I wonder how fantastical this will be.

-- PB

The World in 2010: A festival on the trends, issues and ideas that will shape
the future.  December 6-7, 2009 - Washington, DC.
http://worldin2010.economist.com/

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:33 +0000, scottsworth wrote:
> To the future, and to my ignorance and stupidity!!!!

I'll join you if I may. I too have researched the availability of
uranium, and I agree with you, and with people like Jan Willem Storm van
Leeuwen at http://www.stormsmith.nl/ .

But we waste our time reading mauk, he is simply what you Americans call
a shrill for the nuke lobby, he is best ignored.


--

Frank
53.22N 2.07W

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 13:00 -0600, Abernethy, Virginia Deane wrote:
> Great radio radio program. Catherine Austin Fitts advises local
> action.
> This means supporting local business, local banks and local political
> action.
>

Terrific, I like her analogy of the tapeworm!!


--

Frank
53.22N 2.07W

>--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "scottsworth" ><scottsworth@...> wrote:
>
> Ah well, thanks for calling me an idiot.

You're quite welcome.  I am a firm believer in calling them as I see them.  :)

>I do so enjoy being called names. Though I am not an eco-whacky >idiot. I am
actually in favor of developing nuclear energy.
>

You have a strange way of expressing it, there, sport.


>The reason I came to find this particular group many years ago was >due to
research I was doing on nuclear energy about 10 years ago, >particularly with
supply. I found that the disinformation plastered >out there on fissionable
material then was almost as bad as it is >now.

Ten years ago....   Wasn't Megatons to Megawatts just starting to distort the U
supply/demand market about then?

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

Why look!  Yes it was.

I suggest gently that your conclusions may be tainted, and perhaps you should
look again.

>
>Though now there is an even larger overstatement regarding >energy >resource
supply of pretty much everything. Seemingly to keep genious >supreme beings like
yourself happy and diluded about the bright >future for humanity. Go ahead,
please believe that there is an >endless supply of everything out there... and
when reserves do not >come out as stated, good luck to you and your belief on
this insane >system for resource overestimating that we have.
>

OH!  You're not an ecowacky, you're a DOOMER.  LOL!  I should have known.

I will extend the same to you as I do to all DieOff fans:

You first.


> SNIP <

No use continuing to talk to you, Doomers are even more dead-set (get it?!) in
their religion than ecowackies.  Have fun being depressed! :D

Commentary Moving Beyond Denial...Two Steps Forward and One Step Back



ASPO

Vol. 4 No. 47

November 23, 2009



By Steve Andrews and Randy Udall (with Dave Bowden's new video clips)

Oil Exploration and Production Constraints
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8

Acknowledging Peak Oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ

(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA's positions;
they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)


In the last few months, the vigorous debate over the future of world oil
supplies has hit the mainstream radar screen. The optimists closed
ranks-they have to because their numbers are shrinking-and launched a
barrage of misleading reports and opinion pieces, suggesting that
supplies will grow from today's 85 million barrels a day to as much as
115 mb/day by 2030.

Columnist George F. Will published the latest salvo in yesterday's
Washington Post. The title, "Awash in Fossil Fuels," says it all. Will
knows little about the oil industry, he's just bloviating-but his piece
will reach hundreds of thousands of readers. Stylistically, most of the
bullish articles are fact-free, mere arm-waving. They never say,
"Twenty-one nations produce 85% of the world's oil, and production in
half is flat or falling." They don't say, "The most common ritual in
America is the humble fill'up. It happens 25 million times a day.
Increasingly, however, American motorists will be bidding against
first-time drivers in China or India." Indeed, U.S. oil consumption is
already down by 2 million barrels a day in just two years.

Instead, they tell the reader a fairy tale, as they would any restless
child: "A long, long time ago, someone said the world would run out of
oil and they were wrong. The wolf didn't come then, and won't come now.
The wolf fell into the tar sands. Three-D seismic killed the wolf. Tupi
killed the wolf. Jump back, Jack2."

The peak oil community-armed with puny BB guns-fires back with
compelling facts and cogent arguments and sobering production curves.
But they've recently been joined by some surprising allies: senior
petroleum industry officials, consultants and analysts, some of whom are
featured on the videos ASPO-USA posted this weekend on our website and
YouTube. We think of these serious-minded critics as the Harsh Realists.


If the implications weren't so serious, this tempest-in-a-teapot
wouldn't matter. But it does matter, big-time, to both the living and
yet-to-be-born. Consider: in April 2008, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah
said he had ordered some new oil discoveries left untapped to preserve
oil wealth in the world's top exporter for future generations... "When
there were some new finds, I told them, 'no, leave it in the ground,
with grace from god, our children need it.'" In his own quiet way, the
King is a harsh realist.

The Harsh Realists

Starting around 2005, and accelerating most recently, this growing cast
of industry experts has weighed in with their own straight talk. Here's
a short sample of their voices Will has probably never heard.

Christophe de Margerie, CEO of French oil company Total SA: "When I
still hear people say we will develop more than 100 million barrels of
day of production, I want them to come here, now, and tell me where is
it going to come from? Because it is not possible." Last February, he
added, "World oil production may plateau below 90 million barrels a
day."

James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, said at a recent conference in
London that he shared de Margerie's concerns. Mulva is on record as
saying that world oil production would not reach 100 mb/day. (Authors'
note: We are willing to wager George Will or anyone else $10,000 that it
won't.")

John Hess, CEO of super independent Hess Corp: "If we do not act now, we
will have a devastating oil crisis in the next 5-to-10 years."

Ray Leonard, former VP with Russian and Kuwaiti oil companies: "The
[peak oil] proponents are right about the fact that the world is not
going to be growing oil production, but the constraint here is not just
about geology. It's also about politics and the way the world operates."


Marshall Adkins, managing director of energy research for Raymond James
& Associates: "Clearly there is a lot of excess capacity within OPEC
today, and it's going to take years to work that off, given the
reduction we've seen in global oil demand...[But] our numbers show that
the [world oil production] peak was in 2008." Adkins believes that most
of the investment community, the smart money, is aware of the looming
peak oil issue.

Tom Petrie, VP with Petrie/Merrill Lynch/Bank of America: "We have now
entered a historic inflection point-call it 'practical peak oil'-in the
global balance of conventional energy supplies."

Iain Reid, senior oil analyst at Macquarie Bank, sees world supply
peaking in 2014 at 89.1 million b/d.

During our September visit to the UK and Ireland, ASPO-USA's reps
interviewed five oil industry experts, including a former chief
petroleum engineer for BP, the former CEO of Talisman Energy, and the
editor of Petroleum Review magazine. Excerpts from them and others are
at the video links above, and at www.aspo-usa.com (click on ASPO.TV). If
you like what you see, spread the word.

Sadad al Husseini, one of the most respected consultants in the oil
industry, and formerly VP of exploration and production with Saudi
Aramco, told us: "The push-back [from naysayers] is largely based on
lack of information or lack of research. In fact, BP's annual
statistical report clearly shows that from 2003 forward, oil production
has hardly increased. So the information is there. The facts are there.
Oil prices did not jump four-fold over a three- or four-year period for
any reason other

than a shortage of supply. If you don't talk about these problems, you
will never fix the situation. This is not going to get any better. This
is going to get worse because you have population growth all over the
world, you have a standard of living that is improving all over the
world, you have aspirations across the globe for a better quality of
life, and people want energy."

A few organizations-both new and well-established-have issued warnings
about future shortfalls in world oil production. Recently the UK's
Energy Research Council study of the situation concluded that "forecasts
which delay the peak until after 2030 rest upon several assumptions that
are at best optimistic and at worst implausible." And then there are the
whistleblowers who claimed that the International Energy Agency has been
manipulating its long-term oil supply forecasts to the upside for years,
in response to pressure from the U.S. government.
http://tinyurl.com/yhmtkgb In effect, the insiders, whose claims were
verified by others, accuse the IEA of publishing fairy tales, not
realistic scenarios.

Of course, the entrenched leader of the optimist club continues to be
Cambridge Energy Research Associates. But even CERA, out of step with
the smart money, is reeling in their forecasts of future oil production
at the rate of 5 million barrels/day per year. As recently as 2007, CERA
contended the world would produce 130 mb/day by 2030; now, just 115.
CERA's Daniel Yergin is doing a tap dance back to reality. But he needs
to hustle; over the same period, the IEA and even the US' Energy
Information Administration cut their production forecasts from about 120
mb/day to their current 105 mb/day.

Steve Andrews and Randy Udall are two of the five co-founders of
ASPO-USA.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof,
is subject to the standard Sasol eMail legal notice which may be found at:
http://www.sasol.com/legalnotices

If you cannot access the legal notice through the URL attached and you wish
to receive a copy thereof please send an eMail to
legalnotice@...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ah well, thanks for calling me an idiot. I do so enjoy being called names.
Though I am not an eco-whacky idiot. I am actually in favor of developing
nuclear energy. The reason I came to find this particular group many years ago
was due to research I was doing on nuclear energy about 10 years ago,
particularly with supply. I found that the disinformation plastered out there on
fissionable material then was almost as bad as it is now. Though now there is an
even larger overstatement regarding energy resource supply of pretty much
everything. Seemingly to keep genious supreme beings like yourself happy and
diluded about the bright future for humanity. Go ahead, please believe that
there is an endless supply of everything out there... and when reserves do not
come out as stated, good luck to you and your belief on this insane system for
resource overestimating that we have.

I no longer believe the projections that I read on sites like you reference
here. The nuclear reserves on your handy nuclear web site are estimated to last
for "about 80 years." It is like most oil company sites, including the US DOE
that estimate that peak oil will occur sometime beyond 2030 "or so." Many oil
company sites says that there is no peak oil, or if there is, it will be
somewhere 'out there' in the distant future. But do not worry, do not panic.
Keep voting us into office and paying the bills. Carry on like there is nothing
wrong.... Yes, I believe that peak oil has already occured, and last year. You
can say that there is more oil than we can use available now, but I will counter
with it is not politically stable enough to guranatee the reserves, and the
supply line does not have the capacity to expand much more at this point
(especially in refining). It is similar with nuclear fuel.

If you want to get into the breeder debate, look back on this group. I belive I
got into it on this group about 5 years ago, and I was more or less in favor of
the potential of in in the future. However, I was shown a lot of information and
data from some well placed engineers that did a shyte-load of research on it (at
UC Berkeley mainly) to convince me otherwise. If you want to believe in the
future that breeders can be developed, well, go ahead and believe. Frankly I do
not care. Believe in fairies, pixie dust, breeder reactors and that oil will
last forever. I am laughing all the way.

