On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:02:08 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:20:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I find that hard to believe.
>Do you have some factual data to back up your opinion?
>Airships already use solar panels to power them.
---
The only one I've
In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:20:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find that hard to believe.Do you have some factual data to back up your opinion?
Airships already use solar panels to power them. But I have not data to back up my suggestions other than it seems logical
On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:25 EDT, you wrote:
>A series of quarter mile solar towers placed in the center of flying
>airships would prove more economical, safe, and easier to build and test.
>Smaller is
>better. Building a one mile high solar tower that is fixed to the ground
>which could be
Hi Baron,
> Baron writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Have you considered switching channels?
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>>
> I tune into many channells all at once, though there
> are a few I should avoid and tune out. I like your
> www.OrionWorks.com website.
Thank you for your kind com
In a message dated 5/24/2005 9:37:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you considered switching channels?Just my two cents.Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.com
I tune into many channells all at once, though there are a few I should avoid and tune out. I like y
Hi Baron,
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> A series of quarter mile solar towers placed in
> the center of flying airships would prove more
> economical, safe, and easier to build and test.
> Smaller is better. Building a one mile high
> solar tower that is fixed to the ground
> which could b
A series of quarter mile solar towers placed in the center of flying airships would prove more economical, safe, and easier to build and test. Smaller is better. Building a one mile high solar tower that is fixed to the ground which could be damaged by weather or other problems is far riskier t
From: Michael Foster
Speaking of solar towers, does anyone know why Solar One,
which became Solar Two, was decommissioned? It was in Daggett,
CA, and was visible from I-15 on your way from Los Angeles to
Las Vegas. Steam-on-a-stick, as it was called, seemed to be
producing plenty of electricit
> From: Michael Foster
> Speaking of solar towers, does anyone know why Solar One,
> which became Solar Two, was decommissioned? It was in Daggett,
> CA, and was visible from I-15 on your way from Los Angeles to
> Las Vegas. Steam-on-a-stick, as it was called, seemed to be
> producing plenty of
Speaking of solar towers, does anyone know why Solar One,
which became Solar Two, was decommissioned? It was in Daggett,
CA, and was visible from I-15 on your way from Los Angeles to
Las Vegas. Steam-on-a-stick, as it was called, seemed to be
producing plenty of electricity, so why was it shut d
> From: Grimer
...
> Like "is that a gun in your pocket or are
> you just pleased to see me?" ;-)
>
> F.
A really BIG gun.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The average nuclear plant is about 980 MW I think, and in 1999 the
capacity factor was 88.5%, which is lower than I expected. In other words
"actual" size is around 870 MW.
I don't understand this. I'll expose some ignorance; perhaps someone can
address it:
Is 980MW
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
For the first time in several years, I saw a firefly last year. This is
not because I'm never outside in the evening in the summer! I am, fairly
often, and I've been watching for them.
They're not there.
Where have the fireflies gone? What's happened to them?
They h
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mike Carrell wrote:
It was millions of windmills, not millions of wind towers.
That's true. A large wind turbine produces 1 or 2 MW nameplate, 0.3 to
0.6 MW actual. The wind tower being planned in Australia will produce
200 MW nameplate, and I suppose about the same actual.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I also think it is deplorable that there are parents who
are oblivious to raising children that never have the chance to see
the miracle of a firefly. Truly tragic.
One moment -- there's something more here that deserves a comment.
I grew
I totally agree with Jed, so let me tell you some of my experiences
while growing up, which many of you who are old enough will have
experienced as well. Where I lived in Pennsylvania 60 years ago, the
towns, which were small and separated from each other, were surrounded
by forests and still
At 10:59 am 19/05/2005 -0400, Steven wrote:
> I specifically chose SOLAR TOWERS (not windmills)
> because they would be HUGE in-your-face structures.
> Because they are TOWERS, their structural shape
> tend to represent strong psychic archetypes to
> different people
Like "is t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW: I'm NOT arguing we SHOULD build a thousand solar towers, even though
I've obviously taken the side that maybe they might not be such a bad
thing considering what the alternatives might be.
If we do not build thousands, they will contribute only a tiny fraction of
o
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:19 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Mile-high Solar Towers: political ramifications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I specifically chose SOLAR TOWERS (not windmills) because they would be
>HUGE in-your-face structures. Because they are TOWERS, t
> From: Jed Rothwell
...
> Oh come now. You mean they would be phallic symbols,
> like the Washington Monument. Believe me, that
> represents the same psychic archetype to people
> in every society. It is unmistakable.
Jed,
Do not put words in my mouth.
