The Future Of Solar Power

[Michael A. Terrell]

keithr wrote:

In a hot dry climate, swamp coolers are very efficient at cooling and
use much less power. When we lived in Woomera (a lot hotter than Perth),
that was all we had but it was rare that the house was too hot. Now if
you live in Brisbane, its a different matter.

Swamp coolers have been traced to several outbreaks of 'Legionnaire's
Disease'. The always wet and warm surfaces were perfect for the crap to
grow and spread.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[terryc]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:53:06 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

I still come across otherwise apparently intelligent people who believe
that Sydney did not need a desalinator,

The desalinator they built is bugger all help to Sydney. It just ensure a
few people in the eastern suburbs can continue to not contribute to
saving water. It is also going to rely on coal fired power stations to be
able to operate.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:004ad0cb$0$997$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

That depends on whether it's barelling in on a collision orbit, or is
merely meandering away out there on a course that is predicted to lead
it to hit Earth some years into the future.

Unpowered objects do not "meander". And anything sufficiently far away in a
decreasing orbit would not be a problem for centuries. Maybe the technology
will be available by then. Maybe not. But no need to worry now in any case.

In the former case it is indeed hard to deal with. Spray painting it
won't work, and other apparently obvious techniques like giving it a
shove with a rocket don't work so well if, as is more than likely, it
turns out to be a rubble pile held together by its own miniscule
gravity, rather than a solid object.

But in the latter case, as I said, something as simple as painting it
white may be enough. It doesn't have to be a craftsman's quality work.

IF the distance were far enough, AND the orbit was "meandering" as you
suggest, painting it white might simply cause it to HIT the earth rather
than miss it.

In any case we will be *long* dead before such a problem that we could do
anything about arises. While we can't do anything about climate change
either, at least it will affect most of us in our life time.

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:004ad0cb$0$997$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
That depends on whether it's barelling in on a collision orbit, or is
merely meandering away out there on a course that is predicted to lead
it to hit Earth some years into the future.

Unpowered objects do not "meander".

Figure of speech.

And anything sufficiently far away in a

decreasing orbit would not be a problem for centuries.

"Decreasing orbit"? There ain't no such animal - at least not on human
timescales.

What happens is that an asteroid is in an orbit that repeated crosses
that of the Earth, but at times and places such that the Earth is
somewhere else at the time. But some years into the future, it could be
determined that the asteroid will cross Earth's orbit at time and place
that coincides with Earth's presence.

IF the distance were far enough, AND the orbit was "meandering" as you
suggest, painting it white might simply cause it to HIT the earth rather
than miss it.

If it's determined that it will hit, then changing its orbit pretty
guarantees that it'll miss. Clearly, you don't use this techique on
objects that are going to miss anyway.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00555717$0$13391$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

I still come across otherwise apparently intelligent people who believe
that Sydney did not need a desalinator,

Obviously more intelligent than you then!

prefering to think that
alternatives such as rainwater tanks, recyling, storm water capture, or
building more dams, were the way to go, despite the reality that all
those options were either unfeasible, not effective, much more expensive
than the desalinator, or all of the above.

A decrease in population, coupled with rain water capture and water
recycling would be effective, cheaper, and use less energy. The amazing
thing is how far they now purify effluent before dumping it into the ocean,
only to then desalinate it for drinking water, when most water is not used
for drinking anyway!

So the NSW Labor government gets castigated for the unusual course (for
them), of actually getting on and building a piece of infrastructure.

Who'd want to be in government?

**FAR** more than available positions EVERY election!

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:53:06 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


I still come across otherwise apparently intelligent people who believe
that Sydney did not need a desalinator,

The desalinator they built is bugger all help to Sydney. It just ensure a
few people in the eastern suburbs can continue to not contribute to
saving water. It is also going to rely on coal fired power stations to be
able to operate.

The water it provides to the people of the Eastern suburbs is water that
those people are not drawing from the reservoirs. It's really not that
hard to understand.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ad989a3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

A few extra bucks to track rogue asteroids and comets might be well
worth
our while.