You also take me out of context here in many places. My point about nuclear
energy being "impossible" is that it will be impossible for nuclear energy to
sustain our energy requirement on this planet. It is also "impossible" to get
past the existing anti-nuclear paradigm in the USA. Any n-plants being planned
now are going to be too few and too late. I am well aware that nuclear
technology exists to generate electricity. I lived near the San Onofre nuclear
power plant for 7 years, and I paid the insane electricity bills that exist down
there to pay for it. Also my point about fissionable material is that here will
be no *new* known sources to refine more than we are now, not that it will be
completely depleted. My bad for not being clearer in my post here. So let me
restate my view in that I believe that we are going to reach a peak in nuclear
fuel capacity somtime between the next decade or two. Is that better? There is a
large group that believes that peak uranium already happened in 1980, and at the
outside the second peak will occur sometime before 2035.

It does not matter what you think of me though. Peak oil is already here. Peak
uranium will follow shortly. We will burn coal and NG becasue they are not going
to peak until later. S in the meantime, we are at the peak of civilization. We
are going into extreme population overshoot. We will maybe (a very outside
chance) make it to about 2050, the original date that the Limits to Growth
predicted. In the 30 years since the book was published, we are track for the
bulk of the original predictions. Several critical resources start failing well
before then, including oil, ocean fisheries, phosphate, boron, and a lot of
other stuff. But I suppose that I am a complete moron to believe those things as
well as not believing that breeder reactors will save us all from ourselves.
Even if we can develop breeders, we would just breed as a species to an even
larger insane population overshoot level (10-12 billion) to collapse even faster
and harder (and later) than we will without 'it.'

To the future, and to my ignorance and stupidity!!!!




--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Well, there may be some truth that nuclear energy is impossible,
> >
>
> I got more than 400 working reactors world wide that say you're incorrect,
sir.  :)
>
>
> > but for other reasons than the anti-nuke propoganda. I found die->off and
got into this group what, nearly a decade ago after doing >some research on
fissionable resources at that time. While the >supply of uranium is good for the
next few years, after that it >declines again.
>
>
> It does?  Why?  I'm honestly curious, here.
>
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
>
> Notice the graph in the middle of that page, in which the world U reserves
went up by more than 50 percent in the last decade.
>
> Yes, even though we're mining it steadily, the reserves keep going UP.  We're
finding scads of Uranium.  Even better, that graph ignores the many millions of
tons of U we know exist in fertilizer deposits we mine already:  All we have to
do is sift out the U in processing.
>
> In short: I think you're totally wrong.
>
> >
> >Also breeder reactors are a myth; I used to believe that they could >be
developed, but some people in some unique places showed me the >flaws in the
process.
>
> Really.  What are these 'flaws' you mention?  High DPA damage? Breeders are
scary?  Wishful thinking on your part?
>
> >They are still working on it using thorium in India, or so I am >told. At any
rate, short of the DOE and DOD supplying reactors with >the extra needed fuel
today, I see no great source of fissionable >material after the next decade
ends.
> >
>
> Okay, so you're saying U will run out completely by 2019.
>
> I'll take you up on that: I'll bet you a hundred bucks that there's more
proven reserves of U in 2019 than there are right now.
>
> Wanna take me up on it?  It's a sucker bet, I warn you!
>
>
> > Accurate data for this is very hard to come by though. Fissionable >material
is a state secret in most places. The available numbers are >pretty much made up
from what I can tell. Perhaps in the same way >that oil numbers are made up now.
Or NG.
> >
>
> Uh huh.
>
> >We seem to be flooded with cheap NG now.
>
> Yeah, it's scary how much combustible dirt there is.
>
> >Methinks we will live on dirty coal, and damned the planet anyway. >We seem
to have a lot of that stuff, regardless.
> >
>
> (sigh)  Yeah, and every ecowacky idiot who moans and wails about nuclear makes
this outcome more likely.
>
> Congratulations, idiots.
>
> I hope you're proud.
>

So Eric, what do you suppose is meant by the little lead-in statement in the
Scripps story that says
" EMBARGOED BY Science" ?
Ken



Kenneth Piers
"The biophysical limits to growth arise from three interrelated conditions:
finitude, entropy, and ecological interdependence"
Herman E Daly, Beyond Growth, 1996, p 33.



   ----------

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Piers, Kenneth
TEL;WORK:616-526-6491
ORG:;Chemistry
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:Pier@...
N:Piers;Kenneth
ADR;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL:;Devries Hall 337
LABEL;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Piers, Kenneth=0A=
Devries Hall 337
END:VCARD



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Great radio radio program.  Catherine Austin Fitts advises local action.
This means supporting local business, local banks and local political
action.

V.

.............................................


GATA board member Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, now president of
investment adviser Solari Inc., was interviewed for a fascinating and
wide-ranging 35 minutes yesterday by GoldSeek's Chris Waltzek. Perhaps
most important, they discussed the looting and centralization of the
United States and what can be done to stop it. You can listen to the
interview at GoldSeek here:



http://www.radio.goldseek.com/players/fittsplayernov11.php



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Eric Pfeiffer  wrote:
>
> Back to attacking the messenger rather than the message?
> Let's see the data.
> ....
>
> ...Oh, peer review is a long and cherished tradition to
> assure quality work. Can the Post say the same? Is the
> Republican Party a body of top caliber scientists? These
> are the real questions to be asked.
> ...Let's move beyond attacking the messenger.


In the science journal "Nature" the quality and usefulness of the peer review
process, and issues relating to the competence and quality of journal editors
and reviewers, is a frequent topic of editorials, articles and letters to the
editor. As are the practices of scientists who work the system to insure their
articles are published.  Also frequently found in Nature are editorials,
articles and letters on the importance of sharing data to the whole scientific
process. [1] The editors of Nature obviously consider the honesty and lack of
bias of individual scientists, and the willingness of individual scientists to
share data vital to the integrity of the scientific process. (The editorial
stance of Nature is - as I am sure you know – that anthropomorphic global
warming is a strongly supported scientific hypothesis.)

Based on the importance of the integrity issue to the editors and readers of
Nature, I conclude that evidence that scientists who have published many papers
arguing the case for anthropomorphic global warming have also exchanged e-mails
about how to use submission and citation tactics to influence journal editors on
what papers to publish, and have also exchanged ideas on how best to prevent the
free publication of their data are breaches of scientific standards.  So, in
this case, I do believe that the motives, possible biases and tactics of these
particular messengers is a valid topic of general discussion and concern.  And
that their revealed suggestions on publication tactics and data hiding practices
do reduce the creditability of conclusions based on their published work.

I expect that this subject will be discussed in editorials, articles, and
letters to the editors in future issues of Nature. Whose editors are presented
with a scientific scandal that involves two of their primary editorial concerns.
I will try to summarize those discussions in future postings to this list. Or
not, depending on how thoroughly it is debated here on this list in the future,
and how much free time I have.

Steven Zoraster

[1] I am guessing at least an editorial, article or letter once or twice a
month, in a journal published weekly. Mostly letters, but also articles and page
1 editorials.

Catherine Austin Fitts [ www.solari.com <http://www.solari.com/>  ] says that
the "green shoots" for bankers and financial insiders are real.  They are able
to borrow capital at near zero interest rates through connection to the corrupt,
private, for-profit Federal Reserve Bank.



On the contrary, the Main Street economy  -- which produces things people use
and is the engine of most new job creation -- is in severe Depression.  Citing
www.shadowstats.com <http://www.shadowstats.com/>  , Fitts asserts that US
unemployment is more than 22 percent. Moreover, the effective cost of capital,
which Main Street needs in order to recover, is approaching 30%.



The collapse for everybody will come when foreigners no long lend money to the
US government [stop buying US bills and bonds]. The US dollar will no longer buy
imports including oil.  So let's see what we can do with our own Victory Gardens
and woodlots.



Until the US gets used to the new normal, which may be never, we will have a
succession of one-term presidents. With extreme good fortune, the transition can
be accomplished without riots and without a further loss of liberty. Fitts
actually does make very good suggestions as to how one might proceed.

V.



________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Walter Derzko
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Walter Derzko
Subject: [energyresources] Société Générale warns clients of Global Economic
Collapse scenario





Société Générale warns clients of Global Economic Collapse scenario

http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2009/11/when-will-the-recession-en\
d-part-33-soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-warns-clients-of-global-economic-\
collapse-scena.html
<http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2009/11/when-will-the-recession-e\
nd-part-33-soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-warns-clients-of-global-economic\
-collapse-scena.html>

Walter Derzko

Smart Economy

Toronto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> Well, there may be some truth that nuclear energy is impossible,
>

I got more than 400 working reactors world wide that say you're incorrect, sir. 
:)


> but for other reasons than the anti-nuke propoganda. I found die->off and got
into this group what, nearly a decade ago after doing >some research on
fissionable resources at that time. While the >supply of uranium is good for the
next few years, after that it >declines again.


It does?  Why?  I'm honestly curious, here.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

Notice the graph in the middle of that page, in which the world U reserves went
up by more than 50 percent in the last decade.

Yes, even though we're mining it steadily, the reserves keep going UP.  We're
finding scads of Uranium.  Even better, that graph ignores the many millions of
tons of U we know exist in fertilizer deposits we mine already:  All we have to
do is sift out the U in processing.

In short: I think you're totally wrong.

>
>Also breeder reactors are a myth; I used to believe that they could >be
developed, but some people in some unique places showed me the >flaws in the
process.

Really.  What are these 'flaws' you mention?  High DPA damage? Breeders are
scary?  Wishful thinking on your part?

>They are still working on it using thorium in India, or so I am >told. At any
rate, short of the DOE and DOD supplying reactors with >the extra needed fuel
today, I see no great source of fissionable >material after the next decade
ends.
>

Okay, so you're saying U will run out completely by 2019.

I'll take you up on that: I'll bet you a hundred bucks that there's more proven
reserves of U in 2019 than there are right now.

Wanna take me up on it?  It's a sucker bet, I warn you!


> Accurate data for this is very hard to come by though. Fissionable >material
is a state secret in most places. The available numbers are >pretty much made up
from what I can tell. Perhaps in the same way >that oil numbers are made up now.
Or NG.
>

Uh huh.

>We seem to be flooded with cheap NG now.

Yeah, it's scary how much combustible dirt there is.

>Methinks we will live on dirty coal, and damned the planet anyway. >We seem to
have a lot of that stuff, regardless.
>

(sigh)  Yeah, and every ecowacky idiot who moans and wails about nuclear makes
this outcome more likely.

Congratulations, idiots.

I hope you're proud.

I remember reading Graham's PDF on the web some time ago, and that the "Standard
Run" prediction model is winning. No surprise there. I just found it amusing
when digging through the web that the Club of Rome is so bright and cheery.
Seemingly it has joined the ranks of the Limits to Growth prediction bashers
that Graham talked about. Perhaps it will soon release a new prediction
reversing all of the original predictions? Everything will be so... nice. "We
can mobilize and resolve all the issues threatening future generations!" Yes, we
have unlimited resources to solve an unlimited number of problems. Global system
integration will save us!

