fireofenergy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/313259/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/158422-how-phevs-and-evs-will-sabotage-america-s-drive-for-energy-independence?source=feed#comment-751264 751264
LiFePo4 battery

is availabe on the terrawatt scale? If so, it is the miracle battery (if it could be made cheaply in mass quantity).

Not only should they be used to store (and smooth) electricity, they should be used for a complete conversion to plug in cars... We don't need people like the author dismissing EV's as "a sabotage" because I doubt that he did his research on the lifepo4 battery!

However, I understand his position about the hiped up Volt (and batteries that cost tooooo much and don't last) and thus, maybe he did this article just to make people more informed as to "how they would want a better" EV.

As for sabotaging America's energy independence, absolut hogwash. Last I checked, our juice still comes from this country!]]> Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:22:52 -0500
LiFePo4 battery

is availabe on the terrawatt scale? If so, it is the miracle battery (if it could be made cheaply in mass quantity).

Not only should they be used to store (and smooth) electricity, they should be used for a complete conversion to plug in cars... We don't need people like the author dismissing EV's as "a sabotage" because I doubt that he did his research on the lifepo4 battery!

However, I understand his position about the hiped up Volt (and batteries that cost tooooo much and don't last) and thus, maybe he did this article just to make people more informed as to "how they would want a better" EV.

As for sabotaging America's energy independence, absolut hogwash. Last I checked, our juice still comes from this country!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169418-what-the-solar-industry-wants-in-a-climate-change-bill?source=feed#comment-743758 743758
The robotic automobile line proves that all these UNLIMITED energy collection and storage devises could be mass produced on that order.

Is there anyway to demand solar on the large and cheap?
If so, please expontiate that social solution as the energy gathering devises shall do themselves!]]> Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:43:06 -0500
The robotic automobile line proves that all these UNLIMITED energy collection and storage devises could be mass produced on that order.

Is there anyway to demand solar on the large and cheap?
If so, please expontiate that social solution as the energy gathering devises shall do themselves!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162881-picking-solar-energy-winners?source=feed#comment-740404 740404
What about the CIGS tech? Isn't that the "cheapest" thinfilm due to its higher efficiencies and printing press production?]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:20:20 -0500
What about the CIGS tech? Isn't that the "cheapest" thinfilm due to its higher efficiencies and printing press production?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161130-how-low-can-the-dollar-go?source=feed#comment-675106 675106 Anyways what do you guys think about the possibility of hyperinflation since it appears that we will not "do" the industrial thing again to make up for it (the trillions of thin air money).]]> Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:12:00 -0400 Anyways what do you guys think about the possibility of hyperinflation since it appears that we will not "do" the industrial thing again to make up for it (the trillions of thin air money).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161130-how-low-can-the-dollar-go?source=feed#comment-675102 675102
Will then the dollar be low?

Roman artifacts will outlast ours because they did NOT use steel reinforcing... lol]]> Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:08:09 -0400
Will then the dollar be low?

Roman artifacts will outlast ours because they did NOT use steel reinforcing... lol]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161241-look-who-s-betting-on-inflation?source=feed#comment-674991 674991 Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:34:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/161130-how-low-can-the-dollar-go?source=feed#comment-674972 674972
Will then the dollar be low?

Roman artifacts will outlast ours because they did NOT use steel reinforcing... lol]]> Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:48:37 -0400
Will then the dollar be low?

Roman artifacts will outlast ours because they did NOT use steel reinforcing... lol]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157764-debunking-phev-mythology?source=feed#comment-642539 642539
Many people believe that GW is true. That alone is another reason to advance battery research at a cost beyond stupid wars!

We are barely seeing the effects of excess CO2, why then the capture by Satan himself? Ever since we created the wheel, we've been learning how to make brakes...]]> Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:26:30 -0400
Many people believe that GW is true. That alone is another reason to advance battery research at a cost beyond stupid wars!

