Chip with simple program for Toy

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote

BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

re: what to do immediately, then asap thereafter

Immediately if not sooner, "explicitly incentivized" carpooling,

No need to do that, it will happen when the price of gasoline gets high enough.

which i've pushef for ad nauseam, though here's it again, two-thirds down the page

http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ciij9hJ31n6zA==

T. Boone Pickens' natural gas conversions for trucks, busses, and "goods
carriers" appeals to me as something radical that can be done for sure

Not practical with diesel engines.

Pickens' wind energy is ok by me too,

No thanks, complete waste of time if you're on the grid.

tho "not in my backyard" people do seem to hate the ugly esthetic and whiny noise

the apparently many universities that are concentrating
on various alternative energy ideas is GOOD

Nope, makes a lot more sense to move to nukes instead.

infrastructure improvements a-plenty

re ALASKA-ARCTIC, FLORIDA, CALIF, ETAL these oughta at least
allow maximal seismic and other oil & natual gas TESTINGS off their
semi pristine coasts, and plans at least need be readied if the
"energy war" requires such, and it currently appears to me
that it certainlydoes, as we devolve into recession-depression

That last isnt going to happen.

wacky playboy & genius Howard Hiughes should be brought back
from the dead so he could invent some other drilling breakthrough

Too dead.

an efficient, safe nuclear power plant table model should be ready too,

Its here now.

via virtual puterizing and super-computer fact sorting out and
distilling it's time to employ quality personnel whom know how
to do it w/o all the corruption, fuckk-ups and over runs the cost
over runs appear to me to be njormative, disingenuous rip-off
by the power companies, contractors and unions involved

What we do need is nukes that cant be used for producing
weapons and those can be sold to the countrys that cant be
trusted with nukes that can be used to produce weapons.

coal--->scrubbed semi-clean & gasolene, jet fuel, blah, blah ditto the similar above b.s.

so,yeah, i am coping out

in other words, i dunno

since the voters have rejecected me (my innocuous ideas)
about using prisoners and the chronically unemployed to
make solar stuff two or three decades ago,

Nukes made a hell of a lot more sense then.

then the "energy defense" or "energy war" is not my decision to make anyway

as usual, usa society appears to me to be "gridlocked" in endless
argumentation, admittedly all the sides have good ideas with contradictions

And it will all get sorted out when the oil price gets high enough.

V for Vendicar · Jul 28, 2008

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.

Oh look, another RepubliKKKan Turd with a sexual Fetish.

This one for water sports, and probably scat too.

So Pissboy ROD, if that is your real name.... Which do you like better,
EuroScat, AmeriKKKanScat, or JapScat?

Fatherland Security needs to know.

Tom Biasi · Jul 28, 2008

"H. Dixon" <huwdixon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c09754e4-34e7-48aa-8648-5c4a3c8970cb@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Stupid question probably but what does the (T1) specification for
LED's mean?

H. Dixon

Not a stupid question.
See here: http://www.oselectronics.com/ose_p69.htm

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.

I'll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive in low pH soil..

Pathetic.

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote:

"Oil price maintenance" is as constitutional as everything
else, so it's not per se a legalistic thing; thoough wouldn't
the public de-ball any politician that endorses such ?

Unlikely that any politician would actually be that stupid.

though this article seems very sensible, it ain't gonna be, unless
by intellectual subtefuge thru p.r. with convoluted machinations

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

Taint gunna happen anyway.

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy."

Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.

Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?

Then I tell them,

"Cheap oil = easy street"

"Expensive oil = full employment"

You can get middle school students to shut up with that one.

Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Taint gunna happen anyway.

Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change reality.

You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar
would be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes
to charge the rack again and how many cars would be
swapping the rack on even a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large
scale, truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.

That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.

Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is
the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to
where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised
charging would just make that problem much worse and you would
need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.

I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.

There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.

This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller,

They wouldnt even be that.

to meet the demands of space in cities

There are no demands like that with car filling stations.

Part of viability would be to be able to move in and appropriate prior infrastructure.

Yes, and gasoline refilling stations would be fine for recharging the batterys from the mains size wise.

and allow swap stations to be in as many places as gas
stations are now, if the racks were just trucked in and out.

You dont need to truck them in and out, just recharge them at the swap stations.

Possible, if the underground area was appropriated and
devoted to automatic battery pack moving machinary.

You wouldnt even need the underground area and so you could leave
the gasoline tanks there so that the two modes could coexist etc.

And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.

That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power.

Corse there isnt. Its a trivial calculation.

Do you have any links to the calculation

You dont need that, I already told you how to do the calculation.

