OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:a16b995f-2d69-4e96-a47c-64e480173a99@googlegroups.com:

For that matter, most restrooms are
likely using nat gas to heat the water because that's far cheaper
to begin with.

Damn boy! Are you really that fucking stupid? I clearly stated this
was about HWOD systems. Companies across the face of the nation were
lulled into the idea that placing HWOD units on their hot water lines
would be cheaper than a tank and long, insulated runs.

How can you sit there googleing up your bullshit attempts at
understanding something and miss that detail?

And your only (failed) argument against is some lame about where the
batteries would be placed.

 

[John Doe]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote

Of course no solar company has never "failed us".....

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy
companies...
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills...($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Cost for solar (and wind) generation was driven down to
where coal-fired major power facilities are uncompetitive, which
was an entirely worthwhile goal.

Tell that to Germans. Their dirty coal use has skyrocketed since
giving up nuclear, even though they have massively subsidized
solar and windmills.

 

[John Doe]

Regular Australian troll...

--
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:748c:: with SMTP id v12mr7519908qtq.211.1569553107013; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4c16:: with SMTP id z22mr1831167qka.42.1569553106772; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!o24no2387324qtl.0!news-out.google.com!q23ni687qtl.1!nntp.google.com!o24no2387317qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0860ace3-98c3-4081-8233-c01581b9b97c googlegroups.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.32.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org> <qlqs4h$14rf$1 gioia.aioe.org> <ddca1f3b-4b88-435b-af62-5de5a17e86d9 googlegroups.com> <f6e9a26d-c3f2-4447-ad1c-8e2a29f5f84f googlegroups.com> <b3ac040c-e488-4ce1-9ec8-6bcbb2124bd4 googlegroups.com> <0f124212-50cf-45be-a46f-c0c1229efdfa googlegroups.com> <qmgjo2$7gp$2 dont-email.me> <74125ebf-cd20-4f23-8b70-c716951d6270 googlegroups.com> <6a0075f3-d211-45af-a96b-373bf854b01b googlegroups.com> <2b847fd0-1e7a-401d-bbc0-cba241f7de88 googlegroups.com> <44b3b8e6-4128-43e5-a8c9-37d8502cca7b googlegroups.com> <2cf30add-34e0-4eb7-bcc8-5ed939a61e78 googlegroups.com> <f2f1ef5c-1638-44fc-8448-f928a527c8c6 googlegroups.com> <1d23f8d4-550c-4b0b-aa7f-1cb2007820d3 googlegroups.com> <1229b0b1-bc71-41d3-934f-58ea15f5eaa8 googlegroups.com> <0860ace3-98c3-4081-8233-c01581b9b97c googlegroups.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <051659c1-035d-42ea-8e6b-77e3e4bbc9a2 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:58:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:566173

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:21:35 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:18:19 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:31:01 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:29:59 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energ
y is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE

So you don't believe any of the issues that resulted in these disaste
rs are worthy of attention and we should be building reactors like the ones built in the 60s?

That's completely illogical. Chernobyl has two major design elements
that ought NOT be repeated, clearly. And far from telling me WHAT lesson, you sweep a hand and talk of 'disasters'. And we are talking about major projects, when are such issues EVER other than worthy of attention?

'like the ones built in the 60s' doesn't seem on-topic at all. Is tha
t about alternatives to graphite-core water-cooled units?

Potential of damage to the core releasing radiation is a threshold us
ed to measure risk.

Predict, perhaps. But measure? It doesn't have the right UNITS for h
uman-health risk.

Just the risk from such damage due to earthquakes...
The starting number for the Indian Point reactor was 1 in 17,000, sti
ll an amazing number to be willing to live with.

It beats all hollow the expected safe years of operation for the old Un
ion Carbide plant near Bhopal.

So, why does this answer my question about 'lessons learned'? This is
NOT something that was learned in any disaster (and learning is not random, cannot be covered by statistical reasoning of this sort anyhow).

Me, I can't get over the fact that mostly the same bunch telling us nucle
ar
is too expensive, too dangerous, are telling us that the world is going t
o
suffer an irreversible disaster soon from CO2.

The group that is demonstrably more intelligent than Trader4?

Nuclear is one thing that could be used that has zero emissions.

If you don't count nuclear waste as an "emission". The fact that you have to keep it secure for 100,000-odd years means that it is an "emission" even if you don't dump it in the nearest river.

