The Future Of Solar Power

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007a56ac$0$11114$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

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

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.

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

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.

The reason it has a tiny chance of hitting Earth is that we simply cannot
measure and calculate it's future trajectory with sufficient accuracy to be
certain!
Just as I said.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0056a99c$0$13482$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

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.

If ALL desal water was also for drinking purposes only, rather than flushing
the loo! Of course you will *then* find it totally uneconomic.

You can't drink Qld tap water anyway!

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

I know many people who live there, have visited many times. Like Adelaide,
tap water is not considered drinking water by many people.
No doubt some drink it, and many don't! Not without the additional cost of
home filtration at least.

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.

Agreed, you are talking about desal plants and the power and pipes required
now, right?

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0056a99c$0$13482$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
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.

If ALL desal water was also for drinking purposes only, rather than flushing
the loo! Of course you will *then* find it totally uneconomic.

Except that you get a thousand litres for a couple of dollars from a
desalinator supplied tap. How much does it cost to get one thousand
litres of water in bottles? BTW, did you know that for every litre that
ends up in a bottle, another litre is used in manufacture of the
bottles, etc?

You can't drink Qld tap water anyway!
I'd be extremely surprised if that's true. Any evidence?

I know many people who live there, have visited many times. Like Adelaide,
tap water is not considered drinking water by many people.

They may not like the taste, but that doesn't mean you can't drink it
safely. In practice people usually notice the taste of water in a
different area for a while. Then they get used to it.

No doubt some drink it, and many don't! Not without the additional cost of
home filtration at least.


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.


Agreed, you are talking about desal plants and the power and pipes required
now, right?

They built two big pipes across the harbour and a single bigger one down
a few streets. That's a whole different ball game from laying new pipes
down every suburban street in the metropolitan area.

The electricity used by the desalinator isn't much, in the scheme of
things, and anyway the cost of delivering it to the desalinator is
already included in the price the desalinator pays for electricity. You
wouldn't want to be double counting, now, would you? Not even to support
your position.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"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!

There's little uncertainty about this object. It's very unlikely to hit
Earth, and it would be foolish to start fiddling with it.

Sylvia

 

[keithr]

On 17/10/2009 11:19 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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.


Never heard of that, most of the outbreaks that I have heard of have

been from the cooling towers of commercial air conditioning systems.
These towers use spray systems to cool the water which is constantly
recycled. Water droplets can escape from these systems and enter the
intake of the air conditioning system.

Swamp coolers however, if properly designed, do not produce water
droplets, the water is evaporated, and is constantly replenished with
chlorinated tap water.

Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel on
water vapour. You are more likely to get legonnaires' from your shower
than a swamp cooler.

Here is a quote from the Victorian Government Health Information website.

"How do you get Legionnaires' disease?

Legionella bacteria are found naturally in the environment and thrive in
warm water and warm damp places. They are commonly found in bodies of
water, soil and potting mix.

People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols.

Man-made water systems sometimes provide environments that let
Legionella bacteria increase to large numbers. These man-made systems
include showers, spa pools, fountains, and also cooling towers
associated with air conditioning and industrial cooling processes.

The evaporative units sometimes used in home air conditioning units have
not been known to cause Legionnaires' disease. You cannot catch
Legionnaires' disease from another person, or from drinking water
contaminated by Legionella bacteria."

 

[kreed]

On Oct 18, 7:40 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:0056a99c$0$13482$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

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.

If ALL desal water was also for drinking purposes only, rather than flushing
the loo! Of course you will *then* find it totally uneconomic.

You can't drink Qld tap water anyway!

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

I know many people who live there, have visited many times. Like Adelaide,
tap water is not considered drinking water by many people.
No doubt some drink it, and many don't! Not without the additional cost of
home filtration at least.

I have drunk it for most of my life, in all places that I have visited
in QLD over years, including Toowoomba

Except for one country town where it wasn't treated (and was brown
with dirt), have not had a problem with it, and feel I have always
been in good health - except for the usual cold/flu in winter that as
far as I know, can't be caught through drinking water.

Tastes no different to Sydney tap water IMHO.

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.