So, we are doomed to the 'standard run', while the data is cooked up. No wonder
everything is so, shall we say, 'interesting' lately? As one of the better
fortune cookies says, "May you live in interesting times." I would think that
the peak of human civilization would qualify as 'interesting times'.

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Abernethy, Virginia Deane"
<virginia.abernethy@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the difference  in the more recent Club of Rome publications is that
Donella Meadows is not there to keep them honest.  V.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Frank Holland
> Sent: Sat 11/21/2009 6:19 AM
> To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of growth
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 07:50 +0000, scottsworth wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps. But from what I read, The Limits to Growth was re-written in
> > a more optimistic tone in the more recent books, and the Club of Rome
> > has been resurected and turned around 180 degrees to be more favorable
> > of a positive outcome. That is what I got from reviewing what has
> > become of the CofR lately. The mantra now is: Tell the people what
> > they want to hear...
>
> Yes, but Mankind at the Turning Point assumed something would be done
> about uncontrolled growth etc, it has not been done and we are heading
> along the paths outlined in the original LtG of 1972...see Graham Turner
> on the comparison of LtG with 30 years of reality.
>
> --
>
> Frank
> 53.22N 2.07W
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Société Générale warns clients of Global Economic Collapse scenario



http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2009/11/when-will-the-recession-en\
d-part-33-soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-warns-clients-of-global-economic-\
collapse-scena.html



Walter Derzko

Smart Economy

Toronto



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Most of the problems Pedro outlines can in principle be worked out.  If the
Hubble telescope can collect photons from a distant galaxy 10 billion light
years away and capture an image, then we can aim microwaves at a collection
region on Earth.  The system will not require thongs of workers in space and
so forth either.



The problem or open question is whether this is energetically or
economically feasible.  The EROEI issue is of relevance, for a solar-sat
will have to return at least 10 times the energy over its life cycle than
the energy required for launches.  The gravitational potential one is
lifting material up in is considerable, and the rocket equation v =
V*log(m/m') (V = rocket plume velocity, m = initial mass of rocket, m' =
final mass and v the final velocity) hard to overcome,  To get a rocket over
twice the velocity of the rocket plume it requires the initial mass be 10
times that of the final mass.  Rocket flight is not terribly efficient as it
turns out.



I would not say impossible of course.  Solar-sats are maybe feasible at some
time in the future.  However, they are not likely to be a factor in the
energy picture in the next couple of decades.



Lawrence B. Crowell



-----Original Message-----
From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of papp20032000
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:44 AM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space





Sorry for being so inclement, but dreams of having solar stations in outer
space seem to me mental masturbations of people yearning for NASA's good old
times of huge expenditures when fossil fuels offered a lot of exceeding
energy and flow surpluses.

I agree with Roger that precision tracking is not necessary for conventional
PV modules to collect energy from the sun, but MW beams do have to be
pointed very accurately, specially if they are thought to send to very
precise collection points on Earth, in the levels mentioned of several GW
per point (being on GW a theoretical substitute of a conventional coal, gas
fired or nuclear typical plant).

Also, most of the relative movements of a part of a device with respect to
other parts of the same device or change of orientation, have to be made
with gas from a tank, rather than with electric motors; and gas in outer
space is usually the limiting factor for the satellites lifespan, specially
for the geostationary ones.

I would not like that a deviation in the beaming, despite of the comments
that would not harm even a flying bird across the beam, would convert me in
what remained of the small lizard that one son of my neighbour introduced
one day in the very low power microwave oven, before pushing for one minute,
just for the sake of experimenting. Precautionary principles are always
recommended. Or being vaporized, like some birds I have seen disappear, when
crossing by accident the focusing mirror beams in a CSP plant at certain
levels, with just solar reflection in a mere 500 MW plant

We are reaching now in Spain some 2% of the total national annual average
electricity consumption from solar PV systems, with some 3.5 GW installed
power. Only 2 percent were roof mounted. 98 percent of these installations
were big plants on the ground, from which 44% of the total installed
capacity in plants of >5MW; 20% in plants ranging from 2 to 5 MW and the
rest in plants between few kW and 2 MW. And basically, all of them in feed
in form, connected to the national grid in medium tension lines or
substations (15 to 20,000 VAC and few times to 45,000 VAC)

63 percent of the total installed capacity was in fixed plants, but an
important amount 24 percent was with plants with two axis trackers and only
13 percent with plants with one axis tracking.

The biggest and most common type of inverter was about 100 kW of power.

We have now a pretty good experience on what happens and the problems of
quality control, quality of installations, problems of faulty manufacturing,
initial designs, problems of a good maintenance system (and we have hundreds
of trained teams permanently touring a country that has now more Km of
motorways per km2 of land -and more modern- than Germany and a very good
capilarity of provincial roads network to access to almost any PV field by
paved road).

And of course, that we have full and remotized maintenance for most of them
via GPRS (covering 98 percent of the national geogrpahy) or 3.5 G mobile
wide band systems, or wireless ADSLs or even WIMAX or wideband satellite
connections in some cases. But at the end of the day, the technicians have
to move there to replace a module that has been short circuited, and it is
creating problems in the whole array,or replace a blocked gear of the two
axis tracker, or an electronic device that has failed, a power semiconductor
that has blown out; a remote commnication system that has failed, etc.,
etc., etc.

That is why I believe that the problems in the field when mounting and
maintaining these installations, make me think that about five million
experienced Bruce Willys (in Armageddon) and 10 millions of experienced
Clint Eastwood (not in Dirty Harry, or even better in Grand Torino, but in
Space Cowboys) will not suffice to maintain the Solar PV Stations and
infrastructures in outer space.

This, provided that they would have at their disposal about 1,000 Space
Shuttles, ready for take off and with the unsolved problems of how to
contain or confine liquid hydrogen into a tank, with which top NASA
scientists, are still struggling, as collateral learning for the so called
hydrogen economy.

All the above, if somebody is thinking in something more serious than a
Micky Mouse test installation, and in the range of providing a sensible
percentage of the 20,000 TWh/year we are consuming today,

We call these type of strange and complex theories 'mental masturbation'

Pedro from Madrid






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here are a variety of tips to reduce your electric bill. Remember, nothing will
happen unless you take action!

First, the energy hogs: COOLING and HEATING your home.

Insulation is key for avoiding a big energy loss out the window. When there is
no one at home the thermostat should be adjusted to take into consideration that
the temperature in the home is less crucial to comfort.

Furnace filters have to be clean for maximum efficiency.

Kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans should be turned off, whenever you are
finished with them.

Close the fireplace damper tightly to avoid the loss of up to 20% of the air out
the chimney every hour.

The water heater is another huge energy waster. Insulating the pipes is a
worthwhile investment. There are tank-less water heaters on the market now. What
they do is to heat the water "on demand," in other words they provide an
unlimited supply of hot water whenever it would be required. There is no holding
tank to waste all that energy.

Taking a shower instead of a bath will save about 4-5 gallons of water.

Using a dishwasher for a full load of dishes actually saves another 4-5 gallons
of water, compared to washing them by hand.

Fix leaking faucets! A one drip a second loss equals 2,300 gallons a year!

Do the laundry using cold water; it will save a huge amount of electricity. Just
use the soap designed for cold-water washing. Do several loads in a row, (for
the dryer) because a warm dryer uses less power.

Around the house there are a lot of little things that you can do to reduce your
electric bill.

Use a microwave oven instead of a conventional one. They draw less than half the
electricity, and cook food in a quarter of the time of regular ovens. If you do
use a conventional oven, turn it off 20 minutes before removing the food so that
the residual heat will not be wasted, and it will keep cooking even with the
oven turned off. Resist the temptation to open the oven door to check on food,
because each time you do that 25 percent of the heat is lost each time.

One should replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent ones whenever
possible. These are huge energy savers.

Learn to read the meter, because you will see the immediate effect of your
saving efforts and it will be a great motivator! Those meters are read from
right to left, it seems backwards but that's the way they do it.

Some structural modifications can be done to save power, such a attic
insulation, and the color of the roof.

The refrigerator and freezer coils should be cleaned once in a while.

Replace old appliances with efficient power saver types.

There are many ways to reduce your electric bill if you look around your home.
In the long run, even small changes and improvements will add up to substantial
savings. The entire community will benefit if there is cooperation with the
neighbors in this matter.

Source:
http://www.thegreeno.com/green-articles/green-energy-articles/reduce-your-electr\
ic-bill-with-these-simple-straightforward-tips.html

>
> Tell me about it.  In today's climate, we'll freeze a few million to death
before we build a new nuclear plant.  Hell, there's another huge propaganda
piece posted right now that swears on a solemn stack of bibles that nuclear
power is utterly impossible and we should all just go home and die off.
>
> Ecowacky idiots.
>

Well, there may be some truth that nuclear energy is impossible, but for other
reasons than the anti-nuke propoganda. I found die-off and got into this group
what, nearly a decade ago after doing some research on fissionable resources at
that time. While the supply of uranium is good for the next few years, after
that it declines again. Also breeder reactors are a myth; I used to believe that
they could be developed, but some people in some unique places showed me the
flaws in the process. They are still working on it using thorium in India, or so
I am told. At any rate, short of the DOE and DOD supplying reactors with the
extra needed fuel today, I see no great source of fissionable material after the
next decade ends.

Accurate data for this is very hard to come by though. Fissionable material is a
state secret in most places. The available numbers are pretty much made up from
what I can tell. Perhaps in the same way that oil numbers are made up now. Or
NG. We seem to be flooded with cheap NG now. Methinks we will live on dirty
coal, and damned the planet anyway. We seem to have a lot of that stuff,
regardless.

Spot beam satellite power? Interesting. We could all have satellite downlink
collectors at today's power substations. Amusing. Satellites would still would
be highly exposed to solar wind, and there is the getting them into orbit. I
still doubt the deliverabe energy levels though, and the efficiency. Gigawatts
of power... is a lot of power.

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Arnold" <roger.arnold@...> wrote:
>
> One of the interesting features of some of the newer SSP designs is that the
> power beams essentially replace the long distance power grid.  That
> eliminates most earth-side line losses.  The space power transmitters are
> swarm systems, using phased array methods to support thousands of individual
> power beams.  Each beam can range on demand from a few megawatts to a few
> gigawatts.  Since the swarm consists of millions of independent solar
> collectors and transmitters, there are never any outages.  Maximum beam
> intensity is low enough -- about 1/4 that of sunlight -- that birds can fly
> through without being harmed.
>
> I don't know if systems of this type will ever be built, but there's nothing
> physical I know of that would preclude them.
>
> Roger Arnold
> Sunnyvale, CA
>

Sent to all Reps and Senators.    Probably a tad late .. but we gotta keep
trying to get it on the agenda.