The word you need for the numbers is solar insolation.

or do you know of a way to explain it in basic language?

I already did that too. Even with perfect capture of all the
solar falling on the swap site, there just isnt enough to charge
all those batterys with a swap station on an interstate.

The company that is getting ready to attempt to power Albuquerque New
Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims that it would take a couple
hundred spuare miles in the desert west to power the entire country.

Pity thats a lie and it wouldnt work with rechargable batterys for cars anyway.

You might have me on that one

I do indeed.

since I heard and interview with the company making the mirrors and establishing
their tried and tested standards with solar powered steam engine generators and
thermos storage of superheated water technologies.

http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/670088/ISvars/default/Schott_Solar_Building_New_Plan.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6dlqjl

Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.

I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact
that your unviable approach would be even less viable if the
batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.

I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out.

I didnt say you did.

Then were you saying that trucking them in and out alone would not be viable,

Yes, because it would increase the time needed to recharge the
batterys from an already unviable time to an even more unviable time.

And that if you charge them from the mains, you dont need to truck them around anymore.

by raising the point as supportive evidence for you position?

It isnt my position, I am letting the air out of your silly scheme that just plain wont work.

I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some types of service stations.

They could be charged in all of those if you're charging them from the grid.

I suppose it might be possible have a days worth of battery packs in one station,

Nope, not with a station on the interstate.

but some gas stations may be to small, even after
appropriating the underground storage area for gas.

Wrong with the smaller ones that arent on the interstate.

But in others they would be trucked in and out.

Nope.

Why not?

I already told you why not. It increase the time needed to recharge the
batterys from an already unviable time to and even more unviable time.

And you have a problem with what the truck is powered with
in spades with all those batterys being carted around daily.

The only thing that makes any sense at all is to charge the batterys
from the mains at the swap stations and forget about using solar.

And that STILL wouldnt be viable.

Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to work with.

The definition is that it works. Your scheme wouldnt.

Well I will try and find a definition we can use,

Thats the definition, stupid.

if you disagree feel free to pick another from the page.

I already told you what the definition is.

...an action or proposed action which has a feasible, realistic outcome...

What I said I different words.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aviable

If by "works" you mean "feasible, realistic outcome"
which part of my "scheme" is not "feasible and realistic"?

I already told you that, repeatedly.

Remember you use of "feasible" and "realistic" must be applicable to other
uses and not stipulated with special conditions solely for this argument.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.

You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.

Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or
40 batteries with the right amperage and current?

Wrong with batterys that are the entire power source of the car.

Ya, isn't that about 20 yellow tops like they use in golf carts? I
think they use 6 of them, I use two myself for extra power in my
vehicle. Most auto stores can cook one of these to 98% in one hour,

Not from fully discharged they cant.

though it will get hot. These are used in wheelchairs also.

http://www.optimabatteries.com/optima_products/yellowtop.php

At many auto stores they can completely charge
one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot.

Wrong again. They certainly cant do that with the batterys in electric vehicles.

They would need 20 dedicated cookers for one hours to charge a pack.

Wrong again.

But I don't know much more about the charging abilities.

You clearly dont know anything about it. And they arent 'cookers' they are chargers.

I suppose places that make these batteries have massive simualtanious charging abilities.

Nope, they dont need to charge them.

won't work" it sounds like you
have some pretty solid evidence to back that up with.

Yep, have a look at the charge times of electric vehicles some time.

Well there are probably regulations that won't allow home
owners to run chargers that can cook the battery up.

Wrong again.

Probably the auto shops need a certification or liscense to use them.

Nope.

Its like your saying certainly without a doubt it won't work now or ever.

Thats what I am saying with an interstate full
of cars swapping the batterys every 200 miles.

Does it just seem unrealistic

Nope, it *IS* unrealistic.

or are you imaginng a complete replacement of the gas/fuel scheme as it exists?

Its your scheme, not mine.

There is alot of gas out there along the roads, so obviously
there would have to be alot of anything that eventually replaces it.

Yep, but the problem aint with the number of swap stations,
the problem is how long it takes to recharge the batterys.

Remember, before the automobile, horse and buggy days, the idea of having gas
wherever people normally then rode their bio-vehicle [horses] would seem absurd.

Irrelevant to now. Its certainly possible to turn the existing gasoline stations
into battery swap stations. But still wont be viable because you cant charge
the batterys fast enough to be viable with a swap station on the interstates.

I am curious about that, considering you strong and emotional looking language.

Its not strong or emotional looking, its just the fact.

Is the fact based upon current technology and infrastructure alone,

Nope.

or I mean how would these "facts" be used against possibilities in the near and far future?

Yep.