Agreed, you are talking about desal plants and the power and pipes required
now, right?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0056cbfc$0$1784$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Except that you get a thousand litres for a couple of dollars from a
desalinator supplied tap.

Big deal, I can get a thousand litres for a few cents at the moment, and
much the same for recycled water. It costs me far more to get RID of the
water in fact! So what you are suggesting is actually huge increases in the
price of water, mainly to flush your loo!

The electricity used by the desalinator isn't much, in the scheme of
things, and anyway the cost of delivering it to the desalinator is
already included in the price the desalinator pays for electricity. You
wouldn't want to be double counting, now, would you? Not even to support
your position.

Nope, you simply haven't factored in the large increases in power costs yet
to come. Strange you claim we should reduce GHGE, and yet propose we burn
large amounts of fossil fuel just to get water for our gardens, washing and
loo flushing.
Seems you can't even count once let alone twice!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:01135e5c$0$10880$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

There's little uncertainty about this object. It's very unlikely to hit
Earth,

How is UNLIKELY *not* equal to UNCERTAIN exactly?

Either you are CERTAIN that it will hit the earth, or it won't, *IF* there
was no uncertainty.
As for "Little Uncertainty", that is just another way of saying you have NO
idea what it actually is.
(Of course if you do, please provide the actual uncertainty and confidence
level, showing all measurements and calculations, I'm sure the scientific
community will be very pleased with you contribution

and it would be foolish to start fiddling with it.

Which is exactly what I said all along. Of course the remaining fact that we
still couldn't even IF it was going to hit the earth is also another big
factor!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adbdfd4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers, the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0056cbfc$0$1784$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Except that you get a thousand litres for a couple of dollars from a
desalinator supplied tap.


Big deal, I can get a thousand litres for a few cents at the moment, and
much the same for recycled water.

Bottled water delivered to your door at a few cents per tonne? Forgive
me if I just don't believe you.

It costs me far more to get RID of the
water in fact! So what you are suggesting is actually huge increases in the
price of water, mainly to flush your loo!

Define "huge increase".

The electricity used by the desalinator isn't much, in the scheme of
things, and anyway the cost of delivering it to the desalinator is
already included in the price the desalinator pays for electricity. You
wouldn't want to be double counting, now, would you? Not even to support
your position.

Nope, you simply haven't factored in the large increases in power costs yet
to come. Strange you claim we should reduce GHGE, and yet propose we burn
large amounts of fossil fuel just to get water for our gardens, washing and
loo flushing.

The government has contracted to receive power from wind farms. No doubt
the price is set.

Anyway, there may be some modest increases if emissions trading comes
in. Why should there be large increases? Most of the cost of power is
the cost of delivering it.

Actually, the most likely cause of significant increases is the
illconsidered promotion of uneconomic power sources, like solar, which
then have to be paid for somehow.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:01135e5c$0$10880$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
There's little uncertainty about this object. It's very unlikely to hit
Earth,

How is UNLIKELY *not* equal to UNCERTAIN exactly?

It's not a dichotomy. Uncertainy is related to probability. If there is
only small probability that a value will lie within, or outside, some
range, as appropriate, then there is little uncertainty.

In the context of Apophis, there is only a low probability that it will
hit Earth, and therefore there is little uncertainty in an assertion
that it won't.

Either you are CERTAIN that it will hit the earth, or it won't, *IF* there
was no uncertainty.
As for "Little Uncertainty", that is just another way of saying you have NO
idea what it actually is.
(Of course if you do, please provide the actual uncertainty and confidence
level, showing all measurements and calculations, I'm sure the scientific
community will be very pleased with you contribution


and it would be foolish to start fiddling with it.

Which is exactly what I said all along.

No, you were not talking about Apophis specifically. You were generalising.

Sylvia.

 

[keithr]

Mr.T wrote:

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adbdfd4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers, the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)

MrT.


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water

droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adc32a7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel
on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers,
the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water
droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.

What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:003a6b75$0$8059$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Except that you get a thousand litres for a couple of dollars from a
desalinator supplied tap.


Big deal, I can get a thousand litres for a few cents at the moment, and
much the same for recycled water.

Bottled water delivered to your door at a few cents per tonne? Forgive
me if I just don't believe you.