And as for cost, carbon taxes and the like, they have no problems with th
at, eh? Which of course just discredits them.

Trader4 hasn't noticed that solar and wind generation are now as cheap as burning fossil carbon, and is too dumb to realise that the process that has cut the cost of solar power by a factor of four over the past 20 years is going to cut it by another factor of four as it takes over as the major source of electric power.

He would have discredited himself in the process, if he had had any credibility to start with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

But of course as any grown-up knows (that excludes this Australian
troll), a scenario making fun of idiots, like my asteroid sending
the Earth out of orbit, need not be scientifically correct.

The area surrounding Chernobyl is now chock-full of wildlife with
few human beings. This cannibal leftist should be ecstatic...

--
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:113a:: with SMTP id p26mr754186qkk.353.1569458527236; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5812:: with SMTP id dd18mr538769qvb.136.1569458526975; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!o24no9791034qtl.0!news-out.google.com!q23ni468qtl.1!nntp.google.com!o24no9791030qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qmgk93$7gp$3 dont-email.me
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.32.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org> <e7VgF.383512$cG6.261323 fx34.iad> <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com> <9b593ba7-5a3c-4928-bcde-7a9b5650d4c4 googlegroups.com> <qmgk93$7gp$3 dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae45086c-828f-4c76-a74c-2137e9e1f764 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:42:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:566060

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:56:08 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
-
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:133a:: with SMTP id p26mr953645qkj.317.156
8943509161; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:350e:: with SMTP id y14mr454680qtb.310.15689435
09011; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.etern
al-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o24no1538919qtl.0!news-out.google.com!x7ni1074qtf.0!nntp.google.com!o24no1538912qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.3
2.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org
e7VgF.383512$cG6.261323 fx34.iad> <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9b593ba7-5a3c-4928-bcde-7a9b5650d4c4 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nucle
ar power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:38:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 32
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:565499

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:52:50 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote
:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
John Doe wrote:
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nucle
ar
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends

something else, but it could.

[...]

At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.

And then Fukushima happened.

Jeroen Belleman
...and the CO2 emission problem DID NOT CHANGE; ditto regarding GW.
Hell, even Santa did not change his protocol...
Ditto regarding our favorite ball players.
Ditto regarding astronomers.
Or the weather reporters.
Or the way circuit boards are designed and made.
GET IT?
Not related.

We get some of the strangest posts from otherwise normal sounding peop
le.

What's up with that?

Robert Baer is a baer of very little brain. He rarely sounds normal.

The so-called Fukushima disaster killed a grand total of one person.
The massive tsunami along with some man-made problems that caused
the nuclear reactor to fail killed 20,000 people (plus an
astronomical amount of property damage). But the antinuclear freaks
say nothing about that while whining about the "Fukushima disaster".

Why should they? The reactors aren't working any more, and their failure forced the evacuation of the surrounding area.

One day a giant meteor will slam into Earth, sending us perilously
out of orbit.

The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn't send the earth "out of orbit".

John Doe doesn't understand astrophysics either.

The antinuclear freaks will be screaming "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

Only if they are as stupid and ill-informed as John Doe.

One of the many Australian trolls on USENET...

John Doe thinks that he isn't a troll, and thinks that anybody who points out that he is has to be a troll. As I said, he's stupid and ill-informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

Why stop there? Put everything on batteries and charge them up at
night?

In some cases that would actually work. Small unitary
office/business settings.

> Sounds dumb to me

This group has placed very little credence into what things sound
like to you. I have placed even less.

instead of just installing solar and
using that during the day with no need for batteries or new
appliances or to rewire anything other than the solar/main panel
connection.

Solar does not power industrial comnsumers. At best, those that
use it wire it to lighting or some other choice as a supplement.
They cannot power the entire facility. Much less any heavy
machinery.

Nobody ever said that you could do math, and you often prove it as
such.

A company could set up an alternate system for some non-mission
critical elements of their facilities. It would not be very hard and
qould definitely save them money.

You remember what money is, right?

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

I'm aware that *some* electric companies, in some places, offer
that, yes. Which is why I accepted that fact when you brought it
up. It will make less and less sense moving forward though,
because as solar is added, we'll have more generation power during
the day, so there is no logical reason to shift it to night.

Absolute horseshit.

As solar is added. It will not, however displace.