Since we can do nothing if we find one, why bother?


Easy, we just send Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis and a few others up to
deal with it. Hollywood did it years ago.

Nah, Superman is a FAR better bet. He's done it before, and cheaper too.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0093779a$0$5061$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

If it's determined that it will hit, then changing its orbit pretty
guarantees that it'll miss. Clearly, you don't use this techique on
objects that are going to miss anyway.

Clearly you don't realise the uncertainty involved in such a calculation is
far greater than the effect you will gain by painting it white.

But your grasp, and faith in the current level of space technology is quite
amusing

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00555717$0$13391$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
I still come across otherwise apparently intelligent people who believe
that Sydney did not need a desalinator,

Obviously more intelligent than you then!


prefering to think that
alternatives such as rainwater tanks, recyling, storm water capture, or
building more dams, were the way to go, despite the reality that all
those options were either unfeasible, not effective, much more expensive
than the desalinator, or all of the above.


A decrease in population, coupled with rain water capture and water
recycling would be effective, cheaper, and use less energy. The amazing
thing is how far they now purify effluent before dumping it into the ocean,
only to then desalinate it for drinking water, when most water is not used
for drinking anyway!

A decrease in Sydney's population is not going to happen, and certainly
not soon enough to address the water problem. There's no point in crying
for the moon.

Rain water capture is *very* expensive. Do the sums. The desalinator is
cheap by comparison. Storm water capture has the problem of where you
put the water. Sydney does not have huge reservoirs downstream of storm
water drains, and there's nowhere available to build them. Even if the
intent was to pump the water back to the main reservoirs, it still has
to be stored in the interim - it's hardly practical to have pumps - and
pipelines - capable of handling storm water at the rate it arrives.

Recycling is limited in scope by the difficulty of getting recycled
water to where it can be used. There are some industrial projects that
have been done. But to have a real impact, recycled water would have to
be used in homes. But unless there's a secret network of pipes already
there, getting recycled water to homes would involve laying a new water
distribution network all the way to each residence. That would involve
digging up every residential street and garden in Sydney. The cost?
Don't even think about it.

A way wround that would be to use potable recycling. But Toowomba showed
how unpopular that idea is. No NSW government is going to impose it.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0093779a$0$5061$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
If it's determined that it will hit, then changing its orbit pretty
guarantees that it'll miss. Clearly, you don't use this techique on
objects that are going to miss anyway.

Clearly you don't realise the uncertainty involved in such a calculation is
far greater than the effect you will gain by painting it white.

You're not thinking it through. The uncertainties don't matter. If it
was going to hit, then changing its orbit by a sufficient amount will
make it miss. It may be difficult to predict what it will do after that,
but at least one impact has been avoided.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:31:58 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

The water it provides to the people of the Eastern suburbs is water that
those people are not drawing from the reservoirs. It's really not that
hard to understand.

Behind every complex problem lies a simple, elegant solution that is
tragically wrong.

It is very expensive water to flush toilets. Not needed if we adopt true
water saving measures.

You seem to be shifting your ground. Do you now accept that the
desalinator does more than "just ensure a few people in the eastern
suburbs can continue to not contribute to saving water" ?

Do you actually know how much water from a desalinator costs? How much
would it cost to implement the water saving measures you have in mind?

Sylvia.

 

[APR]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4ada6025$0$6095$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Unpowered objects do not "meander".

Refer.......

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007716 where you will
find it stated.....

"It's an asteroid a quarter of a mile wide called Apophis, and it has a tiny
chance of hitting Earth in 2036.
This particular asteroid is taking an odd, meandering course through space.
"
The gravitational pull of distant objects does have an effect on the path of
any object travelling through space, and will cause meandering.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:31:58 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

The water it provides to the people of the Eastern suburbs is water that
those people are not drawing from the reservoirs. It's really not that
hard to understand.

Behind every complex problem lies a simple, elegant solution that is
tragically wrong.