We are barely seeing the effects of excess CO2, why then the capture by Satan himself? Ever since we created the wheel, we've been learning how to make brakes...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83532-personal-rapid-transit-preempting-the-need-for-oil-in-urban-transport?source=feed#comment-642257 642257 Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:34:37 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/157764-debunking-phev-mythology?source=feed#comment-642220 642220
We need to perpetuate electric cars to stop excess CO2. It is going up every year and the signs of warming suggest that we must not be penny pinching in the ways of solving the climate (and post oil) problems.Though I can't afford an EV, others who care, well. Just as the entertainment industry went from 8-tracks to little postage sized chips that contain hundreds of songs, eco-glamor will be needed to shrink the size and costs of the all important battery.

I don't think there is any limit that this great Earth has for the manufacture of batteries and concentrating solar thermal power built across the deserts (just one option needed for clean juice). The Author's point on limited resources must reflect upon platinum needed for fuel cells.

The real change needed is the ability to overcome the old doom and gloom visions of the past that state everything is limited. No! there is enough silicon, aluminum, steel, carbon and others to build vast 3 dimensional cities with "freeway" ramps to all of tens or hundreds of levels. Almost a quarter trillion (yes trillion) people could be supported on this planet alone (all with "yards" and views)! All powered by placing mirrors and heat reservoirs on just about 40% of the worlds deserts! Of course, there are the real limiting factors, environmentalists, lawyers, politicians and monopoly.

I know this sounds quite a bit far out but so does the thought that humanity has to go backwards from this point on!

I like the author's mention of "personal" rapid transit though as that concept will be needed to connect the huge 3 dimensional cities... (which in this case are simple round buildings with spiraling access ramps within). Infact, the "e-pods" (or whatever) should be capable of climbing straight up buildings (on proper cable routs) as well as "traditional" cable transport and of course, on wheels for direct access to the front door. ]]> Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:04:38 -0400
We need to perpetuate electric cars to stop excess CO2. It is going up every year and the signs of warming suggest that we must not be penny pinching in the ways of solving the climate (and post oil) problems.Though I can't afford an EV, others who care, well. Just as the entertainment industry went from 8-tracks to little postage sized chips that contain hundreds of songs, eco-glamor will be needed to shrink the size and costs of the all important battery.

I don't think there is any limit that this great Earth has for the manufacture of batteries and concentrating solar thermal power built across the deserts (just one option needed for clean juice). The Author's point on limited resources must reflect upon platinum needed for fuel cells.

The real change needed is the ability to overcome the old doom and gloom visions of the past that state everything is limited. No! there is enough silicon, aluminum, steel, carbon and others to build vast 3 dimensional cities with "freeway" ramps to all of tens or hundreds of levels. Almost a quarter trillion (yes trillion) people could be supported on this planet alone (all with "yards" and views)! All powered by placing mirrors and heat reservoirs on just about 40% of the worlds deserts! Of course, there are the real limiting factors, environmentalists, lawyers, politicians and monopoly.

I know this sounds quite a bit far out but so does the thought that humanity has to go backwards from this point on!