Are you asserting something about how long this situation will persist?

Yep, we havent invented a way to charge the batterys fast enough.

Until that happens your scheme isnt viable.

Is it the number of batteries required or the distribution and
charging that will never allow the schene to become real?

Just the charging.

I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
assumptions about how we get from here to there?

Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.

Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable"

Nope. I'm saying that charging from the mains isnt viable, and that
centralised charging stations are even less viable, essentially because
that just adds to the time it takes to recharge the battery with the
transport time to the central charging station and back.

Here is where I suppose I would wander off from the oil refining
and electric generation metaphor and move it over to farming.

It aint a metaphor, its how long it takes to charge a battery.

Many areas would farm the solar heat and then distribute it.

Yes, but that aint charging batterys.

But I admit I am making this up as I go along.

It is a viable approach and is essentially what the Brazillians do with their
ethanol production, farm sugar cane, turn the into alcohol and use that as
a fuel in their cars. Perfectly viable and they are doing it right now.

But as to your point of "just adds time", I think that any one of the schemes could be made to work

You're just plain wrong.

but some would be more expensive.

That isnt the problem.

I suppose a bunch of styles would be experimented with and competition
would settle the issue as to what is most efficient for us then.

Not when none of them can charge the batterys fast enough
to be viable with a battery swap station on an interstate.

And that solar charging is even less viable again, because the sun doesnt
shine long enough strong enough so that adds to the charging time even more.

I can accept that language for logic sake.

Nothing to accept.

This is where storing heated water in giant themoses wold be more viable.

Nope, because even with a perfect system, central charging stations
add too much time to the already unviable battery charge time.

Maybe even solar panels for the day and heated water during
the day used to run steam engines spinning generators at night.

Pointless when even charging the batterys from the mains isnt viable.

Why not just bypass solar panels and batteries and just boil water with mirrors?

Pointless because even charging the batterys from the mains isnt viable.

There's no point wanking about doing it with solar when it wont even work on the mains.

http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/670088/ISvars/default/Schott_Solar_Building_New_Plan.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6dlqjl

Upon reading my statement of "all hung up" I am sorry, I should have
said "dogmatic about how the issue of how to get from here to there.

Still just plain wrong. Nothing dogmatic about the facts.

Well I mean that it just sounded dogmatic since
your contention didn't seem to offer any evidence,

Thats still not dogmatic, its just a lack of the evidence you want.

;

That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic,
as I have addressed the topic.

Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt
the problem, how the batterys are swapped.

Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would
probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard
arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in,
in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in.

The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.

Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there
wouldn't be enough light to charge more batteries than each
station could use?

No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the
rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars
heading down the interstate.

Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?

Using solar, yep.

When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or
even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in
a day" do you mean now or ever?

Ever with solar. Essentially because there isnt ever going
to be enough solar falling on the site that you use to do the
charging, even if you assume an ideal collection of everything
that falls on that site, and the technology will never get that good.

Also to make such a strong claim

Again, it isnt a strong claim, its just basic physics.

Can you provide any information to back that up?

I already told you how to find that information for yourself. Use the words <solar insolation>

And how would it apply to mirrors, steam engines, generators and thermoses?

Doesnt change a thing. They are still limited by the
amount of solar energy falling on the battery swap site.

And when recharging from the mains isnt viable, there's no point in mindlessly wanking about solar.

it seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how
much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it.
Can you do that?

Its completely routine for anyone to check what solar falls on a particular location.

Have you gone through the routine in your area

Yep, and I know how it varys around the world too.

or are you quoting authorities which have?

Its just a routine calculation, it doesnt even need to be
measured except when you are working out how much
less than the theoretical potential is available due to cloud etc.

It wont work even with perfect cloudless days every day.

If the later do you have any links to their data?

Use the words <solar insolation> and look it up for yourself.

The later is a good method of arguing as long as you can point to sources.

Dont need sources, all we need is the calculation and
even you should be able to look that up for yourself.

It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic,

Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much
area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many
batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ?

Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells.

Makes no difference, there isnt enough solar arriving at the entire charging site.

This assumes alot about what mirrors can do, specifically magnify.

Nope, they cant magnify the solar energy falling on the site.

ALL they can ever do is concentrate the solar that falls on the mirror.

This company in New Mexico has determined that they would
only need 4 square miles of mirrors, steam engines and
generators, to power Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day.

Pity that most of the US doesnt have anything like that much solar.

The youtube video showed one mirror heating enough water to run a small steam engine.

Pity that it doesnt collect enough solar energy to charge that many batterys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as
many batteries as people could use, would the limitation
be upon how much space is present or how much is usable.