Day to night rate differences will last for a few more decades so
my idea is quite viable.

The main reason is because most of US industry is a day shift
paradigm. The power companies are happy when anyone shifts their
consumption window to a less demanding one.

Try for another sidestep, boy.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 26/09/2019 05:08, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:6601b96d-102e-43dd-be7e-18c8202f5463@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 11:45:38 PM UTC+10, Whoey
Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:04:08 AM UTC+10, Whoey
Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bill
Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:59:14 PM UTC+10,
k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:21:33 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in
newsm9goe9e5ka37evl5maavps4lrchdebtj3@4ax.com:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:48:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:721db584-4fca-48b8-
b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:

Per the example above, the cost of the grid then
gets divided up over less customers,

snip


But if you had a working brain, you wouldn't have posted this
trivial observation in the first place. It was always
irrelevant, which pretty much sums you up too.


It's not irrelevant. Solar homes are getting a free ride, being
subsidized by their neighbors, including the poor, who don't have
solar, because solar homes aren't paying for the grid. Half of
the poor families electric bill is for the grid. And I'm not
the one that brought up 'subsidies', Rick did, complaining about
"subsidies" he alleges oil companies are getting, when he didn't
even understand what he claims are subsidies are not subsidies at
all. The solar example sure is.

Long live the truth!

Trader4 doesn't have a clue.

There is a problem with roof-top solar generation and the grid -
at least in Australia - but it doesn't look much like the problem
Trader4 thinks we need to address.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/grid-voltage-rise-solar/

The answer probably involves adding home batteries to roof-top
solar, and an internet of things connection to let the inverter
know when the grid wants it to pump power into the grid or into -
or out of - the battery.

Setting up an equitable payment system is going to be one of the
problems that needs solving, but Trader4's moans that one part of
the current system isn't there yet aren't a constructive part of
the debate.


+1 on each and every point.

I like the battery idea.

I stated ten years ago (or more) that big companies in the US using
now considered 'modern' hot water systems in their workplace by
placing HWOD units instead of water heater tanks in their restrooms
and kitchens could save millions and relieve the grid by further
adding battery storage systems and powering said HWOD units with the
battery pack, and charging said packs at night when demand is low
(and rates). And think about also that say six bathrooms are up with
four sinks each. Say two are being used. Instead of the on till
ready 3kW water tank, we now have 12 1.2kW units all popping onto the

A 1.2kW HWOD unit will barely produce a trickle of hot water. They are
the tatty poorly insulated under bench close coupled hot water supplies
with a 15L or 10L tank that just eat electricity when they are on.

A real HWOD system is 6kW and upwards. They are common in the UK but
mostly gas powered as a flash boiler on the main central heating boiler.
You can get electric ones like electric showers also 6kW or 8kW but they
require dedicated wiring they will not sit happily on a ring main.

Hot water in low latitude countries is best supplied by harnessing the
suns energy to make hot water and have a larger thermal store.

grid at once. at each location in the vast industrial parks of
America. They jump on... they jump off... the current spikes up,
then down. I mean no more than a big industrial machine but still...
Putting it on batteries and refilling those at night would be a great
way to take drops from the daytime load bucket.

It is more maint, and more labor intensive and high initial cost
and money to build it into current systems. But still.

But those HWOD units will work on DC no problem. Even better.

But whom do I tell? I could cut down on megawatts of (daytime)
consumption, but those companies would have to get on board. Maybe
that would be a good use for a Tesla battery.

Anyway... my idea... years ago... could save millions of bucks
and redistribute workloads nicely...

As usual... goes ignored.

You are nearly an order of magnitude wide of the mark.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:57:07 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:a16b995f-2d69-4e96-a47c-
64e480173a99@googlegroups.com:

. Most restrooms probably don't have a
total hot water bill of hundreds of dollars a month.

The campus I was on when I conceived of it had 6 3 story football
field sized buildings that had around four, six sink restrooms per
gender in each of them.

Their HWOD usage added up to a substantial portion of their bill.

I guess you have no clue that off-peak hours are charged at a
signifcantly lower rate.

I'm aware that *some* electric companies, in some places, offer that,
yes. Which is why I accepted that fact when you brought it up. It will
make less and less sense moving forward though, because as solar is
added, we'll have more generation power during the day, so there is
no logical reason to shift it to night.