I like the author's mention of "personal" rapid transit though as that concept will be needed to connect the huge 3 dimensional cities... (which in this case are simple round buildings with spiraling access ramps within). Infact, the "e-pods" (or whatever) should be capable of climbing straight up buildings (on proper cable routs) as well as "traditional" cable transport and of course, on wheels for direct access to the front door. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148248-lithium-ion-batteries-for-hybrid-vehicles?source=feed#comment-585087 585087 www.gwmg.ca/pdf/2009-j...
It's such a shame GM stood up such production (of NiMH) possibilities for Americans in Troy Michigan!]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:45:43 -0400 www.gwmg.ca/pdf/2009-j...
It's such a shame GM stood up such production (of NiMH) possibilities for Americans in Troy Michigan!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148248-lithium-ion-batteries-for-hybrid-vehicles?source=feed#comment-585074 585074 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:23:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148248-lithium-ion-batteries-for-hybrid-vehicles?source=feed#comment-585070 585070 Just how "limited" is the different kinds of battery techs? I assume NiMH has no production problems in an all electric world. Can Bolivia (and other countries) supply to that amount?]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:21:17 -0400 Just how "limited" is the different kinds of battery techs? I assume NiMH has no production problems in an all electric world. Can Bolivia (and other countries) supply to that amount?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148248-lithium-ion-batteries-for-hybrid-vehicles?source=feed#comment-584768 584768
As for the NiMH, I use 3 sets of 3 (for 3.6 and 6.9Ah) for a 5.5 volt 600Ma solar panel with Cree led. It charges to about 4.1 volts and discharges to about 3.3 every day for almost a year now. It seems (from this unscientific experiment) that they could be made not to deplete past 1.1 volts per cell. I also purposely drain em (other smaller solar leds) down just to see and they do still charge.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:18:49 -0400
As for the NiMH, I use 3 sets of 3 (for 3.6 and 6.9Ah) for a 5.5 volt 600Ma solar panel with Cree led. It charges to about 4.1 volts and discharges to about 3.3 every day for almost a year now. It seems (from this unscientific experiment) that they could be made not to deplete past 1.1 volts per cell. I also purposely drain em (other smaller solar leds) down just to see and they do still charge.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148155-why-gm-is-ready-for-a-rebound?source=feed#comment-584750 584750
GM would be cool if it could build electric cars and small trucks based upon the NiMH battery in volume! Lithium ion is too expensive and don't last as long.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:56:29 -0400
GM would be cool if it could build electric cars and small trucks based upon the NiMH battery in volume! Lithium ion is too expensive and don't last as long.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148248-lithium-ion-batteries-for-hybrid-vehicles?source=feed#comment-584722 584722 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:18:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/145682-auto-batteries-short-term-revenue-growth-favors-lead-acid-by-6-to-1?source=feed#comment-584717 584717
Thanks for noting the costs of gas increases before electric cars are "in".

Anyways, I think that Nimh is much better since it offers more charges than anything else and is cheaper and is better in cold. I know that it's about 2-3 times the energy density of lead acid, but only about half of lithium ion.

Wouldn't the electric car battery (problem) be solved if the Nimh battery was made in large factories in a large amp hour format (and with many competitors)?]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:17:00 -0400
Thanks for noting the costs of gas increases before electric cars are "in".

Anyways, I think that Nimh is much better since it offers more charges than anything else and is cheaper and is better in cold. I know that it's about 2-3 times the energy density of lead acid, but only about half of lithium ion.

Wouldn't the electric car battery (problem) be solved if the Nimh battery was made in large factories in a large amp hour format (and with many competitors)?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148248-lithium-ion-batteries-for-hybrid-vehicles?source=feed#comment-584677 584677 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:50:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148167-priming-the-pump-for-20-gal-gas-interview-with-chris-steiner?source=feed#comment-583961 583961
Statements like "It would take a hundred years to replace the fleet with electric cars" are quite erroneous. Sure, it might take ten years (or more) just for the first million, but as exponentiation continues, robotic PV factories, oh I mean e-car factories, would be able to spit out hundreds of times that every year (considering planetary markets and production capability!).

Now, without adequate amounts of power, we'll succumb to (apparently) self fulfilling gloom doom. Now is the time to support whatever research is needed to make batteries cheaper (or such that they can last the lifetime of any project). Now is the time to push for at least 10,000 square miles of solarfied deserts (without paving them over) in America alone. Now is the time to figure out how to produce RE capital as humanity has already done with conventional robotic assembly items.
Btw, thorium based spits out 100 times less wastes AND its wastes halflife down to handleable levels in only 300 (not tens of thousands) of years as proven many decades ago at ORNL.

