jajagabor

http://www.simpleandclear.com/simple.html
Total Rating:
0 / 0

9 Comments

    • Tue Apr 29th 15:30 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Major Corporate Shift to Solar Energy and LEDs
      CT Programmer said: "Hydrogen, solar, wind, sea waves, atomic, who knows what else lays ahead."

      Insofar as atomic, I don't like the idea of the radioactive isotope, technetium, being dumped into the English Channel, as the French are doing:

      www.motherjones.com/ne...

      brief excerpt from the above link:

      {
      But its reprocessing operations, as with Britain's notoriously leaky site at Sellafield, have racked up such a roster of problems that in the United States they'd be shut down as gross violators of the Clean Water Act. Every year Areva, the French conglomerate that handles reprocessing, dumps so much radioactive liquid into the Channel that, says Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "there are certain beaches where the effluent pipe is where you can get a suntan at night.

      "I'm not going to say the French are 'no blood, no foul,'" Lochbaum told me, "but they're not quite as concerned about effluents as we are. They tend to believe more in 'the solution to pollution is dilution.'" They are, however, in violation of European Union pollution regulations—largely because the waste contains the dangerous isotope technetium, which so far no one has found a way to remove.
      }

      Of course, my dislike of technetium and other nuclear waste doesn't mean it will be phased out, or that the nuclear power industry will disappear -- only that it should.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 25th 00:11 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade
      This was a great article, Jack. Although it is somewhat on the sanguine side -- that side is an absolutely necessary one!

      Regarding some of the more cautious/constructive comments, I liked Andrew Ling's the best. Like Mr. Ling, I have often found myself "ahead of my time" (so to speak) in regard to new technologies.

      Four years ago I put together my first solar installation (battery, inverter, charge controller, panels) and have never regretted it. But the interest from others has always been very lukewarm, even after I have upgraded the original system and put in another one, and despite the fact that electrical rates have increased around 20% in just the past couple of years in my state of residence, and are bound to increase even more in the near future.

      People always seem to love putting down new, innovative things -- and I think there is a certain obvious envy involved. Hence the usual nit-picking comments and questions. The fact that people spend money -- lots of it -- on such useless, quickly-depreciating stuff rather than on things that actually produce/save energy (and thus save money) shows that most of them are not really interested in any real "payback" in the first place, of any kind, whether for themselves or the environment etc. they live day to day, and although nice, good people, they never understand the idea of "planning ahead."

      Example: buying a new car or SUV -- unless it is really needed -- is often a complete waste of time as it results in so many incidental costs: 1) insurance cost usually increases, 2) tag/title costs usually increase 3) and lastly, vehicles often depreciate at least $1500 - $2000 as soon as they leave the dealers' lots (and even more within a mere year). Thus, money is burned for having a shiny vehicle -- for a few months (after which, perhaps it is so shiny). What kind of thinking person would eschew solar for something so wasteful? Well,
      the kind of person who doesn't really plan ahead -- i .e . most people!

      Yet the critics, even supershort, do have a valid place, for even if their comments are sometimes asinine, for they show how many out there really think.

      But seriously, if people did think, they would have been listening more deeply back when the "Owens Magnetic" automobile was produced back in the early part of the 20th century -- what (I think) was the world's first hybrid (gas/electric) car. According to Ed Begley, the Owens Magnetic got 50 mpg!

      Likewise, they would also have paid attention when Aldous Huxley, in his novel AFTER MANY A SUMMER DIES THE SWAN (first published 1939), discussed the work of the Smithsonian Director, Charles Abbot Greeley, and his work with solar thermal. In the novel, one of the main characters uses a solar thermal device to heat oil and produce steam, which in turn is used to generate electricity, and thus lives off the grid. But the novel was probably a far way off from the NYT's bestseller list, and today very few people seem to be aware of it, despite the fact the Huxley was himself part of a well known English family, and the fact that his novels (especially BRAVE NEW WORLD) are still read and published today.