Spending those hours trickle charging your

battery pack back up to peak would be far cheaper than the daytime
on-demand usage when the business rate is so high.

Who claims it's "so high" and that the cost of your scheme isn't the
same or higher?



Hell, even the

coffee service wattage could be put on the battery set and recover at
night.

Why stop there? Put everything on batteries and charge them up at night?
Sounds dumb to me instead of just installing solar and using that during
the day with no need for batteries or new appliances or to rewire anything
other than the solar/main panel connection.

Maybe you have never seen a huge engineering, design, and
manufacturing campus before.

They only have rest rooms there? ROFL

If it's such a great idea, put your money into it and go offer it
and see how much the whole thing costs, how long the batteries last,
how much it costs to install, vs the difference in a rest room electric
bill for hot water and see how well it sells. If you want lower cost
hot water, just use natural gas, which I bet most rest rooms are already
doing.

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qmkeva$r7k$4@dont-
email.me:

The area surrounding Chernobyl is now chock-full of wildlife with
few human beings. This cannibal leftist should be ecstatic...

Yes... some new (morphed species as well). But pretty much back to
normal (for nature). I do not know if there is any residual elements
around that were iradiated. (besides those new species parents).

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

If you want lower cost
hot water, just use natural gas, which I bet most rest rooms are
already doing.

You are thick skulled, boy. No room in there for actual brain
matter.

You were already told. Most use HWOD.

I would use a tank as I feel that hot water should be VERY hot, and
the USER at the tap dials in the temp wanted.

Also, it is well known that tank accumulate bio-contaminants. That
is one reason why a lot of companies went to HWOD.

So the hot water side here (and everywhere a tank is used) shows way
higher numbers than the cold water side on contaminants.

You ain't all that bright, lard ass.

 

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:qmkv9u$1qap$1@gioia.aioe.org:

A 1.2kW HWOD unit will barely produce a trickle of hot water.

Exactly. And standing there with it running waiting for it to heat
up the pipe, etc. makes it worse. All tyhe more reason to offset the
consumption.

They
are the tatty poorly insulated under bench close coupled hot water
supplies with a 15L or 10L tank that just eat electricity when
they are on.

There are no tanks on those I saw. They were strictly in-line
time of use devices.

Small, sink-side tanks as those you mention would make the hand
washing experience proper though )and more sanitary). No sense
providing it when the user never sees it, yet the watts still get
burned and they do 'provide'. Many just seem unaware that they are
mostly ineffectual, just like TraitorTard4... ineffectual.

 

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:qmkv9u$1qap$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Hot water in low latitude countries is best supplied by harnessing
the suns energy to make hot water and have a larger thermal store.

Anywhere long daylight sunlit hours are available, a hot water pre-
heat depository would also be wise. That is another thing they
should do but don't.

My uncle heated his pool water and pre-heated his household hot
water way back in the '70s in Florida. He was a very early adopter.

He also worked at the IBM facility there and developed the first
ATM machine. It was huge 5 ft wide by 4 ft deep by 7 ft tall. I was
in my early teens and had some of the fake money and one of the test
debit cards. I wish I had kept it. IBM collectables and such.

 

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:qmkv9u
$1qap$1@gioia.aioe.org:

You are nearly an order of magnitude wide of the mark.

No. You, however, seem to think that all HWOD systems are like
those you are familiar with.

Here... we have huge gas or electric tanks OR small HWOD systems
in place.

I do not see any gas fired HWOD systems here, but that does not
mean I am unaware of them or that they do not exist.

I was talking about locations where electrical means are what they
use. I was talking about saving THEM money.

You talking about gas is what is wide off the mark, bub.

I know they could save electrical costs by using gas. That was not
the discusssion.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:57:58 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

If you want lower cost
hot water, just use natural gas, which I bet most rest rooms are
already doing.

You are thick skulled, boy. No room in there for actual brain
matter.

You were already told. Most use HWOD.

And they can also use nat gas, stupid. In fact, for on demand, a lot
more use nat gas than use electric, for obvious reasons. It's a lot
easier to get the required amount of energy from gas than it is from
electric and gas is cheaper. Go take a look at Home Depot.

I would use a tank as I feel that hot water should be VERY hot, and
the USER at the tap dials in the temp wanted.

