(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

On Jul 18, 10:29*am, Beam Me Up Scotty Then-Destroy-
wrote:
On 7/17/2010 8:24 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:



"Beam Me Up Scotty" wrote in
...

* * Solar, Hydrogen and even Hydro are the
better answers -not- Batteries of any kind

Hydrogen.... exhausts water vapor, water vapor is more of a greenhouse
gas by your standards than CO2.

If you drive enough cars through the desert you will raise the humidity
which is the "Water Vapor" that will increase all the dry parts of the
world to have more water vapor and that is more greenhouse gas.

Your Solution is worse than the problem.... * The cure is worse than the
disease.

While you could have made the argument that it would help the USA be
energy self sufficient and that is a good thing, you leftists try to use
the silly *Global Warming myth* as your basis and in that realm it makes
no more sense than Global Warming its self.

Water vapor is indeed a short term greenhouse gas.. but there is one major
difference between water vapor and, say, CO2. *Water vapor precipitates out
of the atmosphere in a regular cycle.

CO2 is filtered by plants.

The residual heat is what you claim as the DANGER.

It's called 'rain'.

How will you remove the heat? * Why build cars that create a volatile
temperature?

It also
precipitates out nightly in the form of dew as the humidity reaches 100%.
Water vapor does not STAY in the atmosphere permanently.

- My point being that the 30% to 99% rise

You 'point' is trying to Count the Number of Angels
on the Head of a Pin - When the question is :

What Do You Think of the Mona Lisa . . .
http://www.bloglifetime.com/images/b...-mona-lisa.jpg

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

On Jul 18, 11:26*am, Beam Me Up Scotty Then-Destroy-
wrote:
On 7/17/2010 6:00 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:



* Solar, Hydrogen and even Hydro are the better answers -not-
Batteries of any kind

(This statement was written by RHF. Please see below)

On 7/17/2010 2:31 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Hydrogen.... exhausts water vapor, water vapor is more of a
greenhouse gas by your standards than CO2.

If you drive enough cars through the desert you will raise the
humidity which is the "Water Vapor" that will increase all the dry
parts of the world to have more water vapor and that is more
greenhouse gas.

Your Solution is worse than the problem.... * The cure is worse than
the disease.

While you could have made the argument that it would help the USA be
energy self sufficient and that is a good thing, you leftists try to
use the silly *Global Warming myth* as your basis and in that realm
it makes no more sense than Global Warming its self.

Um, Scotty,

The statement you quoted above and that caused you to get your knickers
in a twist was written by *RHF*, NOT Joe from Kokomo.

You might want to pull your head out of your ass and try replying to the
*correct* poster.

No names in my reply so anyone on the planet that agrees with what was
written, can read my statement and the one who wrote it knows who he
is.... *Anyone that was offended can either accept that attributes
sometimes get mucked up and just post saying they didn't say it and
accept that it was unintentional.... or they can whine incessantly.

- Typos and attributes don't make the truth any less true.

Typos and Attributes don't make Lies any less un-true.

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

On Jul 18, 12:30*pm, Bone China Blue wrote:
In article ,
*Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Water vapor is indeed a short term greenhouse gas.. but there is one major
difference between water vapor and, say, CO2. *Water vapor precipitates out
of the atmosphere in a regular cycle.

CO2 is filtered by plants. Co2 is a "trace" gas in air. *Why isn't Mars
a ball of fire with 98% Co2

Why isn't Venus as cold as Mars?

How will you remove the heat? * Why build cars that create a volatile
water vapor and higher temperatures?

Uh....what? Coal and oil are captured ancient sunlight. Burning them releases
the energy of that sunlight + the energy of modern sunlight. Burning fossil
fuels increases the energy in the biosphere above incident solar radiation.

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

On Jul 19, 11:11*am, Bill Baka wrote:
On 07/19/2010 03:30 AM, RHF wrote:

- Guys, it is all about electricity.
- That is the one common point around
- which everything else depends.
- It is not rocket science.

- - . . . provided that it is . . .
- - Renewable Green Electricity :
- - Solar, Wind, Hydro& *Geo-Thermo
- - .

- My comment. Electricity is the one thing
- that will power everything else. Get onto
- some solid ground and start talking about
- that instead of trying to compare apples
- and oranges.
- Bill Baka

Coal Burning Electrical Power Plants produce
Mega Pollution and that is why Prez Obama
has pledged to shut them down.

Oil Burning Electrical Power Plants also produce
a lot of Pollution and that is why Prez Obama
has pledged to shut them down.

