[meteorite-list] OT: Solar Power

From: mail at mhmeteorites.com <mail_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:39:10 +0000
Message-ID: <1121945572-1300379950-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1548487615-_at_bda2682.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

As a geologist who has done some work for the solar industry, I can tell you it isn't "green" or "renewable". All the materials in a panel need to be mined or manufactured, which leaves a "footprint" on the environment. Also solar panels have a 20 year lifespan and cannot (yet) be recycled.

 We just need to be realistic about alternative sources of energy and stop calling them "green" or "renewable". That is a complete misnomer.

I know people in Colorado that tried to live off the grid. You can, to a point, but they have back up sources of power when the need that extra electricity (usually in the form of generator power from diesel). Solar panels are very inefficient, even worse than wind. In this day in age we need all the sources we can get. At least the Japanese situation is getting the discussion on the forefront.

Matt
------------------------
Matt Morgan
Mile High Meteorites
http://www.mhmeteorites.com
P.O. Box 151293
Lakewood, CO 80215

-----Original Message-----
From: Thunder Stone <stanleygregr at hotmail.com>
Sender: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:23:01
To: <mike at meteoriteguy.com>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; <astroroks at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT: Solar Power


Michael - well said.
 
I friend of mine in Colorado built her house that is entirely self-suffiecient using solor power.
 
Greg S.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:16:56 -0700
> From: mike at meteoriteguy.com
> Subject: OT: Solar Power
> To: stanleygregr at hotmail.com; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; astroroks at hotmail.com
>
> I am interested in the people still "poo-pooing" solar power. It cracks me up. Solar may not work well for Oregon, but in more than 50% of the USA, it would solve most of our energy needs.
> My house is now solar-powered. I have 38 panels, no battery, grid-tied system, installed in December. My last two electric bills for Jan was $6.85 and for Feb was $7.50. Taxes you see, and line bills, I actually produced 20% more than I used, so I have a credit for the coming hot months. Normal Jan and Feb electric bills more than $80, so 90% drop.
> Earning equivelent of 8%-9% on my investment, $50,000 increase in home value but tax free, and clean. At night I buy my power back from the grid after pumping in all day, my meter runs backwards all day, and Tucson has very few cloudy days.
>
> Keep crying about how nice Nuclear is and how EVIL Solar is, people like me laugh all the way to the bank. It works, oil and gas industry fighting it for decades, but solar going up all over Tucson. One Nuclear plant also gets more subsidies from the government than all solar power ever produced in this country, so it is the ultimate coorporate welfare program the GOP loves to cry about.
>
> Denmark and Holland have entire towns powered by a couple of wind turbines, and they pay all taxes by selling their power into the grid, I guess they are stupid people, they just don't know it.
>
> Michael Farmer
>
>
> --- On Thu, 3/17/11, Dennis Miller wrote:
>
> > From: Dennis Miller
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT: RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER
> > To: stanleygregr at hotmail.com, meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 10:00 AM
> >
> > Wind turbines, (1mega watt each) would need millions of
> > them and they only work when the wind is between 8 and 38
> > MPH.
> > The Audubon Society hates them for killing migratory and
> > predatory birds...
> > Solar, is just that, no storage for the power and only
> > works when the sun is shining. The State land use committees
> > hate
> > them because they take a lot of land and are ugly....
> > Hydroelectric, Great when you have the available water and
> > it is not interfering with protected fish. That these
> > rivers
> > remain navigable and the spawning is not interrupted.
> > Hey, if they can make a small portable Nuke plant, like the
> > ones on our Nuclear fleet, then they sure should be able
> > to make small nuke plants that would be safe and built in a
> > controlled environment. The USS Ronald Reagan that
> > is just off shore Japan is powered by a 250 MW Westinghouse
> > nuke plant... Needs refueling every 20 years.
> > Dennis O'Miller
> >
> >
> > > From: stanleygregr at hotmail.com
> > > To: sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net;
> > meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:29:48 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT: RISKS OF NUCLEAR
> > POWER
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder how many people have died from solar, wind,
> > and hydroelectric power?
> > >
> > > You forget the long term impact of radiation
> > exposure.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong, Nuclear power is good when safety
> > precautions are in place, but we seem to wait for disasters
> > and then respond to them.
> > >
> > > I have been an advocate for 'green' energy since the
> > 1970's, but here in the US, it always gets killed and
> > underfunded.
> > >
> > > Now let's get back to discussing meteorites.
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg S.
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > From: sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net
> > > > To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > > > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:38:58 -0500
> > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] OT: RISKS OF NUCLEAR
> > POWER
> > > >
> > > > List,
> > > >
> > > > We are invariably abnormally impressed by the
> > > > sudden occurrence of a rare, high-risk event.
> > > > We do not appraise them in a strictly rational
> > > > manner when this happens.
> > > >
> > > > The current application of fear caused by a very
> > > > rare event, as we see in Japan, is weighted
> > heavily.
> > > > For those interested in the actual data, the
> > human
> > > > cost, in lives, of the various means of electric
> > power
> > > > production are listed below.
> > > >
> > > > Deaths are for the period 1970 through 1992, the
> > > > only period for which data could be collected for
> > all
> > > > the means of production.
> > > >
> > > > All deaths are "immediate" deaths, and the
> > figures
> > > > are on a worldwide basis, which includes
> > countries
> > > > with less stringent industrial safety
> > requirements
> > > > than the U.S. This is the picture for the
> > Planet.
> > > >
> > > > Hydroelectric production accounted for roughly
> > 4000
> > > > deaths, of members of the public, or 883 deaths
> > per
> > > > terawatt-year. The vast majority of those deaths
> > were
> > > > from the failure of dams and impoundments.
> > > >
> > > > Coal power production produced about 6400
> > deaths,
> > > > all of workers, for a death rate of 342 deaths
> > per
> > > > terawatt-year. (Deaths from the mining of coal
> > are
> > > > included in proportion to the use of coal in
> > direct
> > > > power production.)
> > > >
> > > > Natural Gas power production resulted in some
> > > > 1200 deaths, of both industry workers and the
> > > > general public, for 85 deaths per terawatt-year.
> > > >
> > > > Nuclear Power resulted in 31 deaths, all of
> > workers,
> > > > for a total of 8 deaths per terawatt-year, or 1%
> > > > of the deaths from "safe" environmentally
> > friendly
> > > > hydroelectric power.
> > > >
> > > > The "other fuel," petroleum, is rarely used for
> > power
> > > > production but largely for transportation. How
> > deadly,
> > > > in these terms, is our transportation power use
> > in
> > > > cars and trucks as compared to the cost in life
> > of
> > > > power production?
> > > >
> > > > The U.S. consumed 0.138 teragallons of gasoline
> > > > on 2009 (at 4.175 watt-years per gallon), with a
> > > > total energy content of a "mere" 0.576
> > terawatt-years.
> > > > Highway deaths in 2009 were 33,963, which yields
> > > > 58,943 deaths per terawatt-year of power
> > consumed.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly, the use of this power source for
> > transport
> > > > is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than
> > > > the production of electrical power, however it
> > is
> > > > accomplished. Our reaction to this horrendous
> > > > risk is to complain about how much it costs us
> > to
> > > > fill'er up.
> > > >
> > > > Humans are not rational animals.
> > > >
> > > > The reduction in overall life expectancy in the
> > > > U.S. due to nuclear power production is
> > one-third
> > > > of the reduction in life expectancy caused by
> > eating
> > > > 8 ounces. of charcoal-broiled steak per week.
> > > >
> > > > Make mine medium-rare, please.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sterling K. Webb
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 17 Mar 2011 12:39:10 PM PDT