It is you and you alone who has suggest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I specifically chose SOLAR TOWERS (not windmills) because they would be
HUGE in-your-face structures. Because they are TOWERS, their structural
shape tend to represent strong psychic archetypes to different people and
societies depending on cultural backgrounds.
Oh come
Hi Mike,
> From: "Mike Carrell"
...
> I think it remarkable how this discussion spun out of
> control by misunderstanding the original post. And this
> is a group that is supposed to be analysing new science
> in a meaningful way.
>
> The original post was about mapping the wind at various
> pa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I also think it is deplorable that there are parents who are
oblivious to raising children that never have the chance to see the
miracle of a firefly. Truly tragic.
But wait a minute, Jed. There is an absurd aspect to what you're saying!
Let me put it differ
Mike Carrell wrote:
It was millions of windmills, not millions of wind towers.
That's true. A large wind turbine produces 1 or 2 MW nameplate, 0.3 to 0.6
MW actual. The wind tower being planned in Australia will produce 200 MW
nameplate, and I suppose about the same actual. So it would take ~300
At 10:02 pm 18/05/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> I think it remarkable how this discussion
> spun out of control by misunderstanding the
> original post. And this is a group that is
> supposed to be analysing new science in a
> meaningful way.
"Spun out of control"? What a cheek!
We've not spun o
I think it remarkable how this discussion spun out of control by
misunderstanding the original post. And this is a group that is supposed to
be analysing new science in a meaningful way.
The original post was about mapping the wind at various parts of the globe
and estimating the energy contecnt o
At 05:27 pm 18/05/2005 -0500, Dick wrote:
> Frank, consider the amount of energy
> expended daily in the quest to reduce
> fat. People actually pay money to go
> to the spa and workout. Couple the
> electric power output from the treadmill
> to batteries and the energy problem
> solves its
At 05:56 pm 18/05/2005 -0400, Steven wrote:
> Well, Jed, I sympathize with much of what you say.
> I'm also not against a more sensible approach to using
> nuclear power either.
>
> But "stunting children's imagination"? I don't think so.
>
> I will only reiterate that constructing thousands
>> Orionworks wrote:
> Jed Wrote:
>> But "stunting children's imagination"? I don't
>> think so.
>
> You don't think so? Frankly, I consider that another
> symptom of our debased civilization. People in Japan
> do not think there is anything wrong with children
> growing up never seeing a firefly
At 06:07 pm 18/05/2005 -0400, Jed wrote:
> Grimer wrote:
>
>> Surely, man is part of nature, and the Eifel tower is as natural as an ant
>> hill.
>> Or do ants consider all those enormous anthills a blot on their landscape?
>
> If those African ants come over here as invasive species and start bu
RC Macaulay wrote:
Frank, consider the amount of energy expended daily in the quest to
reduce fat. People actually pay money to go to the spa and workout. Couple
the electric power output from the treadmill to batteries and the energy
problem solves itself.
The comedian Jon Stewart has often ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But "stunting children's imagination"? I don't think so.
You don't think so? Frankly, I consider that another symptom of our debased
civilization. People in Japan do not think there is anything wrong with
children growing up never seeing a firefly or a clear stream of pot
one soon
enough.. the most efficent form of transportation the world has seen to
date.
Richard
- Original Message -
From: "Grimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Mile-high Solar Towers: political ramifications
At 04:55 pm 18/05
Grimer wrote:
Surely, man is part of nature, and the Eifel tower is as natural as an ant
hill.
Or do ants consider all those enormous anthills a blot on their landscape?
If those African ants come over here as invasive species and start building
their hills everywhere, *I* will consider it an eye
> From: Jed Rothwell
...
> One would be inspirational. One or two in each state
> would be a local tourist attraction. But if there were
> thousands and thousands of them, and they were as
> ubiquitous as McDonald's restaurants, they would be a
> terrible blight on the landscape. So is McDonald's
At 04:55 pm 18/05/2005 -0400, Jed wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>*Everything* has been paved over and replaced with
>fast-food joints, convenience stores and parking lots. They cleaned up the
>air and water pollution, but apparently it never occurred to anyone that it
>would be good idea to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think being forced to view of a multi-mile high solar tower
capable of generating power comparable to what a nuclear plant could
produce would be truly inspirational.
One would be inspirational. One or two in each state would be a local
tourist attraction.
As Jed recently stated, "All things in moderation" is indeed a good thing to
keep in mind.
Never the less, Aesthetics, as we all know, is often in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I think being forced to view of a multi-mile high solar tower
capable of generating power comparable to what a
38 matches
Mail list logo