Make up your mind, first you talk about on-demand systems, now you
say you want a tank. And let's add more complexity and scald people too.
A very hot water tank is less efficient than one at a more reasonable
temperature, it's one simple thing people can do to lower their bills,
which I thought was your objective. Now you want batteries to heat
a tank of water to high temperature. As for adjusting the water
temperature at the sink, we've been doing that
for a hundred years, either with two valves or with a single handle mixing faucet.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:44:14 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

Why stop there? Put everything on batteries and charge them up at
night?

In some cases that would actually work. Small unitary
office/business settings.

Sounds dumb to me

This group has placed very little credence into what things sound
like to you. I have placed even less.


instead of just installing solar and
using that during the day with no need for batteries or new
appliances or to rewire anything other than the solar/main panel
connection.



Solar does not power industrial comnsumers. At best, those that
use it wire it to lighting or some other choice as a supplement.
They cannot power the entire facility. Much less any heavy
machinery.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, there is this thing called the GRID.
And there are these things called solar farms or solar parks.
They generate electric and put it into the grid. So do homes producing
excess during the day. They all put solar electric into the grid
and then customers use it, whether your rest room is in a commercial
facility or residential doesn't matter, the electric is coming from
the grid, with an increasing share being from solar.

As for your claim that solar heating is unviable for industrial, how about this:


Tesla’s gigafactory, located in Reno Nevada, is it’s largest manufacturing facility and will run entirely on solar power once the building is complete. The gigafactory will help to build motors for Tesla’s electric vehicles as well as its Tesla Powerwall and Powerpack products.



https://news.energysage.com/solar-factories-do-solar-panels-make-sense-for-manufacturing/

When it comes to commercial applications like corporate offices and manufacturing plants, the beauty of solar is that most energy use occurs during the day. Large commercial plants can benefit from solar power without needing to buy a storage solution to cover nighttime energy usage. When a factory’s energy use is at its peak, a solar system will equivalently be at peak production whereas at night, the facility requires little energy while the solar system is dormant.

Furthermore, larger commercial solar systems are an even better deal in terms of long-term savings because of the economies of scale dynamic with solar power. EnergySage Solar Marketplace pricing data, as well as other third party data providers, are in consensus that the cost per watt a consumer will pay for a solar system will decrease as the system size increases. Commercial and utility-scale solar installations are largely responsible for giving solar the title of cheapest energy resource in the world.

Why factory roofs sweeten the deal

Though it’s clear that solar makes sense for factories contextually, they are also a great use case due to the style of roof most commonly associated with large commercial buildings. Factories are known for having large flat roofs with plenty of ample roof space, offering an ideal installation site for solar panels.



Wrong, always wrong.

And if you're so focused on having some hot water for rest rooms and
you want to install storage batteries to use night rate electric,
why not just install a solar water heater on the roof? Commercial
facilities typically have lots of roof space. It would cost less
than your battery BS,wouldn't require space for batteries inside
a facility and once installed, the operating cost for energy is ZERO.
I'd suggest the reason it's not being done is that these electric
water heating bills aren't that big, most are using nat gas, etc.

Nobody ever said that you could do math, and you often prove it as
such.

A company could set up an alternate system for some non-mission
critical elements of their facilities. It would not be very hard and
qould definitely save them money.

You remember what money is, right?

Yes, which is why I suggested you take your money and use it to start a
company to use storage batteries and night rate electric to provide hot
water to rest rooms.

 

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:08:53 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

I stated ten years ago (or more) that big companies in the US using
now considered 'modern' hot water systems in their workplace by
placing HWOD units instead of water heater tanks in their restrooms
and kitchens could save millions and relieve the grid by further
adding battery storage systems and powering said HWOD units with the
battery pack, and charging said packs at night when demand is low
(and rates).

Storing electricity in batteries to be used several hours later to
heat water doesn't make any sense. Much cheaper is to use an insulated
water tank, heat the water during cheap electricity and use the warm
water when needed.

Even better, use vacuum solar collectors to heat up the water during a
sunny day, even if the outdoor temperature is below zero degrees. In
Middle East they have even a simpler system, they just put white
plastic tanks on the roofs and the water temperature is suitable for
taking a shower in the evening.

Battery storage makes sense for electric use in electronics and
lighting, not for heating water due to the low total efficiency.

 

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:57:52 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

If you want lower cost
hot water, just use natural gas, which I bet most rest rooms are
already doing.

You are thick skulled, boy. No room in there for actual brain
matter.

You were already told. Most use HWOD.