Where did I say bottled in the above statement. Please read what is written.
Melbourne tap water is perfectly fine for drinking at the moment. You just
can't water your garden, or wash you car, unless you are one of the very few
with recycled water. Personally I don't need to flush my loo with some of
the best drinking water available anywhere.

It costs me far more to get RID of the
water in fact! So what you are suggesting is actually huge increases in
the
price of water, mainly to flush your loo!

Define "huge increase".

On YOUR figure, from a few cents to a couple of dollars is pretty huge
increase IMO.

The government has contracted to receive power from wind farms. No doubt
the price is set.
Anyway, there may be some modest increases if emissions trading comes
in. Why should there be large increases? Most of the cost of power is
the cost of delivering it.
Actually, the most likely cause of significant increases is the
illconsidered promotion of uneconomic power sources, like solar, which
then have to be paid for somehow.

I'm pleased to hear wind generators can be built for free then, that will
surely keep the electricity price down.
Oh wait it's going up another 20% here, after already going up 20% last
year, and that's BEFORE we even have carbon trading!

I wonder why you think the cost of "delivering it" has gone up 40% in a
little over a year?
I just wish my income did too! Has yours?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:003a6e2c$0$16921$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

In the context of Apophis, there is only a low probability that it will
hit Earth, and therefore there is little uncertainty in an assertion
that it won't.

And just as I said, "Little" means SOME, *not* NONE.

MrT.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adc32a7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel
on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers,
the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water
droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.

What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!

Don't try to confuse him with facts. Like the mold responsible grows
on damp surfaces.


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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4ad410bd$0$5422$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xHMAm.2731$cL1.2364@newsfe20.iad...
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?

**That would depend on how much time we have. If the trajectory can be
predicted early enough, then it is (barely) possible that an international
effort could be co-ordinated to do something to deflect it. Given the
non-activity surrounding the problems we have already identified
(over-population, global warming, pollution, etc), then I doubt anyone will
do anything anyway. Still, we did something about the ozone hole. There is
some hope.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[keithr]

On 20/10/2009 10:53 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"keithr"<keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adc32a7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel
on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers,
the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water
droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.


What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!

MrT.


Believe it or not, there is a difference between water vapour and water

droplets.

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

And to quote my cite again in case you didn't understand it the first time

"The evaporative units sometimes used in home air conditioning units
have not been known to cause Legionnaires' disease."

Note the word "Evaporative" and then think abiut it's connection to
water vapour.

 

[keithr]

On 21/10/2009 4:58 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Mr.T" wrote:

"keithr"<keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adc32a7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel
on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers,
the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water
droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.

What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!


Don't try to confuse him with facts. Like the mold responsible grows
on damp surfaces.


I assume that the one confused about the facts is Mr T who doesn't seem

to understand the difference between water vapour produced by swamp
coolers and water droplets that can carry legionnaires' disease.

Read the cite again, the health commission of the state of Victoria
certainly doesn't see them as a threat, and I would tend to trust them
over an unknown Usenet poster.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k6lhnF38un4tU1@mid.individual.net...

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?

**That would depend on how much time we have. If the trajectory can be
predicted early enough, then it is (barely) possible that an international
effort could be co-ordinated to do something to deflect it.

I'll say it once more, we would need a rocket capable of travelling at least
twice the velocity the object is travelling, not allowing for acceleration,
and possibly deceleration depending on what it is you actually propose to do
when it gets there? Then you need measurements and calculations that it is
GUARANTEED to hit the earth when it is at that distance, before possibly
making the situation worse.

All of these things are beyond our capabilities at the moment, but IF you
think you have *proof* they aren't, I'm sure there are MANY people who are
interested.

IF we could somehow calculate that an orbiting object like a comet would hit
the earth on it's 3rd future visit say, the we could attempt to do something
on it's next visit of course. Unfortunately that still leaves the fact we
*cannot* make such predictions with any certainty, and we don't really have
anything to destroy it at the moment anyway. So the easiest course of action
is to simply wait until we do, and if you think it helps, prey in the mean
time.
But I still see no point in looking for problems we can do nothing about,
when we already have ones that we could do something about, IF we wanted to.

MrT.