Hugh






URGENT NEED TO INCLUDE FLUOROCARBON REFRIGERANTS IN THE CARBON TRADING SCHEME.


Dear Members of the House of Representatives and Senate

While Parliament's attention has been concentrated on the issue of reducing
CO2 emissions through the Government Carbon Trading Scheme, we tend to
forget that CO2 is NOT the only man-made greenhouse gas emission that we
have to control.

Refrigerants based on the element Fluorine, were developed in the 20's in
the USA by Thomas Midgley (who also invented tetra-ethyl-lead - for leaded
petrol, which has since been banned). These were called Freon (by DuPont),
who made a major and highly profitable industry by producing these
compounds for a fast-growing refrigeration industry. While these compounds
were safe for humans (non-inflammable and relatively non-toxic), for the
ozone layer - they were disastrous, as the chlorine in them (as they were
Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons - CFC's) reacted with the ozone, destroying it. The
Montreal Protocol signed in 1987, called for the stopping of production of
CFC's, but unfortunately not for the destruction of existing stocks, so
they remain to be released into the atmosphere (and despite Montreal, there
is a flourishing black market to supply replacement Freons to old
equipment).

So Dr Midgley's 2 most famous inventions have become outlawed.

Not only do the CFC's impact the ozone layer, they are intensely powerful
greenhouse gases, R12 (Freon 12) - has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
10,900 CO2eq units. That means that 1 kg of R12 is equivalent in global
warming impact to 10.9 tonnes of CO2, over a 100 year lifetime in the
atmosphere.

R134a (a hydrofluorocarbon - HFC), containing no ozone-destroying chlorine
and marketed as an 'ozone friendly' replacement for R12, has a GWP of
nominally
1,430 (1 kg = 1.43 tonnes of CO2eq); while R410A, the refrigerant now
widely used in split air-conditioner systems, while not affecting the ozone
layer either - has a GWP equivalent of 2,100 (2.1 tonnes CO2eq/Kg R410A)
(IPCC AR4 2007).

As these compounds are relatively chemically inert, their residence times
in the atmosphere are correspondingly long, so the impact they produce is
very long lived.

If these cannot be considered major contributors to anthropogenic global
warming processes - it beats me as to what else would classify as AGW!

Unfortunately these fluorocarbon refrigerants are now in almost universal
use, for A/C, industrial refrigeration, domestic refrigeration and of all
things foam blowing (for creation of insulating, upholstery and packing
foams), and even for children's bubble-blowing toys.  All these
refrigerants will end up in the atmosphere - with consequent powerful
impacts on global warming, the ozone layer or worse, unless immediate
specific steps are taken to prevent this.

Plus - there are many thousands of tonnes, installed in airconditioning
equipment, industrial chillers and the like, as well as in storage
cylinders, which represent many millions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent for
Australia alone.

As it happens, except for a limited number of very specialised
applications, there are a number of 'natural' compounds that perform very
well as refrigerants (if not better than fluorocarbons) - such as CO2
itself, ammonia (which was - and still is - used in thousands of Australian
small town ice plants) and hydrocarbons such as propane (barbecue gas).
These are far cheaper than the fluorocarbon compounds, and, in the event of
release to the air, have negligible GWP.

Worldwide the stocks of fluorocarbon refrigerants (CFC's, CHFC's and HFC's)
run into many tens of Gigatonnes (billions of tonnes) of CO2 equivalent. In
Australia, stocks are estimated at in excess of 11.6 megatonnes of CO2eq,
(Energy Strategies 08)

So, by not including them in the Government's proposed carbon trading
scheme (or recognizing their global warming impacts) seems to me to be
terribly short sighted indeed. If we do not remove these substances from
circulation (by destroying them) they will eventually (through release from
leaks, old equipment, mishaps and service release) - they will become an
increasingly serious driver in global warming. (Velders etc al 09)

Putting a carbon price on them (by including them in the Carbon Trading
Scheme), will greatly aid this process of replacement, collection and
destruction, by making it economically worthwhile to collect and destroy
them. The technology for destroying them has been well investigated and
documented by the Japanese government in response to the Montreal Protocol
and includes a wide variety of techniques, from plasma arcs to cement kilns
and needs to be made far more accessible.

Controlling synthetic refrigerants is a "low-hanging fruit" and while
various  commercially interested parties (such as Refrigerants Australia,
and the Fluorocarbon Council) may object strenuously to such regulation, it
is ESSENTIAL that we remove these compounds - as they greatly increase the
impact of man's activities on the atmsophere, and if nothing is done, they
all WILL enter the atmosphere. The process of replacing synthetic
greenhouse gases with 'natural' ones will also be a net job creator.

On behalf of the children and the other inhabitants of the biosphere that
will inherit the mess we are making of this planet, I urgently beg of you
attend to this request.

Hugh Spencer (PHD)
Conservation Biologist
Director
Cape Tribulation Tropical Research Station


References

Energy Strategies "ODS and SGGs in Australia 2008",a report for ADEWHA. Oct
2008

Velders G et al  The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to
future climate forcing.  PNAS  V 106, No  27   10949 - 10954

Oh, yes, I am familiar with the concept of phased array systems, mainly because
I am a telecom engineer. The problem is not the simultaneous emission to many
different points. The problem, in the humble opinion of an old, ITT telecom
engineer, that started designing with vacuum tubes, is that I know of solid
state devices or even TV and satellite transmitters with the old vacuum tube
technology up to the range of up to several hundreds of kW or even 1 MW. My poor
mind can imagine telecom satellites sending Kilowatts or even few Megawatts, but
can not imagine power orbiting systems able to send 20,000 TWh/year to planet
Earth in thousand of narrow sustained 1 GW or 100 MW beams of as much as several
thousands or hundred of thousands receiving points.

I can not avoid thinking in the lizards in the microwave oven. Planet Earth is,
until now, a wonderful balanced closed system receiving from outer space what
dissipates to outer space. I can not avoid thinking in dissipation, when
something goes wrong. I can not avoid in repair and maintenance (hence the Bruce
Willys and Clint Eastwood space fitters). I can not avoid thinking in security
and cyber terrorism against the orbiting platforms in the hands of very few
countries. I can not avoid thinking in the huge problems of a space shuttle
unresolved isolating foams, to have liquid hydrogen contained and the costs to
NASA, to the USA and to the world in terms of wasted resources for just three
flights per year program.

It is probably that I can not stand any longer a society that uses public
domains for sacred, untouchable, private interests, to the point that today I
have been permanently denied the right to see a clear blue sky on Madrid,
without being forced to see between three and sometimes up to 12 simultaneous
chemtrails on my head, creating artificial, horrible linear clouds, as if
airlines had the right to impose to all humans the form of the sky.

And so and so...I want to come back to more simplicity and that suggestion of
Japan, previously thought in the former Soviet Union to illuminate some areas of
Siberia and some other dreamers as well (Bond, James Bond enemies, among
others), is a twist into more complexity, more entropy and the higher we go, the
harder will be the fall.