It is very expensive water to flush toilets. Not needed if we adopt true
water saving measures.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:24:02 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:31:58 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

The water it provides to the people of the Eastern suburbs is water
that those people are not drawing from the reservoirs. It's really not
that hard to understand.
Behind every complex problem lies a simple, elegant solution that is
tragically wrong.

It is very expensive water to flush toilets. Not needed if we adopt
true water saving measures.


You seem to be shifting your ground.

Only in your fantasy
Do you now accept that the
desalinator does more than "just ensure a few people in the eastern
suburbs can continue to not contribute to saving water" ?

In no way shape of form. The desal plant is an expensive monstrosity
foisted on all the people of NSW to allow people from the eastern suburbs
to continue their indulgent lifestyles. Bastard have made no contribution
to saving water and should have severe water restrictions enforced.

Everyone else was of course happy to watch their gardens turn brown, and
wash the car using buckets. Water restrictions at those levels are a
pain, and we shouldn't have to accept them on anything resembling a
permanent basis. Yet that, and more, is what we were heading towards
without the desalinator. We got a very fortunate top-up a couple of
years ago, but reservoir levels have been on a downward trend since then.

How much would it cost to implement the water saving
measures you have in mind?

Can be paid for from the fines for water wastage from the rich in the
eastern suburbs.

Could they? You still have not said how much it would cost to implement
them. Do you have even the remotest idea?

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00d35fc6$0$28973$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Rain water capture is *very* expensive. Do the sums.

No it is not, but do feel free to post YOUR sums showing all initial and on
going costs that you think prove otherwise.

The desalinator is cheap by comparison.

So you seem to think.

Storm water capture has the problem of where you
put the water. Sydney does not have huge reservoirs downstream of storm
water drains, and there's nowhere available to build them. Even if the
intent was to pump the water back to the main reservoirs, it still has
to be stored in the interim - it's hardly practical to have pumps - and
pipelines - capable of handling storm water at the rate it arrives.

Most storm water already goes into the sewer and the sewers all have
treatment plants now, even in Sydney don't they?
They certainly do in Melbourne anyway, and we have a bigger shortage of
water than you, with the same stupid idea that coal powered desal plants
will cater for infinite population growth.

Recycling is limited in scope by the difficulty of getting recycled
water to where it can be used. There are some industrial projects that
have been done. But to have a real impact, recycled water would have to
be used in homes. But unless there's a secret network of pipes already
there, getting recycled water to homes would involve laying a new water
distribution network all the way to each residence. That would involve
digging up every residential street and garden in Sydney. The cost?
Don't even think about it.

Actually many new housing estates here do have both grey water and drinking
water pipes connected. However the biggest targets should be industrial
areas IMO.

A way wround that would be to use potable recycling. But Toowomba showed
how unpopular that idea is. No NSW government is going to impose it.

Stupid idea, cheaper to supply drinking water in bottles. You can't drink
Qld tap water anyway! And recycled water is more than good enough to wash
the clothes, wash the car, water the garden, and even shower in.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:005639ef$0$13347$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Clearly you don't realise the uncertainty involved in such a calculation
is
far greater than the effect you will gain by painting it white.

You're not thinking it through.

You mean YOU aren't!

The uncertainties don't matter. If it
was going to hit, then changing its orbit by a sufficient amount will
make it miss.

And you know it DEFINITELY will hit (in sufficient time and distance to do
anything), given the measurement uncertainties involved, HOW exactly?

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00d35fc6$0$28973$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Rain water capture is *very* expensive. Do the sums.

No it is not, but do feel free to post YOUR sums showing all initial and on
going costs that you think prove otherwise.


The desalinator is cheap by comparison.

So you seem to think.

Storm water capture has the problem of where you
put the water. Sydney does not have huge reservoirs downstream of storm
water drains, and there's nowhere available to build them. Even if the
intent was to pump the water back to the main reservoirs, it still has
to be stored in the interim - it's hardly practical to have pumps - and
pipelines - capable of handling storm water at the rate it arrives.