I would use a tank as I feel that hot water should be VERY hot, and
the USER at the tap dials in the temp wanted.

Also, it is well known that tank accumulate bio-contaminants. That
is one reason why a lot of companies went to HWOD.

The bio-contaminents are the reason to keep the hot water pipe
temperatures above 55-65 C.

So the hot water side here (and everywhere a tank is used) shows way
higher numbers than the cold water side on contaminants.

You ain't all that bright, lard ass.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:50:07 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

--
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:113a:: with SMTP id p26mr754186qkk.353.1569458527236; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5812:: with SMTP id dd18mr538769qvb.136.1569458526975; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!o24no9791034qtl.0!news-out.google.com!q23ni468qtl.1!nntp.google.com!o24no9791030qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qmgk93$7gp$3 dont-email.me
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.32.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org> <e7VgF.383512$cG6.261323 fx34.iad> <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com> <9b593ba7-5a3c-4928-bcde-7a9b5650d4c4 googlegroups.com> <qmgk93$7gp$3 dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae45086c-828f-4c76-a74c-2137e9e1f764 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:42:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:566060

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:56:08 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
-
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:133a:: with SMTP id p26mr953645qkj.317.156
8943509161; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:350e:: with SMTP id y14mr454680qtb.310.15689435
09011; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.etern
al-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o24no1538919qtl.0!news-out.google.com!x7ni1074qtf.0!nntp.google.com!o24no1538912qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.3
2.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org
e7VgF.383512$cG6.261323 fx34.iad> <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9b593ba7-5a3c-4928-bcde-7a9b5650d4c4 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nucle
ar power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:38:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 32
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:565499

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:52:50 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote
:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
John Doe wrote:
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nucle
ar
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends

something else, but it could.

[...]

At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.

And then Fukushima happened.

Jeroen Belleman
...and the CO2 emission problem DID NOT CHANGE; ditto regarding GW.
Hell, even Santa did not change his protocol...
Ditto regarding our favorite ball players.
Ditto regarding astronomers.
Or the weather reporters.
Or the way circuit boards are designed and made.
GET IT?
Not related.

We get some of the strangest posts from otherwise normal sounding people.

What's up with that?

Robert Baer is a baer of very little brain. He rarely sounds normal.

The so-called Fukushima disaster killed a grand total of one person.
The massive tsunami along with some man-made problems that caused
the nuclear reactor to fail killed 20,000 people (plus an
astronomical amount of property damage). But the antinuclear freaks
say nothing about that while whining about the "Fukushima disaster".

Why should they? The reactors aren't working any more, and their failure forced the evacuation of the surrounding area.

One day a giant meteor will slam into Earth, sending us perilously
out of orbit.

The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn't send the earth "out of orbit".

John Doe doesn't understand astrophysics either.

The antinuclear freaks will be screaming "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

Only if they are as stupid and ill-informed as John Doe.

One of the many Australian trolls on USENET...

John Doe thinks that he isn't a troll, and thinks that anybody who points out that he is has to be a troll. As I said, he's stupid and ill-informed.

But of course as any grown-up knows (that excludes this Australian
troll), a scenario making fun of idiots, like my asteroid sending
the Earth out of orbit, need not be scientifically correct.

But if it's John Doe creating the scenario, there's very little chance that it would ever be scientifically correct, and his idea that he is "making fun of idiots" is an inversion of reality - he's the idiot, and his idea that people who are better informed than he is (and pretty much everybody is) are appropriate targets for his feeble attempts at satire only emphasises what a dim clown he is.

The area surrounding Chernobyl is now chock-full of wildlife with
few human beings. This cannibal leftist should be ecstatic...

Why?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:ab9soel7s7d73q2qpain1jm8hmgfv3ieth@4ax.com:

The bio-contaminents are the reason to keep the hot water pipe
temperatures above 55-65 C.

Yet another reason to actually have a HOT water system, and not luke
a lukewarm pussy tap.

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:6j8soe9pajlkktrh7rb702k8tvtp8d3ekv@4ax.com:

Much cheaper is to use an insulated
water tank, heat the water during cheap electricity and use the warm
water when needed.

In places where they are using a tank, yes. My idea was for those
places that opted to install point of use HWOD units. I made that
pretty clear.

But yes. I agree. Where there is a tank, my idea would also save
money. But most tank installed locations use gas to fire it.