Without unlimited clean energy, Freedom will be lost!]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:50:33 -0400
Statements like "It would take a hundred years to replace the fleet with electric cars" are quite erroneous. Sure, it might take ten years (or more) just for the first million, but as exponentiation continues, robotic PV factories, oh I mean e-car factories, would be able to spit out hundreds of times that every year (considering planetary markets and production capability!).

Now, without adequate amounts of power, we'll succumb to (apparently) self fulfilling gloom doom. Now is the time to support whatever research is needed to make batteries cheaper (or such that they can last the lifetime of any project). Now is the time to push for at least 10,000 square miles of solarfied deserts (without paving them over) in America alone. Now is the time to figure out how to produce RE capital as humanity has already done with conventional robotic assembly items.
Btw, thorium based spits out 100 times less wastes AND its wastes halflife down to handleable levels in only 300 (not tens of thousands) of years as proven many decades ago at ORNL.

Without unlimited clean energy, Freedom will be lost!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146162-follow-smart-money-into-clean-energy?source=feed#comment-569414 569414
He may be against solar for ulterior reasons, I'm just against the bulldozing of thousands of sq miles. No problem, the desert can easily withstand post erected mirrors, or what have you without the need to pave over the desert

~Without unlimited clean energy~
~Freedom is lost~]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:41:56 -0400
He may be against solar for ulterior reasons, I'm just against the bulldozing of thousands of sq miles. No problem, the desert can easily withstand post erected mirrors, or what have you without the need to pave over the desert

~Without unlimited clean energy~
~Freedom is lost~]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139178-will-china-stay-the-capitalist-course?source=feed#comment-515467 515467 Sat, 23 May 2009 12:04:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/138865-toyota-far-surpasses-gm-when-it-comes-to-ev?source=feed#comment-513492 513492
Since lithium is so much more efficient (needed for renewable energy storage), we need them to become longer lasting and much cheaper than NiMH. This is supposedly what the national energy dude is up to!]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 16:53:17 -0400
Since lithium is so much more efficient (needed for renewable energy storage), we need them to become longer lasting and much cheaper than NiMH. This is supposedly what the national energy dude is up to!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138726-cap-and-trade-more-like-cap-and-tax?source=feed#comment-513450 513450
All closed cycle nuclear, desert solar, and wind companies should be exempt from having to pay for carbon use required for the production of clean energy capital!]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 16:24:13 -0400
All closed cycle nuclear, desert solar, and wind companies should be exempt from having to pay for carbon use required for the production of clean energy capital!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131108-clean-energy-the-materials-play?source=feed#comment-465976 465976 At say, 300 MW capacity per sq mi, that's 10 watts per sq foot. Panels cost more like $50 a sq ft, so unless a massive undertaking to develop automated PV factories is enacted, this whole solar thing is out. Because of the low capacity rate (.22 or so), these things would have to be made for less than $5 per sq ft!. That's asking for the glass, the frame, and the connectors (and the supporting infrastructure) to basically be free!

Therefore I give up on PV in favor of trying to learn about a much more non-diffuse source, that is, energy from thorium which relies upon nuclear reactions (multiple fissions) but should be about a thousand times safer, with only 1% of the wastes that take about 1,000 x less time to "halflife", meaning that if the "casings" were to crumble in 300 years, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!
If anybody here wants to research energy, try "LFTR" or liquid fluoride thorium reactor. I've asked the people on that site dedicated to LFTR for any negatives and they came up with what I already know (and a whole lot more!), that the conventional (uranium) nuclear supported the need (at that time) to build weapons, and thus took precedence in all the following political and design decisions. The liquid salt reactor wasn't needed and wasn't even fully built (I don't think). The science is proven as it was a project of ORNL.