Pedro from Madrid


--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Arnold" <roger.arnold@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> >  .. but MW beams do have to be pointed very accurately, specially if they
> > are thought to send to very precise collection points on Earth, ..
>
> If you're not familiar with the concept of phased array antennas and phase
> conjugating optics, the following explanation won't make sense to you.
> However the fact is that pointing is not an issue.
>
> The space power transmitter would properly be termed a "phase conjugating
> amplifying retroreflector".  A virtual pilot beam is transmitted with
> encryption from the receiving antenna site to the transmitter. The pilot
> beam is received at thousands of points over the transmitter array and
> conjugated at each location with a reference signal.  The conjugated signal
> controls the phase of the transmitting elements in the power subarray
> associated with each receiver.
>
> The result is that the power beam "follows" the pilot beam back to its site
> of origin.  By the way it's formed, it cannot go anywhere else.  If the
> pilot beam is interrupted, the power transmitters shut down.  But even if
> they somehow remained on, they would have nothing to synchronize their
> operation and would radiate incoherently.  Their power would be spread
> randomly in all directions, and would not form a beam.
>
> As I said, the guys who did the design study knew their business.  I
> guarantee you will not find any fatal technical flaws or unworkable ideas in
> the basic scheme -- beyond the "small" detail of its dependence on a space
> transportation system that's cheaper by a factor of 100 than anything we
> have today.
>
> Roger Arnold
> Sunnyvale, CA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: papp20032000
> To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:44 AM
> Subject: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space
>
> Sorry for being so inclement, but dreams of having solar stations in outer
> space seem to me mental masturbations of people yearning for NASA's good old
> times of huge expenditures when fossil fuels offered a lot of exceeding
> energy and flow surpluses.
>
> I agree with Roger that precision tracking is not necessary for conventional
> PV modules to collect energy from the sun, but MW beams do have to be
> pointed very accurately, specially if they are thought to send to very
> precise collection points on Earth, in the levels mentioned of several GW
> per point (being on GW a theoretical substitute of a conventional coal, gas
> fired or nuclear typical plant).
>
> Also, most of the relative movements of a part of a device with respect to
> other parts of the same device or change of orientation, have to be made
> with gas from a tank, rather than with electric motors; and gas in outer
> space is usually the limiting factor for the satellites lifespan, specially
> for the geostationary ones.
>
> I would not like that a deviation in the beaming, despite of the comments
> that would not harm even a flying bird across the beam, would convert me in
> what remained of the small lizard that one son of my neighbour introduced
> one day in the very low power microwave oven, before pushing for one minute,
> just for the sake of experimenting. Precautionary principles are always
> recommended. Or being vaporized, like some birds I have seen disappear, when
> crossing by accident the focusing mirror beams in a CSP plant at certain
> levels, with just solar reflection in a mere 500 MW plant
>
> We are reaching now in Spain some 2% of the total national annual average
> electricity consumption from solar PV systems, with some 3.5 GW installed
> power. Only 2 percent were roof mounted. 98 percent of these installations
> were big plants on the ground, from which 44% of the total installed
> capacity in plants of >5MW; 20% in plants ranging from 2 to 5 MW and the
> rest in plants between few kW and 2 MW. And basically, all of them in feed
> in form, connected to the national grid in medium tension lines or
> substations (15 to 20,000 VAC and few times to 45,000 VAC)
>
> 63 percent of the total installed capacity was in fixed plants, but an
> important amount 24 percent was with plants with two axis trackers and only
> 13 percent with plants with one axis tracking.
>
> The biggest and most common type of inverter was about 100 kW of power.
>
> We have now a pretty good experience on what happens and the problems of
> quality control, quality of installations, problems of faulty manufacturing,
> initial designs, problems of a good maintenance system (and we have hundreds
> of trained teams permanently touring a country that has now more Km of
> motorways per km2 of land -and more modern- than Germany and a very good
> capilarity of provincial roads network to access to almost any PV field by
> paved road).
>
> And of course, that we have full and remotized maintenance for most of them
> via GPRS (covering 98 percent of the national geogrpahy) or 3.5 G mobile
> wide band systems, or wireless ADSLs or even WIMAX or wideband satellite
> connections in some cases. But at the end of the day, the technicians have
> to move there to replace a module that has been short circuited, and it is
> creating problems in the whole array,or replace a blocked gear of the two
> axis tracker, or an electronic device that has failed, a power semiconductor
> that has blown out; a remote commnication system that has failed, etc.,
> etc., etc.
>
> That is why I believe that the problems in the field when mounting and
> maintaining these installations, make me think that about five million
> experienced Bruce Willys (in Armageddon) and 10 millions of experienced
> Clint Eastwood (not in Dirty Harry, or even better in Grand Torino, but in
> Space Cowboys) will not suffice to maintain the Solar PV Stations and
> infrastructures in outer space.
>
> This, provided that they would have at their disposal about 1,000 Space
> Shuttles, ready for take off and with the unsolved problems of how to
> contain or confine liquid hydrogen into a tank, with which top NASA
> scientists, are still struggling, as collateral learning for the so called
> hydrogen economy.
>
> All the above, if somebody is thinking in something more serious than a
> Micky Mouse test installation, and in the range of providing a sensible
> percentage of the 20,000 TWh/year we are consuming today,
>
> We call these type of strange and complex theories 'mental masturbation'
>
> Pedro from Madrid
>
> --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@>
> wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hugh spencer
> > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:53 AM
> > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And exactly what technology is going to beam x gigawatts to earth??
> > (focussed no less)
> >
> > I assume it is resident in some brain pan..
> >
> > H
> >
> > Pedro does have a point here. Solar power satellites would in effect
> > extend
> > our power grid off Earth into the cis-lunar region. There is then a
> > certain
> > complexity which this entails. It is unclear to me whether solar power
> > satellites are at all practical. So far space launching and related
> > technologies do not follow the sort of Moore's law seen with microchips
> > and
> > related technologies, or may at best do so much more slowly.
> >
> > The beaming might be accomplished with large high powered masers, or the
> > microwave analogue of the laser. Again this might prove infeasible, but it
> > could happen on an "in principle" basis. I have been having a discussion
> > with someone on the issue of the "space elevator." Now there is where
> > things get a bit strange, but this person insists it can be done at only a
> > few thousand tons. I'll have see about that, but if that could be arranged
> > then solar power satellites might become technically possible.
> >
> > Lawrence B. Crowell
> >
> >
> >
> > >Pedro,
> > >
> > >You're right, two axis solar tracking (or single axis polar mount) gives
> > >a
> > >nominal 50% average gain for terrestrial solar. That's assuming no
> > >increase
> > >in atmospheric losses at low sun elevations; it reduces to something more
> > >like 40% in practice. The relative gain is higher in summer, lower in
> > >winter. To realize any gain at all, however, the tracking modules must be
> > >distributed well apart, so that they don't shade one another when the sun
> > is
> > >at low elevation angles. So tracking increases the output per square
> > >meter
> > >of collector, but reduces the output per square meter of land area
> > >occupied. Since land area is a significant factor in the cost of
> > >terrestrial solar farms, that's the rationale for assuming fixed arrays
> > when
> > >comparing energy payback for space vs. terrestrial solar cells.
> > >
> > >It's still an "apples to oranges" sort of comparison, of course, because
> > >there are so many other factors to consider, and the optimum array types
> > are
> > >so widely different.
> > >
> > >Precision tracking, BTW, is not necessary for flat panel or low
> > concentrator
> > >arrays. It's only an issue for heliostats focusing on a central tower, or
> > >for high concentration parabolic dishes.
> > >
> > >In space, solar tracking is mostly a non-issue. Yes, the array needs to
> > >be
> > >gimbaled to allow for the daily rotation of the sun relative to the
> > >microwave transmitter with its constant orientation toward earth. But the
> > >array is floating in a microgravity environment, and the motor power
> > >needed
> > >to maintain its orientation toward the sun is insignificant. Even
> > >considering the huge multi km^2sizes of the arrays.
> > >
> > >There's no issue of having to move the arrays to avoid interference with
> > >communication satellites. When you hear that geostationary orbit is
> > >"crowded" with communication satellites, it's refering to the angular
> > >separation between satellites needed to avoid RF interference to a small
> > >dish antenna. The physical parking locations for satellites are still on
> > >the order of 1000 km apart. In any case, solar power satellites would not
> > >compete for slots in true geostationary orbits. For technical reasons,
> > >they'd occupy slightly eliptical, slightly inclined orbits that would
> > >have
> > >periods of 24 hours, but would remain 1000 km or so from the
> > >geostationary
> > >track at all times. Viewed from the earth, they'd trace small circles in
> > >the sky with a 24-hour period. In fact, if you put another easily visible
> > >satellite in geostationary orbit at the central point around which the
> > power
> > >satellite appeared to be circling, you'd have a handy 24-hour clock in
> > >the
> > >sky. You could claim the Guiness book of records entry for the world's
> > >most
> > >expensive clock!
> > >
> > >Roger Arnold
> > >Sunnyvale, CA
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Eric ; You are so right in that by and large Vehicles that consume Petroleum are
by and large quite primitive.But as it stands right now they will remain the
primary mode of transport for at least the next couple of decades.And sadly most
of our electricity still comes from coal fired power plants, and will continue
to do so for the foreseeable future.My idea is not to replace all vehicles.Only
to make them more efficient.The 14.7/1 Air Fuel Ratio is so totally wrong.But
that's the Law for all vehicles from 1996 to the present, and no one will dare
to question it.With this, only 10% of each gallon of gas is actually
utilized.The "Experts" refuse to even consider the possibility that gasoline can
be safely vaporized to 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel, which will more than
triple fuel economy, lower emissions,increase power, and extend engine life.This
affects everyone.Even if you never drive a vehicle, you still have to breathe
the air emitted.And
  unless you're totally self sufficient, many of the things that you use are
delivered by vehicles.So this affects everyone.And no one will dare to openly
question this insane EPA-OBD II Vehicle Emissions Law that only benefits Big Oil
!

--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...> wrote:


From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 10:14 PM


 



Gary,
  I am talking of standard engine technology of the 1980's
as presented by GM vs standard engine technology of
2008-9 as presented by Honda. There are a wealth
of other alternate engine technologies which I know little
of. I will defer on those as quite honestly, auto engines
just don't interest me, nor in reality do autos, whatever
their make or design. All autos are "junk and garbage"
in my eyes, the technologies behind them are merely
alternative means to waste energy on a grand but
different grand scale.
    I myself prefer to walk, whatever the weather, to do
most of life's business and have organized my life
around that goal.
... I do wish you the best, whatever it is you advocate
in improving engine efficiency without requiring
replacement of the entire global auto fleet. 

--- On Sat, 11/21/09, gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 4:11 PM

 

Eric ; So you're saying that going from 14.7 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel onto
100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel is "outdated Technology" ? Have you ever
wondered why Engine Oil turns dark after 5,000 miles in a Gasoline
powered engine, but not in a Natural Gas, Propane or Hydrogen powered engine ?
It's because of incomplete combustion, which is the case with
an atomized  14.7/1 Air/Fuel Ratio.I know that vapor fuel technology does
work.I and many others have done it, yet it's illegal to even attempt on any
vehicle from 1996 to the present.And this is "Progress" ? If you can locate my
profile, I have posted a Photo of a Vaporizer , with the resulting vapor that
would normally power an engine ignited to prove that it actually works.The
Flame Pattern is identical to that of a Butane Lighter,Blue to Yellow to
Orange.This results in a much lower combustion temperature than Natural Gas,
Propane, or Hydrogen, and a lot more power.And this is "outdated
technology" ? It's entirely possible that a Reality Check is in order !

--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@ yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@ yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 10:36 AM

 

Technology has moved on. Reducing engine fuel efficiency
used to be the only way to obtain cleaner emissions from
the conventionl internal combustion engine. That is no longer
true as engine technology has advanced to a point that
we can have our cake and eat it too. But, that is Japanese
engine technology, not US automaker technology. Until
the US auto manufacturers catch up, the laws are still the
best way to cleaner emissions without going to alternate
fuels.
...But yes, those laws are becoming technologically outdated.

--- On Fri, 11/20/09, gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@ yahoo. com> wrote:

From: gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@ yahoo. com>
Subject: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 8:59 PM

 

I have a question concerning Alternative use of conventional Energy that up
until now no one has been able to answer.Why is it illegal for any gasoline
powered vehicle in the USA from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting
exhaust emissions ? All such vehicles are equipped with Oxygen (O2) Exhaust
Sensors that are set up to detect a sufficient level of polluting exhaust
emissions that will indicate that fuel is being consumed at 14.7 parts of Air
to 1 part of Fuel.When a vehicle is connected to an EPA-OBD II Emissions
Inspection Analyzer for it's annual Emissions Inspection, whatever those O2
Sensors detect is registered.A vehicle that is emitting an excess level of
polluting exhaust Emissions will fail it's Inspection as well it should.But if
there is not enough polluting exhaust Emissions, O2 Sensors will detect nothing,
and an O2 Sensor Failure Code will be generated.O2 Sensor exemptions are
permitted for vehicles that have been legally
converted to operate on Natural Gas, Propane, or Hydrogen and are registered as
such.But no such O2 Sensor Exemption is permitted for a gasoline powered
vehicle, 1996 or newer.Thus it is entirely possible to fail an Emissions
Inspection for not emitting enough polluting Exhaust Emissions ! My point is
this; gasoline can be safely vaporized to 100 parts of Air to 1 part of
Fuel.With this, even the largest SUV could easily get 50 + MPG and emit a
fraction of the Emissions of an EPA-OBD II mandated fuel system, with an actual
increase in power, and much longer engine life.I'm not the first to realize
this.Far from it! For proof, do a search on [the late] Tom Ogle.Then go to
http://energy21. freeservers. com/bookrep. html and scan down the page to just
before the update.It's several years old, but still very relevant.The last
couple of paragraphs really say it all.But even if it is not to be believed that
safe fuel vaporization is entirely possible, my
point is that it's illegal to even attempt to do so with any gasoline powered
vehicle from 1996 to the present.Why not ? If there is any way that I could send
you a Photo, I can prove my point.I'm not marketing anything.To pull that off
I'd have to be a multimillionaire. I have posed this question about the
outlawing of vapor fuel technology to many Environmentalists and Politicians
that claim to care about the Environment. So far not one of them will respond.So
how about you ?  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Pedro,

>  .. but MW beams do have to be pointed very accurately, specially if they
> are thought to send to very precise collection points on Earth, ..

