Steven, if you like conspiracy and are puzzled by the iron spheres in the
dust, you might like to watch the videos on this webpage (figure 34
onwards).
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html#disintegrate
This shows steel beams apparently turning into dust. The author says this i
OrionWorks wrote:
In my own defense I believe the 60% (approx) loss was from data you
originally discovered through various government agencies - that you
posted in this discussion group.
60% is how much late-model generators lose. They convert 40% of the
fuel energy into electricity. Nukes a
Jed sez:
> OrionWorks wrote:
>
> >But then, I wonder if it might still be better than the reported 60%
> >loss through transmission lines just to get the electricity from the
> >average power plant to my wall socket.
>
> It is nowhere near as large as that. In 1990 PG&E estimated 8% losses
> for 50
Here are some useful stats:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
2005 data
Net Generation (thousand megawatt hours)
Nuclear: 781,986
All Energy Sources: 4,054,688
Net summer generating capacity (megawatts):
Nuclear: 99,988
. . .
Pumped storage: 21,347 [Not really an energy
OrionWorks wrote:
But then, I wonder if it might still be better than the reported 60%
loss through transmission lines just to get the electricity from the
average power plant to my wall socket.
It is nowhere near as large as that. In 1990 PG&E estimated 8% losses
for 500 miles. Other estimat
It updates 20.00 eastern US time each day. Check again.
David
On 9/10/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like it's not available for public viewing (yet) on Arxiv. I was
> told:
>
> > ArXiv.org considers submissions to be confidential between the
> > submitter and/or auth
thomas malloy wrote:
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > A power utility is installing gigantic sodium sulfur batteries that
> > store 7 MWH each. It also plans to use customer's PHEV as temporary
> > storage. See:
> >
> Interesting post Jed. The price seems high, and the 80% of energy back
> doesn't soun
--- Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is surprising that lead is a powerful electron donor, as powerful
> as "cat fur":
>
> http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/static_materials.htm
>
> Also noted as a weak donor is aluminum.
>
> This seems somewhat consistent with the el
Maybe the vanadium flow cells were more expensive.
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:35 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Utility plans 1,000 MW of batteries including PHEV
A power utility is installing gigantic s
Jed Rothwell wrote:
A power utility is installing gigantic sodium sulfur batteries that
store 7 MWH each. It also plans to use customer's PHEV as temporary
storage. See:
Interesting post Jed. The price seems high, and the 80% of energy back
doesn't sound so good either.
--- http://USFamil
To answer Stepehen Lawrence's question.. the answer is ..I do not know, I
was not there and I have no inside knowledge.
The information provided by news sources and governments is now a matter of
record , however, each must draw their own conclusions when conflicting
views are published.
My pe
A power utility is installing gigantic sodium sulfur batteries that
store 7 MWH each. It also plans to use customer's PHEV as temporary
storage. See:
Utility Will Use Batteries to Store Wind Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/business/11battery.html
AEP to Deploy Additional Large-Scale B
Wow. See:
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2007/3rd_quarter/qinetiq_s_zephyr_uav.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/solar-drone-bre.html
It reached 58,000 feet, and remained aloft for 54 hours. The comments
in Wired about laser weapons are screwy. But this th
Sorry to rake this up again, but I've got a couple questions about
this, and in the past, Vortex has provided the clearest, most cogent,
and most diverse comments on 9/11 I've seen anywhere. (Maybe I should
broaden my reading, eh?) :-)
Background: I'm firmly in Jed's camp on this. But last nig
JNPCo. wrote:
[spam snipped]
Could we keep the ALL CAPS HTML SPAM off the group, please?
The weight of the machine is irrelevant to any claim of OU -- only
energy out versus energy in matters, and the spam said nothing about
that, very probably because EO versus EI balances.
FWIW a 9 volt b
On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Nick Palmer wrote:
Horace wrote
>
Wow Horace, looks like you're tidying things up for a patent
applic
Horace wrote
>
Wow Horace, looks like you're tidying things up for a patent application!
17 matches
Mail list logo