Cap and trade is just a farce designed to rob us of what little money we have left and to starve developing nations to death. I would rather go against every (little) energy thing that I believed in if those things required this sinister tax just to compete (I have heard that it is not working elsewhere)! Global warming is real. We are not going to fix it with fantasy solutions because we will become to broke to fix it.
I'm telling you, there is no excuse not to have unlimited thorium power as the solution. The problem is too many people have been scared (to our collective death).
I don't want to see more conventional nuclear as it produces 100 times the waste which takes 1,000 times as long to "decompose" per amount of base load energy! It's time to tell congress to shine the diffuse renewables in favor of the nuclear renewables. Yes, the fission process can even "burn" those wastes (with a differently designed reactor).

We, at least, have to prove the LFTR concept untrue before "going back" to wind and solar thermal. We are given many solutions in reality but only a few from those that try to impose their realities...]]> Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:34:26 -0400 At say, 300 MW capacity per sq mi, that's 10 watts per sq foot. Panels cost more like $50 a sq ft, so unless a massive undertaking to develop automated PV factories is enacted, this whole solar thing is out. Because of the low capacity rate (.22 or so), these things would have to be made for less than $5 per sq ft!. That's asking for the glass, the frame, and the connectors (and the supporting infrastructure) to basically be free!

Therefore I give up on PV in favor of trying to learn about a much more non-diffuse source, that is, energy from thorium which relies upon nuclear reactions (multiple fissions) but should be about a thousand times safer, with only 1% of the wastes that take about 1,000 x less time to "halflife", meaning that if the "casings" were to crumble in 300 years, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!
If anybody here wants to research energy, try "LFTR" or liquid fluoride thorium reactor. I've asked the people on that site dedicated to LFTR for any negatives and they came up with what I already know (and a whole lot more!), that the conventional (uranium) nuclear supported the need (at that time) to build weapons, and thus took precedence in all the following political and design decisions. The liquid salt reactor wasn't needed and wasn't even fully built (I don't think). The science is proven as it was a project of ORNL.

Cap and trade is just a farce designed to rob us of what little money we have left and to starve developing nations to death. I would rather go against every (little) energy thing that I believed in if those things required this sinister tax just to compete (I have heard that it is not working elsewhere)! Global warming is real. We are not going to fix it with fantasy solutions because we will become to broke to fix it.
I'm telling you, there is no excuse not to have unlimited thorium power as the solution. The problem is too many people have been scared (to our collective death).
I don't want to see more conventional nuclear as it produces 100 times the waste which takes 1,000 times as long to "decompose" per amount of base load energy! It's time to tell congress to shine the diffuse renewables in favor of the nuclear renewables. Yes, the fission process can even "burn" those wastes (with a differently designed reactor).

We, at least, have to prove the LFTR concept untrue before "going back" to wind and solar thermal. We are given many solutions in reality but only a few from those that try to impose their realities...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131108-clean-energy-the-materials-play?source=feed#comment-465881 465881
Hmm, go figure.]]> Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:11:10 -0400
Hmm, go figure.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130146-200-oil-is-coming-while-we-waste-a-perfectly-good-crisis-part-3?source=feed#comment-465394 465394
"Anythings worth getting CSP with storage developed on a massive scale" as that is THE ONLY renewable that could even come close to powering the world!

Problem though, I've "stumbled" upon a much simpler (and unlimited) yet to be (re)developed source of power. A spin off from nuclear tech, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is about a thousand times safer and produces less than one percent of wastes, which has a halflife of about a thousandth of what the dummies want to put in Yucca Valley! (So in 300 years, if the casings crumble, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!) Better yet, this thing can even "burn" the high level wastes! Infact, it requires such to "kick start" the process of thorium fission (as I think I understand it)!

The reason why it is not used is because the infrastructure and design went towards the weapons making form of nuclear, that is of "burning" uranium, which I oppose.

Just search it and see if this is not truly the answer since the tech has been around half a century ago... Imagine, no need to spend billions on extra lines, no need to fight off global dust storms caused by desert bulldozing (the easiest way to do CSP), and being able to desalinate water and to grow food in the deserts, with all that unlimited power, to not have to worry about the few times when CSP doesn't provide baseload power, not having to impose STUPID wealth restricting carbon caps (as developing nation would starve to death) and most importantly, a way for the rest of the world to produce power for less than that of coal!