If you're not familiar with the concept of phased array antennas and phase
conjugating optics, the following explanation won't make sense to you.
However the fact is that pointing is not an issue.

The space power transmitter would properly be termed a "phase conjugating
amplifying retroreflector".  A virtual pilot beam is transmitted with
encryption from the receiving antenna site to the transmitter. The pilot
beam is received at thousands of points over the transmitter array and
conjugated at each location with a reference signal.  The conjugated signal
controls the phase of the transmitting elements in the power subarray
associated with each receiver.

The result is that the power beam "follows" the pilot beam back to its site
of origin.  By the way it's formed, it cannot go anywhere else.  If the
pilot beam is interrupted, the power transmitters shut down.  But even if
they somehow remained on, they would have nothing to synchronize their
operation and would radiate incoherently.  Their power would be spread
randomly in all directions, and would not form a beam.

As I said, the guys who did the design study knew their business.  I
guarantee you will not find any fatal technical flaws or unworkable ideas in
the basic scheme -- beyond the "small" detail of its dependence on a space
transportation system that's cheaper by a factor of 100 than anything we
have today.

Roger Arnold
Sunnyvale, CA

----- Original Message -----
From: papp20032000
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:44 AM
Subject: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space

Sorry for being so inclement, but dreams of having solar stations in outer
space seem to me mental masturbations of people yearning for NASA's good old
times of huge expenditures when fossil fuels offered a lot of exceeding
energy and flow surpluses.

I agree with Roger that precision tracking is not necessary for conventional
PV modules to collect energy from the sun, but MW beams do have to be
pointed very accurately, specially if they are thought to send to very
precise collection points on Earth, in the levels mentioned of several GW
per point (being on GW a theoretical substitute of a conventional coal, gas
fired or nuclear typical plant).

Also, most of the relative movements of a part of a device with respect to
other parts of the same device or change of orientation, have to be made
with gas from a tank, rather than with electric motors; and gas in outer
space is usually the limiting factor for the satellites lifespan, specially
for the geostationary ones.

I would not like that a deviation in the beaming, despite of the comments
that would not harm even a flying bird across the beam, would convert me in
what remained of the small lizard that one son of my neighbour introduced
one day in the very low power microwave oven, before pushing for one minute,
just for the sake of experimenting. Precautionary principles are always
recommended. Or being vaporized, like some birds I have seen disappear, when
crossing by accident the focusing mirror beams in a CSP plant at certain
levels, with just solar reflection in a mere 500 MW plant

We are reaching now in Spain some 2% of the total national annual average
electricity consumption from solar PV systems, with some 3.5 GW installed
power. Only 2 percent were roof mounted. 98 percent of these installations
were big plants on the ground, from which 44% of the total installed
capacity in plants of >5MW; 20% in plants ranging from 2 to 5 MW and the
rest in plants between few kW and 2 MW. And basically, all of them in feed
in form, connected to the national grid in medium tension lines or
substations (15 to 20,000 VAC and few times to 45,000 VAC)

63 percent of the total installed capacity was in fixed plants, but an
important amount 24 percent was with plants with two axis trackers and only
13 percent with plants with one axis tracking.

The biggest and most common type of inverter was about 100 kW of power.

We have now a pretty good experience on what happens and the problems of
quality control, quality of installations, problems of faulty manufacturing,
initial designs, problems of a good maintenance system (and we have hundreds
of trained teams permanently touring a country that has now more Km of
motorways per km2 of land -and more modern- than Germany and a very good
capilarity of provincial roads network to access to almost any PV field by
paved road).

And of course, that we have full and remotized maintenance for most of them
via GPRS (covering 98 percent of the national geogrpahy) or 3.5 G mobile
wide band systems, or wireless ADSLs or even WIMAX or wideband satellite
connections in some cases. But at the end of the day, the technicians have
to move there to replace a module that has been short circuited, and it is
creating problems in the whole array,or replace a blocked gear of the two
axis tracker, or an electronic device that has failed, a power semiconductor
that has blown out; a remote commnication system that has failed, etc.,
etc., etc.

That is why I believe that the problems in the field when mounting and
maintaining these installations, make me think that about five million
experienced Bruce Willys (in Armageddon) and 10 millions of experienced
Clint Eastwood (not in Dirty Harry, or even better in Grand Torino, but in
Space Cowboys) will not suffice to maintain the Solar PV Stations and
infrastructures in outer space.

This, provided that they would have at their disposal about 1,000 Space
Shuttles, ready for take off and with the unsolved problems of how to
contain or confine liquid hydrogen into a tank, with which top NASA
scientists, are still struggling, as collateral learning for the so called
hydrogen economy.

All the above, if somebody is thinking in something more serious than a
Micky Mouse test installation, and in the range of providing a sensible
percentage of the 20,000 TWh/year we are consuming today,

We call these type of strange and complex theories 'mental masturbation'

Pedro from Madrid

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@...>
wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hugh spencer
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:53 AM
> To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space
> Importance: High
>
>
>
>
>
> And exactly what technology is going to beam x gigawatts to earth??
> (focussed no less)
>
> I assume it is resident in some brain pan..
>
> H
>
> Pedro does have a point here. Solar power satellites would in effect
> extend
> our power grid off Earth into the cis-lunar region. There is then a
> certain
> complexity which this entails. It is unclear to me whether solar power
> satellites are at all practical. So far space launching and related
> technologies do not follow the sort of Moore's law seen with microchips
> and
> related technologies, or may at best do so much more slowly.
>
> The beaming might be accomplished with large high powered masers, or the
> microwave analogue of the laser. Again this might prove infeasible, but it
> could happen on an "in principle" basis. I have been having a discussion
> with someone on the issue of the "space elevator." Now there is where
> things get a bit strange, but this person insists it can be done at only a
> few thousand tons. I'll have see about that, but if that could be arranged
> then solar power satellites might become technically possible.
>
> Lawrence B. Crowell
>
>
>
> >Pedro,
> >
> >You're right, two axis solar tracking (or single axis polar mount) gives
> >a
> >nominal 50% average gain for terrestrial solar. That's assuming no
> >increase
> >in atmospheric losses at low sun elevations; it reduces to something more
> >like 40% in practice. The relative gain is higher in summer, lower in
> >winter. To realize any gain at all, however, the tracking modules must be
> >distributed well apart, so that they don't shade one another when the sun
> is
> >at low elevation angles. So tracking increases the output per square
> >meter
> >of collector, but reduces the output per square meter of land area
> >occupied. Since land area is a significant factor in the cost of
> >terrestrial solar farms, that's the rationale for assuming fixed arrays
> when
> >comparing energy payback for space vs. terrestrial solar cells.
> >
> >It's still an "apples to oranges" sort of comparison, of course, because
> >there are so many other factors to consider, and the optimum array types
> are
> >so widely different.
> >
> >Precision tracking, BTW, is not necessary for flat panel or low
> concentrator
> >arrays. It's only an issue for heliostats focusing on a central tower, or
> >for high concentration parabolic dishes.
> >
> >In space, solar tracking is mostly a non-issue. Yes, the array needs to
> >be
> >gimbaled to allow for the daily rotation of the sun relative to the
> >microwave transmitter with its constant orientation toward earth. But the
> >array is floating in a microgravity environment, and the motor power
> >needed
> >to maintain its orientation toward the sun is insignificant. Even
> >considering the huge multi km^2sizes of the arrays.
> >
> >There's no issue of having to move the arrays to avoid interference with
> >communication satellites. When you hear that geostationary orbit is
> >"crowded" with communication satellites, it's refering to the angular
> >separation between satellites needed to avoid RF interference to a small
> >dish antenna. The physical parking locations for satellites are still on
> >the order of 1000 km apart. In any case, solar power satellites would not
> >compete for slots in true geostationary orbits. For technical reasons,
> >they'd occupy slightly eliptical, slightly inclined orbits that would
> >have
> >periods of 24 hours, but would remain 1000 km or so from the
> >geostationary
> >track at all times. Viewed from the earth, they'd trace small circles in
> >the sky with a 24-hour period. In fact, if you put another easily visible
> >satellite in geostationary orbit at the central point around which the
> power
> >satellite appeared to be circling, you'd have a handy 24-hour clock in
> >the
> >sky. You could claim the Guiness book of records entry for the world's
> >most
> >expensive clock!
> >
> >Roger Arnold
> >Sunnyvale, CA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Back to attacking the messenger rather than the message?
Let's see the data.  Specifically I am looking for data
contradicting the ocean temp data.  Would you please
present it. 
....Was waiting for someone to present this.
....Now, please contradict the NOAA data I have been
dropping in anticipation of this attack the messenger
stuff.  I eagerly await your data base citing a body of
evidence of equal or greater calliber than NOAA or
Sripps Insitute or NASA.  Go for it Steve. Something
with a little greater science prestige than the Washington
Post or Fox news.  I have more to present over the next
few years from the best science research on the globe.
And you?
...Oh, peer review is a long and cherished tradition to
assure quality work. Can the Post say the same? Is the
Republican Party a body of top caliber scientists?  These
are the real questions to be asked.
...Let's move beyond attacking the messenger.

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, szoraster <szoraster@...> wrote:


From: szoraster <szoraster@...>
Subject: [energyresources] Climate Change
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 9:57 AM


 



"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones
writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not
to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer
submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with
it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Quoted from the Washington Post: tinyurl.com/ yjmylby

Steven Zoraster

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" oral tradition, quoting Henry II.











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m60345&hd=&size=1&l=e


US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America
By Hugh O'Shaughnessy



       From the Caribbean to Brazil, political opposition to US plans for
'full-spectrum operations' is escalating rapidly

       November 22, 2009

       The United States is massively building up its potential for nuclear and
non-nuclear strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean by acquiring
unprecedented freedom of action in seven new military, naval and air bases in
Colombia. The development – and the reaction of Latin American leaders to it –
is further exacerbating America's already fractured relationship with much of
the continent.

       The new US push is part of an effort to counter the loss of influence it
has suffered recently at the hands of a new generation of Latin American leaders
no longer willing to accept Washington's political and economic tutelage.
President Rafael Correa, for instance, has refused to prolong the US armed
presence in Ecuador, and US forces have to quit their base at the port of Manta
by the end of next month.

       So Washington turned to Colombia, which has not gone down well in the
region. The country has received military aid worth $4.6bn (£2.8bn) from the US
since 2000, despite its poor human rights record. Colombian forces regularly
kill the country's indigenous people and other civilians, and last year raided
the territory of its southern neighbour, Ecuador, causing at least 17 deaths.

       President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has not forgotten that US officers
were present in government offices in Caracas in 2002 when he was briefly
overthrown in a military putsch, warned this month that the bases agreement
could mean the possibility of war with Colombia.