Natural Gas Burning Electrical Power Plants
produce less Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will let them stay running for now.

Hydro* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will let them stay running for now.
* but they destroy the natural watersheds
and river ecosystems

Solar* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will get them up and running soon.
* but they destroy the natural environment
with massive arrays covering the landscape

Wind* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will get more of them up and running
soon.
* but they destroy the natural environment
with massive towers and blades that kill birds

Geo-Thermo* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power
Plants produce little Pollution and that is why
Prez Obama will get more of them up and
running soon.
* but they have yet unknown natural environment
questions -wrt- earthquakes etc

Most importantly regardless of the Source of
the Electrical Power Prez Obama will use Cap
and Trade to Double [2X] and Triple [3X] every
American's Home Energy Bill with Higher Fees
and Taxes : Prez Obama Will Get More Out of
The American-Tax-Slaves in the name of Global
Social Justice.


BB -wrt- Apples and Oranges :
alas. . . Apples are so crisp to bite into . . .
and Oranges are so juicy to bite into . . .
plus both are a renewable resource ~ RHF
-ps- no batteries {electricity} require

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

On 07/19/2010 12:14 PM, RHF wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:11 am, Bill wrote:
On 07/19/2010 03:30 AM, RHF wrote:

- Guys, it is all about electricity.
- That is the one common point around
- which everything else depends.
- It is not rocket science.

- - . . . provided that it is . . .
- - Renewable Green Electricity :
- - Solar, Wind, Hydro& Geo-Thermo
- - .

- My comment. Electricity is the one thing
- that will power everything else. Get onto
- some solid ground and start talking about
- that instead of trying to compare apples
- and oranges.
- Bill Baka

Coal Burning Electrical Power Plants produce
Mega Pollution and that is why Prez Obama
has pledged to shut them down.

Oil Burning Electrical Power Plants also produce
a lot of Pollution and that is why Prez Obama
has pledged to shut them down.

Natural Gas Burning Electrical Power Plants
produce less Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will let them stay running for now.

Hydro* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will let them stay running for now.
* but they destroy the natural watersheds
and river ecosystems

Solar* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will get them up and running soon.
* but they destroy the natural environment
with massive arrays covering the landscape

Wind* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will get more of them up and running
soon.
* but they destroy the natural environment
with massive towers and blades that kill birds

Geo-Thermo* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power
Plants produce little Pollution and that is why
Prez Obama will get more of them up and
running soon.
* but they have yet unknown natural environment
questions -wrt- earthquakes etc

Most importantly regardless of the Source of
the Electrical Power Prez Obama will use Cap
and Trade to Double [2X] and Triple [3X] every
American's Home Energy Bill with Higher Fees
and Taxes : Prez Obama Will Get More Out of
The American-Tax-Slaves in the name of Global
Social Justice.


BB -wrt- Apples and Oranges :
alas. . . Apples are so crisp to bite into . . .
and Oranges are so juicy to bite into . . .
plus both are a renewable resource ~ RHF
-ps- no batteries {electricity} require
.

I thought that the source of the power would be a non-polluting kind of
thing. We get energy from the moon in the form of Ocean tides, and this
differential gravity is what powers our Geo-thermal. If you want to get
overly technical it is gravity, and the sun's light that power everything.
Nuclear is the only exception to the rule and eventually we could
exhaust the supply of U-238, then no more nuclear.
Toss those concepts into the mix and it could get interesting.
Bill Baka

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

http://www.devilfinder.com
Home Built Electric Cars

I have three sets of detailed plans here which I bought back in the
early 1970's.One of them is about using a govt surplus DC electric motor
in a VW beetle car.The other one is about installing a three cylinder
Yakusa (sompin like dat) diesel engine in a Pinto car, 125 MPG it
says.The other one is about building a double compound compressed air
engine for a weird looking home built bicycle.

Build your own electric cars.Street legal golf carts are available too.
cuhulin

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

William Jeanes also said diesel engines run just fine on natural (LPG)
gas.I have known that for over sixty years.In World War Two a lot of
taxi cabs were running on coal.They had a device to convert coal to
gas.Back around 1974, Cadillac experimented with a coal burning engine.
cuhulin

(OT) : The Obama Battery - Now That's Green - NOT !
 

RHF wrote:


Solar* {Non-Burning} Electrical Power Plants
produce little Pollution and that is why Prez
Obama will get them up and running soon.
* but they destroy the natural environment
with massive arrays covering the landscape

Levelised cost

Since a solar power plant does not use any fuel, the cost consists
mostly of capital cost with minor operational and maintenance cost. If
the lifetime of the plant and the interest rate is known, then the cost
per kWh can be calculated. This is called the levelised energy cost.