Global warming, PROBLEM SOLVED!

As someone who really wanted CSP, I must admit, that something better is available, something that EVERYONE should look into! I am asking more questions about the LFTR concept as it seems almost to good to be true, but it is for real and the science has been around to prove it!
]]> Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:15:49 -0400
"Anythings worth getting CSP with storage developed on a massive scale" as that is THE ONLY renewable that could even come close to powering the world!

Problem though, I've "stumbled" upon a much simpler (and unlimited) yet to be (re)developed source of power. A spin off from nuclear tech, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is about a thousand times safer and produces less than one percent of wastes, which has a halflife of about a thousandth of what the dummies want to put in Yucca Valley! (So in 300 years, if the casings crumble, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!) Better yet, this thing can even "burn" the high level wastes! Infact, it requires such to "kick start" the process of thorium fission (as I think I understand it)!

The reason why it is not used is because the infrastructure and design went towards the weapons making form of nuclear, that is of "burning" uranium, which I oppose.

Just search it and see if this is not truly the answer since the tech has been around half a century ago... Imagine, no need to spend billions on extra lines, no need to fight off global dust storms caused by desert bulldozing (the easiest way to do CSP), and being able to desalinate water and to grow food in the deserts, with all that unlimited power, to not have to worry about the few times when CSP doesn't provide baseload power, not having to impose STUPID wealth restricting carbon caps (as developing nation would starve to death) and most importantly, a way for the rest of the world to produce power for less than that of coal!

Global warming, PROBLEM SOLVED!

As someone who really wanted CSP, I must admit, that something better is available, something that EVERYONE should look into! I am asking more questions about the LFTR concept as it seems almost to good to be true, but it is for real and the science has been around to prove it!
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131108-clean-energy-the-materials-play?source=feed#comment-465373 465373
Problem though, I've "stumbled" upon a much simpler (and unlimited) yet to be (re)developed source of power. A spin off from nuclear tech, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is about a thousand times safer and produces less than one percent of wastes, which has a halflife of about a thousandth of what the dummies want to put in Yucca Valley! (So in 300 years, if the casings crumble, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!) Better yet, this thing can even "burn" the high level wastes! Infact, it requires such to "kick start" the process of thorium fission (as I think I understand it)!

The reason why it is not used is because the infrastructure and design went towards the weapons making form of nuclear, that is of "burning" uranium, which I oppose.

Just search it and see if this is not truly the answer since the tech has been around half a century ago... Imagine, no need to spend billions on extra lines, no need to fight off global dust storms caused by desert bulldozing (the easiest way to do CSP), and being able to use the deserts to desalinate water and to grow food and with all that unlimited power, to not have to worry about the few times when CSP doesn't provide baseload power, not having to impose STUPID wealth restricting carbon caps (before cheap unlimited alternative is in place) and most importantly, a way for the rest of the world to produce power for less than that of coal!

Global warming, PROBLEM SOLVED!

As someone who really wanted CSP, I must admit, that something better is available, something that EVERYONE should look into! I am asking more questions about the LFTR concept as it seems almost to good to be true, but it is for real and the science has been around to prove it!]]> Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:03:37 -0400
Problem though, I've "stumbled" upon a much simpler (and unlimited) yet to be (re)developed source of power. A spin off from nuclear tech, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is about a thousand times safer and produces less than one percent of wastes, which has a halflife of about a thousandth of what the dummies want to put in Yucca Valley! (So in 300 years, if the casings crumble, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!) Better yet, this thing can even "burn" the high level wastes! Infact, it requires such to "kick start" the process of thorium fission (as I think I understand it)!

The reason why it is not used is because the infrastructure and design went towards the weapons making form of nuclear, that is of "burning" uranium, which I oppose.