Most storm water already goes into the sewer and the sewers all have
treatment plants now, even in Sydney don't they?

What on Earth gives you the idea that stormwater goes into sewers?
Keeping it out of sewers has always been the goal, because it can cause
sewage overflows - very unpleasant.

Actually many new housing estates here do have both grey water and drinking
water pipes connected. However the biggest targets should be industrial
areas IMO.

Industrial areas are not automatically large scale users of water, and
even those users that are cannot necessarily use recycled water instead.

The fact that new housing estates are making some use of recycled water
just means that Sydney's water requirement is not rising as fast as it
might otherwise do. It does nothing to help the fact that, without the
desalinator, Sydney had already outgrown its water supply.

A way wround that would be to use potable recycling. But Toowomba showed
how unpopular that idea is. No NSW government is going to impose it.

Stupid idea, cheaper to supply drinking water in bottles.

Hardly. Potable recycling can be done more cheaply that desalination.
Bottled water doesn't even come close.

You can't drink Qld tap water anyway!

I'd be extremely surprised if that's true. Any evidence?

And recycled water is more than good enough to wash
the clothes, wash the car, water the garden, and even shower in.

I'd agree with most of those. But that doesn't eliminate the problem of
getting it to where it's needed at a cost that makes any sort of sense.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:005639ef$0$13347$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Clearly you don't realise the uncertainty involved in such a calculation
is
far greater than the effect you will gain by painting it white.
You're not thinking it through.

You mean YOU aren't!


The uncertainties don't matter. If it
was going to hit, then changing its orbit by a sufficient amount will
make it miss.


And you know it DEFINITELY will hit (in sufficient time and distance to do
anything), given the measurement uncertainties involved, HOW exactly?

MrT.

Repeated measurements to narrow down its orbit. Land some radar
reflectors onto it - that shouldn't be beyond current technology - and
then use radar to pin down its orbit, and variations thereof, more
accurately.

But if you don't like that, change the problem to one that consists of
taking an asteroid that has a high chance of travelling through a
particular spatial window, which would include the Earth, and altering
its orbit so that it has a low probability of going through that window.

Now, it might then arise that in retrospect doing nothing would have
been better, but absent such hindsight, changing a high probability to
low one seems like a good idea.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:24:02 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:31:58 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

The water it provides to the people of the Eastern suburbs is water
that those people are not drawing from the reservoirs. It's really not
that hard to understand.

Behind every complex problem lies a simple, elegant solution that is
tragically wrong.

It is very expensive water to flush toilets. Not needed if we adopt
true water saving measures.


You seem to be shifting your ground.

Only in your fantasy

Do you now accept that the
desalinator does more than "just ensure a few people in the eastern
suburbs can continue to not contribute to saving water" ?

In no way shape of form. The desal plant is an expensive monstrosity
foisted on all the people of NSW to allow people from the eastern suburbs
to continue their indulgent lifestyles. Bastard have made no contribution
to saving water and should have severe water restrictions enforced.

How much would it cost to implement the water saving
measures you have in mind?

Can be paid for from the fines for water wastage from the rich in the
eastern suburbs.

 

[Mr.T]

"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4adab1a1$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Unpowered objects do not "meander".

Refer.......

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007716 where you
will
find it stated.....

"It's an asteroid a quarter of a mile wide called Apophis, and it has a
tiny
chance of hitting Earth in 2036.
This particular asteroid is taking an odd, meandering course through
space.
"
The gravitational pull of distant objects does have an effect on the path
of
any object travelling through space, and will cause meandering.

OK, depending on your definition of the term "meander" obviously. But yes
the trajectory will definitely be influenced by gravitational objects, no
argument there.

The more interesting thing you point out is "it has a tiny chance of hitting
Earth in 2036."
Which reinforces what I said regarding the uncertainty we have that a
collision will occur, and whether doing something might actually make the
problem worse!

MrT.