       In August, President Evo Morales of Bolivia called for the outlawing of
foreign military bases in the region. President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras,
overthrown in a military coup d'état in June and initially exiled, has
complained that US forces stationed at the Honduran base of Palmerola
collaborated with Roberto Micheletti, the leader of the plotters and the man who
claims to be president.

       And, this being US foreign policy, a tell-tale trail of oil is evident.
Brazil had already expressed its unhappiness at the presence of US naval vessels
in its massive new offshore oilfields off Rio de Janeiro, destined soon to make
Brazil a giant oil producer eligible for membership in Opec.

       The fact that the US gets half its oil from Latin America was one of the
reasons the US Fourth Fleet was re-established in the region's waters in 2008.
The fleet's vessels can include Polaris nuclear-armed submarines – a deployment
seen by some experts as a violation of the 1967 Tlatelolco Treaty, which bans
nuclear weapons from the continent.

       Indications of US willingness to envisage the stationing of nuclear
weapons in Colombia are seen as an additional threat to the spirit of nuclear
disarmament. After the establishment of the Tlatelolco Treaty in 1967, four more
nuclear-weapon-free zones were set up in Africa, the South Pacific, South-east
Asia and Central Asia. Between them, the five treaties cover nearly two-thirds
of the countries of the world and almost all the southern hemisphere.

       The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world's
leading think-tank about disarmament issues, has now expressed its worries about
the US-Colombian arrangements.

       With or without nuclear weapons, the bilateral agreement on the seven
Colombian bases, signed on 30 October in Bogota, risks a costly new arms race in
a region. SIPRI, which is funded by the Swedish government, said it was
concerned about rising arms expenditure in Latin America draining resources from
social programmes that the poor of the region need.

       Much of the new US strategy was clearly set out in May in an enthusiastic
US Air Force (USAF) proposal for its military construction programme for the
fiscal year 2010. One Colombian air base, Palanquero, was, the proposal said,
unique "in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability
is under constant threat from... anti-US governments".

       The proposal sets out a scheme to develop Palanquero which, the USAF says,
offers an opportunity for conducting "full-spectrum operations throughout South
America.... It also supports mobility missions by providing access to the entire
continent, except the Cape Horn region, if fuel is available, and over half the
continent if un-refuelled". ("Full-spectrum operations" is the Pentagon's jargon
for its long-established goal of securing crushing military superiority with
atomic and conventional weapons across the globe and in space.)

       Palanquero could also be useful in ferrying arms and personnel to Africa
via the British mid-Atlantic island of Ascension, French Guiana and Aruba, the
Dutch island off Venezuela. The US has access to them all.

       The USAF proposal contradicted the assurances constantly issued by US
diplomats that the bases would not be used against third countries. These were
repeated by the Colombian military to the Colombian congress on 29 July. That
USAF proposal was hastily reissued this month after the signature of the
agreement – but without the reference to "anti-US governments". This has led to
suggestions of either US government incompetence, or of a battle between a
gung-ho USAF and a State Department conscious of the damage done to US relations
with Latin America by its leaders' strong objections to the proposal.

       The Colombian forces, for many years notorious for atrocities inflicted on
civilians, have cheekily suggested that with US help they could get into the
lucrative business of "instructing" other armies about human rights. Civil
strife in Colombia meant some 380,000 Colombians were forced from their homes
last year, bringing the number of displaced since 1985 to 4.6 million, one in
ten of the population. This little-known statistic indicates a much worse
situation than the much-publicised one in Islamist-ruled Sudan where 2.7 million
have fled from their homes.

       Amnesty International said: "The Colombian government must urgently bring
human rights violators to justice, to break the links between the armed forces
and illegal paramilitary groups, and dismantle paramilitary organisations in
line with repeated UN recommendations."

       Palanquero, which adjoins the town of Puerto Salgar on the broad Magdalena
river north-west of the capital, Bogota, is one of the seven bases that the
government of President Alvaro Uribe gave to Washington last month despite howls
from many Colombians. Its hangars can take 100 aircraft and there is
accommodation for 2,000 personnel. Its main runway was constructed in the 1980s
after Colombia bought a force of Israeli Kfir warplanes. At 3,500 metres, it is
500 metres longer than the longest in Britain, the former US base outside
Campbeltown, Scotland. The USAF is awaiting Barack Obama's signature on a bill,
already passed by the US Congress, to devote $46m to works at the base.

       Many Colombians are upset at the agreement between the US and Colombia
that governs – or, perhaps more accurately, fails to govern – US use of
Palanquero and the other six bases. The Colombian Council of State, a
non-partisan constitutional body with the duty to comment on legislation, has
said that the agreements are unfair to Colombia since they put the US and not
the host country in the driving seat, and that they should be redrafted in
accordance with the Colombian constitution.

       The immunities being granted to US soldiers are, the council adds, against
the 1961 Vienna Convention; the agreement can be changed by future regulations
which can totally transform it; and the permission given to the US to install
satellite receivers for radio and television without the usual licences and fees
is "without any valid reason".

       President Uribe, whose studies at St Antony's College, Oxford, were
subsidised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has chosen to disregard the
Council of State.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

sO

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, szoraster <szoraster@...> wrote:


From: szoraster <szoraster@...>
Subject: [energyresources] Climate Change
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 9:57 AM


 



"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones
writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not
to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer
submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with
it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Quoted from the Washington Post: tinyurl.com/ yjmylby

Steven Zoraster

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" oral tradition, quoting Henry II.











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones
writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not
to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer
submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with
it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.


Quoted from the Washington Post: tinyurl.com/yjmylby

Steven Zoraster

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" oral tradition, quoting Henry II.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1006
 
Scripps Institute of Oceanography study on cloud
development over warming ocean waters...observations
questions, and future research needs.
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry for being so inclement, but dreams of having solar stations in outer space
seem to me mental masturbations of people yearning for NASA's good old times of
huge expenditures when fossil fuels offered a lot of exceeding energy and flow
surpluses.

I agree with Roger that precision tracking is not necessary for conventional PV
modules to collect energy from the sun, but MW beams do have to be pointed very
accurately, specially if they are thought to send to very precise collection
points on Earth, in the levels mentioned of several GW per point (being on GW a
theoretical substitute of a conventional coal, gas fired or nuclear typical
plant).

Also, most of the relative movements of a part of a device with respect to other
parts of the same device or change of orientation, have to be made with gas from
a tank, rather than with electric motors; and gas in outer space is usually the
limiting factor for the satellites lifespan, specially for the geostationary
ones.

I would not like that a deviation in the beaming, despite of the comments that
would not harm even a flying bird across the beam, would convert me in what
remained of the small lizard that one son of my neighbour introduced one day in
the very low power microwave oven, before pushing for one minute, just for the
sake of experimenting. Precautionary principles are always recommended. Or being
vaporized, like some birds I have seen disappear, when crossing by accident the
focusing mirror beams in a CSP plant at certain levels, with just solar
reflection in a mere 500 MW plant

We are reaching now in Spain some 2% of the total national annual average
electricity consumption from solar PV systems, with some 3.5 GW installed power.
Only 2 percent were roof mounted. 98 percent of these installations were big
plants on the ground, from which 44% of the total installed capacity in plants
of >5MW; 20% in plants ranging from 2 to 5 MW and the rest in plants between few
kW and 2 MW. And basically, all of them in feed in form, connected to the
national grid in medium tension lines or substations (15 to 20,000 VAC and few
times to 45,000 VAC)

63 percent of the total installed capacity was in fixed plants, but an important
amount 24 percent was with plants with two axis trackers and only 13 percent
with plants with one axis tracking.

The biggest and most common type of inverter was about 100 kW of power.

We have now a pretty good experience on what happens and the problems of quality
control, quality of installations, problems of faulty manufacturing, initial
designs, problems of a good maintenance system (and we have hundreds of trained
teams permanently touring a country that has now more Km of motorways per km2 of
land –and more modern- than Germany and a very good capilarity of provincial
roads network to access to almost any PV field by paved road).

And of course, that we have full and remotized maintenance for most of them via
GPRS (covering 98 percent of the national geogrpahy) or 3.5 G mobile wide band
systems, or wireless ADSLs or even WIMAX or wideband satellite connections in
some cases. But at the end of the day, the technicians have to move there to
replace a module that has been short circuited, and it is creating problems in
the whole array,or replace a blocked gear of the two axis tracker, or an
electronic device that has failed, a power semiconductor that has blown out; a
remote commnication system that has failed, etc., etc., etc.

That is why I believe that the problems in the field when mounting and
maintaining these installations, make me think that about five million
experienced Bruce Willys (in Armageddon) and 10 millions of experienced Clint
Eastwood (not in Dirty Harry, or even better in Grand Torino, but in Space
Cowboys) will not suffice to maintain the Solar PV Stations and infrastructures
in outer space.

This, provided that they would have at their disposal about 1,000 Space
Shuttles, ready for take off and with the unsolved problems of how to contain or
confine liquid hydrogen into a tank, with which top NASA scientists, are still
struggling, as collateral learning for the so called hydrogen economy.

All the above, if somebody is thinking in something more serious than a Micky
Mouse test installation, and in the range of providing a sensible percentage of
the 20,000 TWh/year we are consuming today,

We call these type of strange and complex theories 'mental masturbation'