Just search it and see if this is not truly the answer since the tech has been around half a century ago... Imagine, no need to spend billions on extra lines, no need to fight off global dust storms caused by desert bulldozing (the easiest way to do CSP), and being able to use the deserts to desalinate water and to grow food and with all that unlimited power, to not have to worry about the few times when CSP doesn't provide baseload power, not having to impose STUPID wealth restricting carbon caps (before cheap unlimited alternative is in place) and most importantly, a way for the rest of the world to produce power for less than that of coal!

Global warming, PROBLEM SOLVED!

As someone who really wanted CSP, I must admit, that something better is available, something that EVERYONE should look into! I am asking more questions about the LFTR concept as it seems almost to good to be true, but it is for real and the science has been around to prove it!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130146-200-oil-is-coming-while-we-waste-a-perfectly-good-crisis-part-3?source=feed#comment-463094 463094
www.dailykos.com/story...

Therefore, if anybody wants to go nuclear, (instead of solar thermal) LFTR just might be lightyears ahead of conventional!]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:06:54 -0400
www.dailykos.com/story...

Therefore, if anybody wants to go nuclear, (instead of solar thermal) LFTR just might be lightyears ahead of conventional!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130146-200-oil-is-coming-while-we-waste-a-perfectly-good-crisis-part-3?source=feed#comment-462388 462388
The problem though is convincing the enviro retrocats and the nimby's to promote that. Even tougher is how to urge them to make laws enacting such rather cheap solar BUT AGAINST BULLDOZING (for the vast mirror fields).

If solar can't compete, why are the Saudi's investigating it?

"Al-Naimi advised:
“One of the research efforts that we are going to undertake is to see how we make Saudi Arabia a center for solar energy research, and hopefully over the next 30-50 years, we will be a major megawatt exporter.”
(from this pdf)
www.ogj.com/pdf_temp/3...

I'm sure they have visions based upon the proven (but bulldozed) deserts sites in California and the robotic industrializations of tomorrow.
]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:33:35 -0400
The problem though is convincing the enviro retrocats and the nimby's to promote that. Even tougher is how to urge them to make laws enacting such rather cheap solar BUT AGAINST BULLDOZING (for the vast mirror fields).

If solar can't compete, why are the Saudi's investigating it?

"Al-Naimi advised:
“One of the research efforts that we are going to undertake is to see how we make Saudi Arabia a center for solar energy research, and hopefully over the next 30-50 years, we will be a major megawatt exporter.”
(from this pdf)
www.ogj.com/pdf_temp/3...

I'm sure they have visions based upon the proven (but bulldozed) deserts sites in California and the robotic industrializations of tomorrow.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130562-coming-to-america-mitsubishi-s-all-electric-car?source=feed#comment-462380 462380
Bty, battery tech is about twice as efficient than the old dream of electrolysis. (The science is here to prove it, I mean on the search engine). Its place, though, may be found in the storage of on site energy produced by non base load power sources. CPV is twice that of CSP yet does not store as CSP, therefore, it is up to all you experts out there to determine which is the best and cheapest longterm option.

Largescale clean energy is expensive only because of all the nimby's and enviro retrocats out there, (don't they know about mass manufacturing techniques as in "robotic"?), Are not even the Saudi's looking into solar with storage??? It will definitely be cheaper than fossil fuels in ten-twenty years!]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:45:49 -0400
Bty, battery tech is about twice as efficient than the old dream of electrolysis. (The science is here to prove it, I mean on the search engine). Its place, though, may be found in the storage of on site energy produced by non base load power sources. CPV is twice that of CSP yet does not store as CSP, therefore, it is up to all you experts out there to determine which is the best and cheapest longterm option.

Largescale clean energy is expensive only because of all the nimby's and enviro retrocats out there, (don't they know about mass manufacturing techniques as in "robotic"?), Are not even the Saudi's looking into solar with storage??? It will definitely be cheaper than fossil fuels in ten-twenty years!]]>