Re: Solar, not nuclear

"daestrom" <daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45cfd139$0$5770$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Since you still claim kw/m2 is 'energy denstiy', it's obvious you don't know
what you're talking about. If you can't conform to known scientific units
of measure, why should we believe any of your data?

You're being that silly naysay jewboy again, arnt you.


A given surface footprint of energy density is in the honest realm of 40
kw/m2 (with some towers and of their deeper foundation it's much better
yet), that is unless you're talking honest birth to grave nuclear which
hasn't squat to offer that's as good as 400 w/m2.
-
Brad Guth


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