      I could give many more examples of how "civilization&quo... has "missed the boat" . . . but won't.

      Instead -- to the positive:

      What was obvious to me when I installed that first solar system (and actually, long before that), and is even more obvious now, is that whatever delays are encountered in the acceptance of solar power and other alternative power sources, the bottom line is that it is inevitably going to go "gangbusters"... at some point (as it has to some degree already in much of Europe, though that potential is hardly at its full potential).

      In terms of investing, I made quite a bit investing in ESLR back in 2003 (or was it '04? -- I'd have to look it up) when it was trading between 2 and 3. I bought over $20,000 worth, and sold half when it reached 7 within a couple of years, and then sold another 1/4 of what was left when it hit 12. I still retain 1/4 of that original investment and plan to hold it for a long time.

      Since that time I've mostly traded very sporadically in solar and wind, usually (and unfortunately) selling short rather than long. Although I have almost always profited, I would have made a LOT more if I'd gone long (most of the time, anyway).

      Still, I feel good. Making money rather than losing it is far better than hitting home runs (unless, of course, you really do hit home runs most of the time).

      But what I really wish for is when solar stocks become the normal "blue chip" stocks, and investors can make a steady -- albeit modest -- amount of money mostly from dividends, rather than trying to outshine other investors with their special picks. That is fun . . . yes, but isn't really what "sustainable"... implies, is it? Sustainable is really connected with words like "relaxed," or "steady, stable" etc. and is not meant to be so volatile. But the reason these companies are more volatile is our culture and "the system," not the nature of renewables itself.

      Well, bla bla bla -- I talk a lot. Have a good one!


      View article »
    • Tue Apr 22nd 22:24 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market
      firefly (to supershort): ". . .and nuclear has received zillions of dollars in subsidies - something you keep forgetting to address. so much for your cost-efficiency ratios and 'free' market models."

      Nor has supershort yet responded to the obvious lack of compatibility between drought and nuclear power plants. And insofar as the "free-market,&quo... it is truly mind-numbing how so many of those on the so-called "conservative&quo... or "free-market"... side of things are themselves the absolute worst at voting for subsidies (welfare for the rich), sweetheart tax breaks, and these absurd "pie in the sky" ideas for our grand, glorious, clean "future" with . . . nuclear power running everything! :-) It just never ends . . .

      frflyer, thank you for adding to the issue of drought vs. nukes, and putting a little more detail into it than I did. And thanks for the inspiring news about molten salt as a storage medium. I seem to remember reading something about that before, but not until now did I realize how quickly the various methods of storing surplus wind/solar power are evolving.

      The molten salt method sounds like the winner, but then again, with NGK's salt and sulfur batteries -- and with the possibilities regarding compressed air -- it would be difficult right now to assess which one (if any) will ultimately be the best at storing electricity.

      With all human endeavors, it is only ignorance and stupidity that prevent humane and safe methods of producing all the energy we need, and to grow all the food we need etc. etc.
      View article »
    • Mon Apr 21st 15:30 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market
      Supershort, you said, "Although hydrogen energy is an alternative, in order to obtain it, you need to use water. That is a life sustaining resource, unlike coal, oil, uranium."

      What is often forgotten by nuclear advocates is that water is needed on a continual basis for nuclear plants, as the AP article cited below states: ". . . the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam." What with the periodic (yet unpredictable) weather, drought conditions are making it more difficult for nuclear plants to operate in some areas -- and given the increasingly erratic weather, this problem could easily become worse over time. Depending on nuclear to curb greenhouse gases could thus become a tragic mistake!

      This Associated Press story makes it clear that nuclear power and drought do not mix well:

      biz.yahoo.com/ap/08012...

      In addition, nuclear plants, because of their inherent dangerous nature, require enormous time to license and build, often 15-20 years.