The first step in the calculation is to determine the investment for the
production of 1 kWh in a year. Example, the fact sheet of the Andasol 1
project shows a total investment of 310 million euros for a production
of 179 GWh a year. Since 179 GWh is 179 million kWh, the investment per
kWh a year production is 310 / 179 = 1.73 euro. Another example is
Cloncurry solar power station in Australia. It is planned to produce 30
million kWh a year for an investment of 31 million Australian dollars.
So, if this is achieved in reality, the cost would be 1.03 Australian
dollar for the production of 1 kWh in a year. This would be
significantly cheaper than Andasol 1, which can partially be explained
by the higher radiation in Cloncurry over Spain. The investment per kwh
cost for one year should not be confused with the cost per kwh over the
complete lifetime of such a plant.

In most cases the capacity is specified for a power plant (for instance
Andasol 1 has a capacity of 50MW). This number is not suitable for
comparison, because the capacity factor can differ. If a solar power
plant has heat storage, then it can also produce output after sunset,
but that will not change the capacity factor, it simply displaces the
output. The average capacity factor for a solar power plant, which is a
function of tracking, shading and location, is about 20%, meaning that a
50MW capacity power plant will typically provide a yearly output of 50
MW × 24 hrs × 365 days × 20% = 87,600 MWh/year, or 87.6 GWh/yr.

Although the investment for one kWh year production is suitable for
comparing the price of different solar power plants, it doesn't give the
price per kWh yet. The way of financing has a great influence on the
final price. If the technology is proven, an interest rate of 7%[69]
should be possible. However, for a new technology investors want a much
higher rate to compensate for the higher risk. This has a significant
negative effect on the price per kWh. Independent of the way of
financing, there is always a linear relation between the investment per
kWh production in a year and the price for 1 kWh (before adding
operational and maintenance cost). In other words, if by enhancements of
the technology the investments drop by 20%, then the price per kWh also
drops by 20%.

If a way of financing is assumed where the money is borrowed and repaid
every year, in such way that the debt and interest decreases, then the
following formula can be used to calculate the division factor: (1 - (1
+ interest / 100) ^ -lifetime) / (interest / 100). For a lifetime of 25
years and an interest rate of 7%, the division factor is 11.65. For
example, the investment of Andasol 1 was 1.73 euro per kWh, divided by
11.65 results in a price of 0.15 euro per kWh. If one cent operation and
maintenance cost is added, then the levelized cost is 0.16 euro per kWh.
Other ways of financing, different way of debt repayment, different
lifetime expectation, different interest rate, may lead to a
significantly different number.

If the cost per kWh may follow the inflation, then the inflation rate
can be added to the interest rate. If an investor puts his money on the
bank for 7%, then he is not compensated for inflation. However, if the
cost per kWh is raised with inflation, then he is compensated and he can
add 2% (a normal inflation rate) to his return. The Andasol 1 plant has
a guaranteed feed-in tariff of 0.21 euro for 25 years. If this number is
fixed, after 25 years with 2% inflation, 0.21 euro will have a value
comparable with 0.13 euro now.

Finally, there is some gap between the first investment and the first
production of electricity. This increases the investment with the
interest over the period that the plant is not active yet. The modular
solar dish (but also solar photovoltaic and wind power) have the
advantage that electricity production starts after first construction.

Given the fact that solar thermal power is reliable, can deliver peak
load and does not cause pollution, a price of US$0.10 per kWh[70] starts
to become competitive. Although a price of US$0.06 has been claimed[71]
With some operational cost a simple target is 1 dollar (or lower)
investment for 1 kWh production in a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_t...ure_collectors

I see they're building a battery factory in Steve's backyard..
 

On Jul 16, 6:19*am, wrote:
http://www.southernautocorridor.com
The Nissan factory, about twenty miles North of doggy's couch I-20
Gluckstadt Exit, had to shut down for a few days, something about a
shortage of parts from one of the suppliers.(just in time, technology)
Maybe that Nissan factory is still on shut down now, I don't know.I
think it is.

- http://www.devilfinder.com
- Auto Battery Manufacturing in the South
- cuhulin

"obama" = http://www.devilfinder.com

The Obama Deception {Video}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=Obama+Censorship

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=Google+Spies

I see they're building a battery factory in Steve's backyard..
 

Cost to Revive Economy With Battery Plant Subsidies: $5 Trillion---in
Holland
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=293052
cuhulin