Pedro from Madrid


--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@...>
wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hugh spencer
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:53 AM
> To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space
> Importance: High
>
>
>
>
>
> And exactly what technology is going to beam x gigawatts to earth??
> (focussed no less)
>
> I assume it is resident in some brain pan..
>
> H
>
> Pedro does have a point here.  Solar power satellites would in effect extend
> our power grid off Earth into the cis-lunar region.  There is then a certain
> complexity which this entails.  It is unclear to me whether solar power
> satellites are at all practical.  So far space launching and related
> technologies do not follow the sort of Moore's law seen with microchips and
> related technologies, or may at best do so much more slowly.
>
> The beaming might be accomplished with large high powered masers, or the
> microwave analogue of the laser.  Again this might prove infeasible, but it
> could happen on an "in principle" basis.  I have been having a discussion
> with someone on the issue of the "space elevator."  Now there is where
> things get a bit strange, but this person insists it can be done at only a
> few thousand tons.  I'll have see about that, but if that could be arranged
> then solar power satellites might become technically possible.
>
> Lawrence B. Crowell
>
>
>
> >Pedro,
> >
> >You're right, two axis solar tracking (or single axis polar mount) gives a
> >nominal 50% average gain for terrestrial solar. That's assuming no increase
> >in atmospheric losses at low sun elevations; it reduces to something more
> >like 40% in practice. The relative gain is higher in summer, lower in
> >winter. To realize any gain at all, however, the tracking modules must be
> >distributed well apart, so that they don't shade one another when the sun
> is
> >at low elevation angles. So tracking increases the output per square meter
> >of collector, but reduces the output per square meter of land area
> >occupied. Since land area is a significant factor in the cost of
> >terrestrial solar farms, that's the rationale for assuming fixed arrays
> when
> >comparing energy payback for space vs. terrestrial solar cells.
> >
> >It's still an "apples to oranges" sort of comparison, of course, because
> >there are so many other factors to consider, and the optimum array types
> are
> >so widely different.
> >
> >Precision tracking, BTW, is not necessary for flat panel or low
> concentrator
> >arrays. It's only an issue for heliostats focusing on a central tower, or
> >for high concentration parabolic dishes.
> >
> >In space, solar tracking is mostly a non-issue. Yes, the array needs to be
> >gimbaled to allow for the daily rotation of the sun relative to the
> >microwave transmitter with its constant orientation toward earth. But the
> >array is floating in a microgravity environment, and the motor power needed
> >to maintain its orientation toward the sun is insignificant. Even
> >considering the huge multi km^2sizes of the arrays.
> >
> >There's no issue of having to move the arrays to avoid interference with
> >communication satellites. When you hear that geostationary orbit is
> >"crowded" with communication satellites, it's refering to the angular
> >separation between satellites needed to avoid RF interference to a small
> >dish antenna. The physical parking locations for satellites are still on
> >the order of 1000 km apart. In any case, solar power satellites would not
> >compete for slots in true geostationary orbits. For technical reasons,
> >they'd occupy slightly eliptical, slightly inclined orbits that would have
> >periods of 24 hours, but would remain 1000 km or so from the geostationary
> >track at all times. Viewed from the earth, they'd trace small circles in
> >the sky with a 24-hour period. In fact, if you put another easily visible
> >satellite in geostationary orbit at the central point around which the
> power
> >satellite appeared to be circling, you'd have a handy 24-hour clock in the
> >sky. You could claim the Guiness book of records entry for the world's most
> >expensive clock!
> >
> >Roger Arnold
> >Sunnyvale, CA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> And exactly what technology is going to beam x gigawatts to earth??

Phased array microwave transmitters.  The same general technology that is
employed in phased array radar systems.

Look, I don't want to get stuck into the role of resident ER champion of
space solar power.  I happen to know a lot about it, because a couple of the
folks who did the Boeing reference design study for NASA back in the 70's
were friends. I was working on real time executive software for AWACS at the
time, having failed to find an opening in the Space Systems Division that I
could transfer into. (My original plan, when I hired into Boeing.)  But I
sometimes had lunch with my SSD friends, and I kibbitzed on the study.
Believe me, there are no unsolved technical issues as blatant as "what
technology is going to beam x gigawatts to earth?"  The guys who did the
study were well grounded in the physics and engineering of space systems and
microwave transmissions. They knew their business.

The problems with space solar power are economic.  There is no plausible way
that a sufficiently cheap launch capability to geosynchronous orbit could be
developed within the next two decades.  And the whole system is an
unnecessary complexity.  There are simpler, cheaper, and more immediate ways
to supply the  power we need to keep the lights on.

But that's another topic.

Roger Arnold
Sunnyvale, CA

----- Original Message -----
From: hugh spencer
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Japan eyes solar station in space


And exactly what technology is going to beam x gigawatts to earth??
(focussed no less)

I assume it is resident in some brain pan..

H

>Pedro,
>
>You're right, two axis solar tracking (or single axis polar mount) gives a
>nominal 50% average gain for terrestrial solar. That's assuming no increase
>in atmospheric losses at low sun elevations; it reduces to something more
>like 40% in practice. The relative gain is higher in summer, lower in
>winter. To realize any gain at all, however, the tracking modules must be
>distributed well apart, so that they don't shade one another when the sun
>is
>at low elevation angles. So tracking increases the output per square meter
>of collector, but reduces the output per square meter of land area
>occupied. Since land area is a significant factor in the cost of
>terrestrial solar farms, that's the rationale for assuming fixed arrays
>when
>comparing energy payback for space vs. terrestrial solar cells.
>
>It's still an "apples to oranges" sort of comparison, of course, because
>there are so many other factors to consider, and the optimum array types
>are
>so widely different.
>
>Precision tracking, BTW, is not necessary for flat panel or low
>concentrator
>arrays. It's only an issue for heliostats focusing on a central tower, or
>for high concentration parabolic dishes.
>
>In space, solar tracking is mostly a non-issue. Yes, the array needs to be
>gimbaled to allow for the daily rotation of the sun relative to the
>microwave transmitter with its constant orientation toward earth. But the
>array is floating in a microgravity environment, and the motor power needed
>to maintain its orientation toward the sun is insignificant. Even
>considering the huge multi km^2sizes of the arrays.
>
>There's no issue of having to move the arrays to avoid interference with
>communication satellites. When you hear that geostationary orbit is
>"crowded" with communication satellites, it's refering to the angular
>separation between satellites needed to avoid RF interference to a small
>dish antenna. The physical parking locations for satellites are still on
>the order of 1000 km apart. In any case, solar power satellites would not
>compete for slots in true geostationary orbits. For technical reasons,
>they'd occupy slightly eliptical, slightly inclined orbits that would have
>periods of 24 hours, but would remain 1000 km or so from the geostationary
>track at all times. Viewed from the earth, they'd trace small circles in
>the sky with a 24-hour period. In fact, if you put another easily visible
>satellite in geostationary orbit at the central point around which the
>power
>satellite appeared to be circling, you'd have a handy 24-hour clock in the
>sky. You could claim the Guiness book of records entry for the world's most
>expensive clock!
>
>Roger Arnold
>Sunnyvale, CA

Gary,
  I am talking of standard engine technology of the 1980's
as presented by GM vs standard engine technology of
2008-9 as presented by Honda. There are a wealth
of other alternate engine technologies which I know little
of. I will defer on those as quite honestly, auto engines
just don't interest me, nor in reality do autos, whatever
their make or design. All autos are "junk and garbage"
in my eyes, the technologies behind them are merely
alternative means to waste energy on a grand but
different grand scale.
    I myself prefer to walk, whatever the weather, to do
most of life's business and have organized my life
around that goal.
... I do wish you the best, whatever it is you advocate
in improving engine efficiency without requiring
replacement of the entire global auto fleet. 

--- On Sat, 11/21/09, gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@...> wrote:


From: gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@...>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 4:11 PM


 



Eric ; So you're saying that going from 14.7 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel onto
100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel is "outdated Technology" ? Have you ever
wondered why Engine Oil turns dark after 5,000 miles in a Gasoline
powered engine, but not in a Natural Gas, Propane or Hydrogen powered engine ?
It's because of incomplete combustion, which is the case with
an atomized  14.7/1 Air/Fuel Ratio.I know that vapor fuel technology does
work.I and many others have done it, yet it's illegal to even attempt on any
vehicle from 1996 to the present.And this is "Progress" ? If you can locate my
profile, I have posted a Photo of a Vaporizer , with the resulting vapor that
would normally power an engine ignited to prove that it actually works.The
Flame Pattern is identical to that of a Butane Lighter,Blue to Yellow to
Orange.This results in a much lower combustion temperature than Natural Gas,
Propane, or Hydrogen, and a lot more power.And this is "outdated
technology" ? It's entirely possible that a Reality Check is in order !

--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 10:36 AM

 

Technology has moved on. Reducing engine fuel efficiency
used to be the only way to obtain cleaner emissions from
the conventionl internal combustion engine. That is no longer
true as engine technology has advanced to a point that
we can have our cake and eat it too. But, that is Japanese
engine technology, not US automaker technology. Until
the US auto manufacturers catch up, the laws are still the
best way to cleaner emissions without going to alternate
fuels.
...But yes, those laws are becoming technologically outdated.

--- On Fri, 11/20/09, gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@ yahoo. com> wrote:

From: gary kirkland <gvaporcarb@ yahoo. com>
Subject: [energyresources] Alternate use of conventional Energy
To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 8:59 PM

 

I have a question concerning Alternative use of conventional Energy that up
until now no one has been able to answer.Why is it illegal for any gasoline
powered vehicle in the USA from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting
exhaust emissions ? All such vehicles are equipped with Oxygen (O2) Exhaust
Sensors that are set up to detect a sufficient level of polluting exhaust
emissions that will indicate that fuel is being consumed at 14.7 parts of Air
to 1 part of Fuel.When a vehicle is connected to an EPA-OBD II Emissions
Inspection Analyzer for it's annual Emissions Inspection, whatever those O2
Sensors detect is registered.A vehicle that is emitting an excess level of
polluting exhaust Emissions will fail it's Inspection as well it should.But if
there is not enough polluting exhaust Emissions, O2 Sensors will detect nothing,
and an O2 Sensor Failure Code will be generated.O2 Sensor exemptions are
permitted for vehicles that have been legally
converted to operate on Natural Gas, Propane, or Hydrogen and are registered as
such.But no such O2 Sensor Exemption is permitted for a gasoline powered
vehicle, 1996 or newer.Thus it is entirely possible to fail an Emissions
Inspection for not emitting enough polluting Exhaust Emissions ! My point is
this; gasoline can be safely vaporized to 100 parts of Air to 1 part of
Fuel.With this, even the largest SUV could easily get 50 + MPG and emit a
fraction of the Emissions of an EPA-OBD II mandated fuel system, with an actual
increase in power, and much longer engine life.I'm not the first to realize
this.Far from it! For proof, do a search on [the late] Tom Ogle.Then go to
http://energy21. freeservers. com/bookrep. html and scan down the page to just
before the update.It's several years old, but still very relevant.The last
couple of paragraphs really say it all.But even if it is not to be believed that
safe fuel vaporization is entirely possible, my
point is that it's illegal to even attempt to do so with any gasoline powered
vehicle from 1996 to the present.Why not ? If there is any way that I could send
you a Photo, I can prove my point.I'm not marketing anything.To pull that off
I'd have to be a multimillionaire. I have posed this question about the
outlawing of vapor fuel technology to many Environmentalists and Politicians
that claim to care about the Environment. So far not one of them will respond.So
how about you ?  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Argument can be tiresome, I agree. Over and over, the same points, over and
over, the same counter points or evasions in response.  It can sometimes be
useless, but sometimes it isn't. Arguments do generally get resolved eventually.
Reality eventually favors one argument over the other.

I don't think this is a private argument at all. We are dealing with subjects
that affect everyone. The way society puts values on  resources, puts values
each other, affects everyone. It affects all of nature.  It ought to be a debate
heard by the world, not just this list.

What is your reasoning in saying this is a private argument?

Arthur Noll
Sacramento, US


   > Perhaps you gentlemen could carry on with this tiresome debate of yours
> in private?
>
> Kim
> Southern California
>
> arthurcnoll wrote:
> > You are resisting, Denis, because you refuse to discuss solutions of a
specific kind. Yes,I agree with what you w
>