      Yet, that is still only part of the picture. Nuclear gets, and has always gotten, far more subsidies than wind and solar, even today. The costs of nuclear storage, the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, the liability (insurance) costs, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are but a few of the many ways in which the taxpayer foots most or all of these costs. Those who cite the "low" cost of nuclear wouldn't be anywhere as cavalier about its alleged economic advantage were these costs calculated into the picture.

      Lastly, the "problem" of storage for wind and solar power is not really a problem. Last month, Scientific American's cover story was about the use of empty underground aquifers and abandoned mine shafts that could be used to store compressed air from surplus energy production from wind and solar -- one of the most efficient methods of storing energy there is. In addition, more efficient batteries are already being manufactured by NGK to store wind power. "NGK, a Japanese industrial ceramics manufacturer, just began selling nontoxic sodium-sulfur batteries with 4.3 times the capacity of their highly toxic lead-acid counterparts." says Stephanie Grimmett, at:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...
      View article »
    • Mon Apr 7th 22:12 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Old Energy Beating Cleantech To a Pulp
      Thomas Barta, great points you made. A lot of us out here are in soooooooo much agreement about the things you mention, like the turn-key business network. As you know, that probably won't happen until either most or all of the states separately have enacted similar net-metering laws, and/or the Feds have really gotten serious about coal, gas, nuclear waste pollution, as well as depending on foreign sources of fuels, and changed their priorities in regard to tax credits, subsidies etc.

      Unfortunately, so far, there has not been enough people to really galvanize quick progress. It has been, and will probably continue to be, a turtle's progress in the "good old USA," and not the much more serious commitment that is seen in Europe.

      Your comment on thermal-turbine solar technology really hits home. If you want to read a passage from Aldous Huxley in 1939 about thermal-solar turbine power from one of his prophetic novels, you can go here:

      www.simpleandclear.com...

      I have some off-grid solar that helps me reduce my grid usage.But I would really prefer (at the present time) if I lived in a state with net metering (and more contractors), in which case having an on-grid system would be much easier to accomplish. A combination of off-grid and on-grid solar would be perfect.
      View article »
    • Mon Apr 7th 21:15 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Solar Stocks Continue to Roll
      User 134327, you say that temps after 1998 have decreased for 10 years straight (except in the NYT), but I haven't seen or heard that from the likes of Scientific American, or Discovery Magazine, the Science Channel, or anyone else.

      I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm not a scientist -- but whether it is
      mainstream scientific magazines like the two I mentioned above, or the mainstream media, the "end" of the global warming theory seems to me to be highly exaggerated.

      One fellow at the grocery store I go to even told me that the polar ice caps had recovered most of their ice this year! While I keep an open mind, I've yet to see anyone say this besides this person, whether they're neighbors or scientific folks or the media (of any stripe or persuasion).

      Still -- it would be nice if we could honestly say goodbye to a scenario in which our weather becomes less pleasant.

      Personally, I have to agree that the two Democratic candidates have not dealt with the issue enough at all -- and the reason is that
      the two major political parties have never really cared that much about any problem -- because the voting public don't insist on it. But I would still prefer a Democrat over a Republican. A Nader, a Green, or perhaps a Libertarian would be far preferable. But I don't sense any real movement in my fellow humans that would justify believing that such third party candidates have much of a chance at winning.
      View article »
    • Fri Mar 21st 02:22 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Prius Conundrum
      Insofar as the comment(s) about the Prius's (or any hybrid) batteries filling up landfills, such as Rshrimp's, who said, "Wait till these things start hitting the landfill. What do you do with that giant cell phone battery?" It might edify him (them) to read the short comment below.

      Ms. Mary Nickerson, Technical Marketing Manager for Toyota, speaking what Toyota does with spent, Prius batteries (see link at bottom for interview):

      "Toyota dealers and the nine regional Toyota parts distribution centers collaborate on battery recycling. That kind of networking is something Toyota generally excels at. When a customer's Prius battery pack needs replacement, the truck that delivered a new one to his dealer returns to the parts center with the spent battery, and any other parts destined for disassembly and reclamation. When enough batteries have accumulated at a parts center to fill a truck, they are shipped to a recycle operation."