Neither. The problem is that the batterys are
discharged faster than you can charge them.

But in the auto battery rack swap scheme no one owns any batteries.

Irrelevant.

There would probably be a deposit and then a
fee for the electricity in each pack switched out.

Irrelevant.

I suppose in the gasoline world it would be like instead
of filling up, an arm would come out and swap gas tanks.

Again, missing the point utterly.

Making this up as I go along just concentrating
on the logic and consistency of the arguments.

And missing the point utterly.

The problem is with the charging of the batterys, not with the swapping of them.

As I have told you repeatedly.

In one ear and straight out the other.

And the idea that things can be trucked
around the country in very large scales is not odd.

Its just not practical with batterys that only last for 200 miles.

A company or chain of companies might think it would be profitable.

It cant possibly be profitable when its not viable.

The idea wouldn't seem strange to Walmart considering
the tonage they move around the country daily.

None of their customers use up anything like that volume so quickly.

The liquid fuel industry doesnt either.

Why would that stop them from making a buck if it was "viable"?

It *ISNT* viable, as I have explained repeatedly.

which of course would be begging the question itself.

Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.

Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more
premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion.

No one is doing that.

You may not be doing that but your argument style gives the appearance
of merely repeating your premise and claiming it is conclusive.

Then you need to get your eyes tested, BAD.

Maybe your premise is your conclusion

Nope.

which is OK as long as it has some justifiability or premises to back it up.

Done that repeatedly. It just goes in one ear and straight out the other with you.

Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion.
When you correctly claim that "it takes too long to recharge them,
compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all
those cars heading down the interstate" you are simply assuming that
the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises

Nope, I'm rubbing your nose in the fact that that is true.

What do you mean by "rubbing your nose in the fact"?

You cant be THAT stupid.

Do you mean pointing out a fact with emphasis?

Nope, I mean rubbing your nose in the fact.

Besides you need to back up this argument that
concludes with the "facts" you have not done that yet.

You're lying now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

Just more completely irrelevant mindless silly shit.

and this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion;

Never said it was the evidence, it is the fact tho.

the implied conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there
will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive scale.

I never ever said anything like that either.

Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate
to existing energy production an distribution methods?

Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar.

When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to
shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your
contention about my proposal?

Just look at the amount of solar that falls on the swap site
and assume a perfect collection of all of that solar. There
just isnt enough of it with a swap station on an interstate.

And even if there was, even doing the charging using the grid wont fly either.

I would think that the battery industry would "farm" its own electricity.

Doesnt matter what you claim to 'think', it just isnt viable to do that.

But why couldn't the grid be increased to handle it?

The problem aint with the size of the grid, THE PROBLEM IS WITH HOW
LONG IT TAKES TO RECHARGE THE BATTERYS FROM THE GRID.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Just more mindless silly shit.

The Appeal to Ridicule

It isnt even that.

is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Its mindless silly shit anyway.

If we consider your argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly,

Nope, nothing like.

but you would have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense.
Afraid your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily
are constructed logically.

Wrong again.

My contention was that whenever we make any areguments in predicate
logic, we use logic and grammar, else these aruments would be
illogical & ungrammatical. Any time a fallacy is apparent there is
usually something wrong with the argument style, this, even if the
argument is true, it falsifies itself as illogical.

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Already did that.

Biodiesel for farming.

LPG and CNG for cars.

Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.

Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
enough for long enough to make that economically viable.

Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.

Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.

Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.

Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.

Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
or LPG or CNG to run the engine.

I like your approach man. Some of your response
styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates
easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments.

Dont need any of that, the list above is fine.

Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments.

Dont need any of that either.

How would you defend your position on nuclear
when someone comes up with these attacks?

Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now
and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way.

...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

energy source,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,

Completely routine to do that.

the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage,

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

the possibility of nuclear proliferation

Irrelevant when used in the first world.

and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...

No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well.

...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining,

No worse than coal mining it replaces.

radioactive effluent emissions,

Coal burning power stations emit even more
because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn.

and waste heat...

Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway.

...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear Near Misses at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
nearly two hundred near misses to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in
the United States".

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards:
Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century
claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and india that have those already.

Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes
the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason
as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium.

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production.

As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology,
whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production.

...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
by- products of nuclear fissionthe nuclear waste generated
by the plant were to be unprotected it could be used as a
radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...

Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation
with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make
any difference to that because they have nukes already.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Rob Dekker · Jul 28, 2008

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f2krbF9iil8U1@mid.individual.net...

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an
interesting experiment converting a school bus into an electric
vehicle.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf

The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery
pack. These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery
(in 2003). In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet
goes to about $20,000 for the same battery pack.

Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most
notably its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of
'rare' metals. Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main
ingredients.

Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery
vans) seem to be a great early adopter to become "electrified",
not just because of their frequent stops (regenerative braking
advantages), and air pollution (noone likes stinking diesels in
urban areas), but also because they run short trips (no more
than one day at a time).

ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already
competitive with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

Any numbers ?

YOU made that stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.

THATS how it works.

Rod, you are now officially a dick-head in my view.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.

What your view might or might not be on anything at all in spades.

First of, I did not make the claim, Bret did.

You're lying now. YOU made that claim about hydrocarbons.

So you are not only a dick-head, you are also a retard.
Just go back through the tread about who said what.

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Already did that.
Biodiesel for farming.
LPG and CNG for cars.
Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.
Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.
Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.
Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than
power from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly
not available when its most in demand in most modern first world
countrys.
Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
or LPG or CNG to run the engine.
I like your approach man. Some of your response
styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates
easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments.

Dont need any of that, the list above is fine.

Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting
arguments.

Dont need any of that either.

How would you defend your position on nuclear
when someone comes up with these attacks?

Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now
and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way.

...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

and decline [66]energy source,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,

Completely routine to do that.

the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by
accident or sabotage,

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

the possibility of nuclear proliferation

Irrelevant when used in the first world.

and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...

No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well.

...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include
Uranium mining,

No worse than coal mining it replaces.

radioactive effluent emissions,

Coal burning power stations emit even more
because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn.

and waste heat...

Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway.

...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear Near Misses at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals
that
nearly two hundred near misses to nuclear meltdowns have occurred
in
the United States".

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly
magnified, they say.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly
unreported, that have occurred.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor
Hazards:
Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century
claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past
years...

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and
related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and
india that have those already.

Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes
the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason
as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into
plutonium.

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for
weapons production.

As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology,
whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for
weapons production.

...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
by- products of nuclear fissionthe nuclear waste generated
by the plant were to be unprotected it could be used as a
radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...

Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation
with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make
any difference to that because they have nukes already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Just checking.

Modern electronic transfers make a lot more sense.

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an
interesting experiment converting a school bus into an electric vehicle.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf

The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery
pack. These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery
(in 2003). In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet
goes to about $20,000 for the same battery pack.

Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most
notably its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of 'rare'
metals. Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.

Technically, school busses (and city busses and most
delivery vans) seem to be a great early adopter to become
"electrified", not just because of their frequent stops
(regenerative braking advantages), and air pollution (noone
likes stinking diesels in urban areas), but also because they
run short trips (no more than one day at a time).

ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already
competitive with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

Any numbers ?

YOU made that stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.

THATS how it works.

Rod, you are now officially a dick-head in my view.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What your view might or might not be on anything at all in spades.

First of, I did not make the claim, Bret did.

You're lying now. YOU made that claim about hydrocarbons.

So you are not only a dick-head, you are also a retard.
Just go back through the tread about who said what.

You did, liar.

Rob Dekker · Jul 28, 2008

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:2kvr84p7i6446sch65jb50r4tf258p05kh@4ax.com...

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:11:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

One plant in San Jose puts out a GW a year.

And it's area is ?

I'ld assume it is the 15% rating applied to the 1kW/m^2 figure, 6.7
m^2/kW X 1 GW X 1,000,000 kW/GW = 6.7 million m^2.

Have you EVER heard of something called INSOLATION ?

How else are they going to rate their plant's capacity?

Whoooooosssshhhhhhh !

WOW you really are dumb.I'm not quite sure I've ever seen anyone miss the
point quite as effectively as you just did.

---
He probably thinks insolation is something you put in your attic and
walls to keep the sun's heat out in summer.

JF

You guys having fun beating around the bush ?

Rob Dekker · Jul 28, 2008

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:488CFD0C.7D74B39D@hotmail.com...

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.

It might also go down. Suggest you inspect history.

Also, newer tech diesel engines are getting ever more efficicent. Check out
Detroit Diesel's site IIRC for example. They're not letting the grass grow under
their feet.

Graham

Thanks Graham,

I know that diesels (especially lately) are probably the most efficient ICEs around.
But do you see any efficiency numbers for the new diesels ? Can't find much on detroitdiesel.com.

Rob

Rod Speed · Jul 28, 2008

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Diesel power is now almost 4X the cost of the grid.

Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.

Battery cost is 2X - 3X grid cost

Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.

and the combination is just now about equal to or
in some areas already below the cost of diesel.

Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.

Unlike electric road vehicles and plug in hybrids, battery energy density
is not much an issue with farm tractors which can recharge every few minutes.