We've now gotten to the point where we are discussing strongly conflicting data from different sources. Rereading my post, I was worried that it might appear that I will simply not accept any number you put out. But, I am applying self consistent rules, well at least they are consistent as far as I can tell.
1) Projections must be taken with a big grain of salt. Hard numbers win hands down over projections. 2) Government consumption figures are pretty accurate. 3) Two sites quoting a third count as one reference, not three. Additional references must be independent to be add weight to a previous one 4) If a variety of industry information is provided, the most pessimistic is the most likely to be accurate. 5) One page general overviews with massive generalizations are less trustworthy than detailed explanations that give credible sources. You are free to disagree with my criteria or on how I apply them. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:26 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er > > http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html > http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14061/newsDate/17-Jan-20 02/st > ory.htm > http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2002/04/22/daily7.html > I don't have 2002 numbers. www.awea.com has a list of projects somewhere. > Consumption never adds up to capacity. If you look at the original, at awea.org, you will find that the 2001 number is a projection. I'm always skeptical concerning projections. If you look at the 32% increase in capability listed from 98 to 99 at awea.org, it was accompanies by a 48% increase in consumption. So, I don't see evidence that use lags capacity. I'd argue that the most logical conclusion was that the projections were optimistic. Indeed, I remember projects that were cancelled on the Calf. page when prices went back down. > > >We do have a very environmentally friendly alternative, but it is not PC, > >so it is being phased out, alas. No global warming, a strong safety record > >in the West. > > True. The *potential* disaster is why most people fear it. But, they use different criterion for evaluating the potential disaster for nuclear power than anything else. With Chernobyl, they did almost everything about as badly as possible, and still killed only 200. My standard comparison before 911 was the destructive power of a fully fueled airplane. I wish I wasn't proven right. :-(. Yet, we never worried about planes until 911. And we still aren't talking about getting rid of them. > > Solar, > A factor of 4 in 17 years is fair. A definitive source is hard to find. > This one says a factor of 5 over 15 years > http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/Potential.PDF That statement has known falsehoods in it. Nuclear plants do not get massive subsidies. I have a post from 2 months ago that show total subsides for wind higher than nuclear. > This one says 20 fold but doesn't give a time frame. > http://starfire.ne.uiuc.edu/~ne201/1996/jmbradle/ I look for key words, such as low as." The most recent average numbers I quoted were from an industry survey; which seemed like a good number, at $6.00. The timeframe was from 1973 till now. Putting numbers from different sources Most of the progress was made in the first 10 years, > This one says 99% from 1972-1992 > http://www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dnr/energy/doePhotovoltaics.html That's really curious, because the figure for 1992, $5.00, is less than the industry average for 2002. > These ones says 100 fold since 1972. > http://www.nrel.gov/hot-stuff/press/1999/299phys.html I didn't get a number there. > http://whyfiles.org/041solar/main1.html This one had projected numbers. I always take industry survey numbers given in 2002 over projected numbers for 2002 given in 1999. > I don't find this hard to believe. Up until 1972 PV's were used almost > exclusively on spacecraft. now there is 1000's of mW installed on earth. >High volume brings manufacturing costs way down. But, there is a real limit to economics of scale. It works if there is a high NRE cost, or if extensive research is needed. So, prices may have dropped quite a bit at first. But, this can bottom out when technological walls are hit. From what I've seen, such a wall has been hit with PV. Flat prices for the last two years, plus articles in Physics Today of a few years ago indicate to me that a wall has been hit. That doesn't mean it will never work, but that it is not simply a D&E, manufacturing quality, and manufacturing scale problem. > > Wind > from $.40/kwh in the 80's to $.05/kwh today > http://www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/InFocus2002/articles/energy_renewable.h tml Wind has come down significantly in cost. But, there are two significant problems that have not been addressed. 1) There are a limited supply of quality high wind areas close to consumers 2) Even there, the wind cannot be relied upon. So, wind power cannot be part of the supply that is guaranteed for peak demand. > You've mentioned this before so I have to ask. Do you advocate removing > pollution controls from cars to improve efficiency? No, I don't. I just advocate understanding what tradeoffs we make. I think that the control of pollution is worth the inefficiency. > >>When I first saw "compressed air" I said hey!, that's real! Its not cold > >>fusion, zero-point energy, or ORMUS. I'll leave the details of making it work > >>to the engineers. > > > >Well, I am both a scientist and engineer. > > More of a scientist I would bet. Hence your preference for pure research. <smile> I haven't done pure research in 20 years. I've done precious little applied research. Mostly engineering development. I've been an engineering project manager for years. In reality, although I'm a trained scientist, I've worked in engineering for 20 years. One of the reasons that I can now be independent is that I've been in touch with the regular field guys for years and have a practical sense for what works and what doesn't. So, I have a reputation for practicality. So, my skills are in application, not pure research. > > Hopefully it will burst while letting nothing but the air out. Hopefully is not a word that is used with safety. > >Could be. But their first plant is in France, and I did read one article that > mentioned a plant would be in New York state. > > >>Meanwhile, the big 3 auto manufacturers have a long history of putting cars > >>on the road with known safety problems and perpetuating the myth that the > >>heavier a vehicle is, the safer it is. > > > >Well, if it is a myth, then why have my kids been hit several times and > >hardly noticed it in our conversion van? > > About 10 years ago I was in a head-on accident in my Suzuki Sidekick. I walked > away with a sprained ankle and seatbelt bruises. But this doesn't really mean > anything. > This seems like an honest analysis. > http://enews.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety.html Ah, they look at something they call total danger. Plus, they compare SUVs with big cars, not small ones. Its honest, but its skewed. > That's a stretch. This makes about as much sense as saying that grocery >stores are hazardous because of all the people who have been killed in car >accidents on their way to the grocery store. If you are saying that it is one more >reason to get on the roof, then that argument calls for immediate action against > deciduous trees, tv antennas, frisbees and cats. People who wouldn't >normally fix their own shingles, won't fix their own solar panels either. And not > everyone who has solar panels on their roof will need to access them >often. They need little maintenance. I wonder how true that really is over 20 years. Its not that a lot of people will die; its that solar panels on 50 million households, increases the times folks go on the roof quite a bit. > > I don't think the 13,000 number represents falls from roofs. Heres some > numbers. No, I really didn't mean to state that it has. Its just that the deaths from other energy sources are very small. I'm not so sanguine that PV cells will be all that maintenance free after, say, 5 years. There are just so many of them on a roof, there are numerous possibilities for failure. If there was a 1 in 250,000 chance of someone falling off a roof and killing themselves working on a given house, then it would still greatly exceed the death rate for the oil patch. Coal is the exception, but I'm personally working on lowering the death rate there. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