      Interview link:
      www.treehugger.com/fil...
      View article »
    • Thu Mar 20th 16:02 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Exxon Mobil Diversifies Into the Hybrid Car Market
      Moneymaker said: "I remember reading somewhere that a Toyota Hybrid had a larger carbon foot print from birth to death than a big Hummer due to the manufacture of the batterys."

      Not very likely. Have you ever seen the size of the battery in a Hummer? Very big. For that matter, if you've seen a Hummer itself (haha), it too is very, very big. And when you make big vehicles (and I'm not talking about driving them yet) with big batteries, believe me, it doesn't take a rocket or any other scientist to understand (even without looking too hard, yet) that the carbon footprint is bigger for the Hummer.

      And where did you read this? I bet it wasn't in a scientific journal. I've heard the same silly argument made the same silly way about CF
      bulbs being more carbon intensive in manufacturer than incandescent ones. And that argument too was gleaned from "some article somewhere." Nothing specific, of course. Not, say -- even a prestigious scientific magazine (not journal) like Scientific American, or maybe one of the more popular (but still credible) ones like Discovery, or Science Digest etc. etc. Nor National Geographic.

      Of course, anyone could print up something and claim it is the "Journal of such and such" and make the typeface and everything look so-very technical and prestigious, and thus better able to fool those who don't generally spend their time in Universities and getting familiar with the ones that really are part of academia's "bona-fides."...

      I'm not being a snob -- but obviously anyone who is even half-serious about an issue should be able to remember where they read something as revolutionary as the idea that a Toyota Prius is more carbon intensive from birth to death than a Hummer! Otherwise, why would they remember any of it at all? The issue of carbon emissions is not exactly a side or esoteric issue these days.

      So think hard. Maybe you read it on one of those so-called conservative, online blogs. Or yes, maybe it was on Faux News.
      View article »
    • Wed Mar 19th 09:24 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is Solar Power Inherently Deflationary?
      There is all this talk about solar not paying back for so many years -- and yes, that is a real factor. But on an individual level, the person or family that buys a new car or SUV every few years (which has always been very common custom in this country, and treated as a normal "investment" for some reason), and which is usually not necessary at all, and pays $20,000 or more, is probably never going to recoup his investment (duh).

      Here are some obvious reasons:

      Most states charge more in proportion on tag/title costs the newer the vehicle -- so that goes up.

      A newer vehicle, if financed (as is usually the case), requires full coverage, and because it is new, ANY coverage on the vehicle will be higher than before. Yet, do you see articles discouraging people from buying new cars and trucks? NO, because that would "hurt the economy." (read: auto manufacturers, insurance companies etc.)

      The book value of any new vehicle drops usually instantly at least by $1000-$2000 as soon as it leaves the dealer's lot.

      A typical solar installation, in a state with incentives of some type, usually will cost about the same as a new car, and will start paying back instantly in lower utility bills. In addition, solar panels are warrantied for 20-25 years. Automobiles obviously are not warrantied in that range.

      Unless the new vehicle is a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or just plain more economical, there is even the possibility that it will get less mpg than previously, especially since our society generally still puts status on bigger vehicles. And people are vain and silly enough to want such earmarks of "success."

      Insofar as nuclear, frflyer really summed the situation up very well. However, I don't think even he mentioned some of the hidden costs, like the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, which taxpayers are socked with. Likewise, while Yucca Mountain was mentioned, there is certainly no guarantee that it will even ever open -- or should. It is said that there are more faults in the earth in that area of Nevada than practically anywhere else on earth. Even if it does open, it is still very expensive to maintain -- and the costs are passed on to us.

      In short, it is insane that we didn't initiate a huge transition to renewable technologies ages ago. Read Aldous Huxley's comment on Solar Thermal Power from his 1939 novel, "After Many a Summer Dies the Swan," at my website:

      www.simpleandclear.com...
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»