P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
Organic as in coming from life forms, vs. organic as in carbon-hydrogen chemistry.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 14/02/2015 11:41 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Some is lost, but all that does is create a moderate increase in the
marginal cost.
The cost of distribution consists almost entirely of capital, so the
distribution infrastructure costs the same whether it's being used or not.
It has to be sized that way to handle the loads when solar isn't delivering.
It's the wrong comparison. The generating plant and distribution
infrastructure need to be there anyway, to cope with the absence of
solar power when solar isn't delivering, so its capital cost is
unavoidable. So the only cost that can be avoided by installing solar
panels is the marginal cost of generating. But the cost that can be
avoided by *not* installing solar panels is their capital cost. So the
correct comparison is between the capital cost of the solar panels and
the marginal cost of the generating plant.
That would be fine, if solar panels could be relied on to deliver power.
They can't.
There is some benefit to the system, but it's not enough to justify the
cost of the solar panels. It's now been realised that panels have been
installed so as to maximise their energy output, but the greatest
benefit to the system occurs if the panels face west, so maximise their
output in the afternoon. There's even talk about requiring that they be
moved.
If the backup capacity were colocated with the solar power generation,
that would be true. But it's not, and nor is it practical to do so.
Quite so.
Not so very much. At the moment, coal fired electricity in Australia
costs about 4 cents per kilowatt hour before it enters the grid. That's
out of the 25 cents or so we pay. Double the 4 to 8, and it would hardly
be noticed in the scheme of things.
the situation is more
In Australia, we have plenty of uranium. At the moment, it's all shipped
abroad (pretty much in its raw state - which is typical of Australia -
no value adding before export). None is used locally, but it could be
used to produce electricity for not that much more than coal currently
costs.
Sylvia.
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 17:03:42 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/02/2015 2:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:43:16 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
So the grid had to provide the remaining 85%. It doesn't matter
that this was only for three days out of nine months. During
those three days, the backup was required, and therefore had to
exist
True. This was a grid tied system that produces exactly zero
watt-hrs when the grid is down. Even though there was probably
about 2kw-hrs of electricity available, none of it could be used
because there was no means of storing it. That might be what
Elon Musk plans to provide.
Grid tied solar was never intended to provide full time power.
It's primary purpose and benefit is to offset utility costs by
consuming cheap locally generated solar power before going to
grid power,
In terms of cost, any savings are completely illusory, and caused
by a market distorted by cross subsidies.
Not entirely. Shipping power across the grid involves losses and
costs money.
Some is lost, but all that does is create a moderate increase in the
marginal cost.
If some of the power being generated is generated close to where it's
being used, distribution costs go down.
The cost of distribution consists almost entirely of capital, so the
distribution infrastructure costs the same whether it's being used or not.
To achieve a real saving, the cost of solar power has to be below
the marginal cost of operating a large generator.
This ignores losses in the distribution network and the cost of a
distribution network sized to handle power distribution from a few
large generators.
It has to be sized that way to handle the loads when solar isn't delivering.
The marginal cost of operating a nuclear or coal powered generator
is not very high at all.
But higher than the marginal cost of exposing solar panels to
sunlight.
It's the wrong comparison. The generating plant and distribution
infrastructure need to be there anyway, to cope with the absence of
solar power when solar isn't delivering, so its capital cost is
unavoidable. So the only cost that can be avoided by installing solar
panels is the marginal cost of generating. But the cost that can be
avoided by *not* installing solar panels is their capital cost. So the
correct comparison is between the capital cost of the solar panels and
the marginal cost of the generating plant.
The marginal cost of operating a natural gas powered generator is
still only a fraction of the retail price of electricity, with the
rest of the retail price being capital costs of the generator and
distribution infrastructure (and billing, profit, tax).
So use solar panels to generate a lot of the power closer to where
it's being consumed.
That would be fine, if solar panels could be relied on to deliver power.
They can't.
What happens when people use solar panels to reduce their utility
bills is that they end up paying less than their fair share of the
cost of the power generation and delivery infrastructure, and other
people pay more than their fair share. It should be noted that the
cost of that infrastructure is largely dictated by peak loads which
those with solar panels will be happy to contribute to if their
panels are not producing power.
But in Australia, at lot of the peak load is air-conditioning systems
that draw most power when the sun is at its brightest.
There is some benefit to the system, but it's not enough to justify the
cost of the solar panels. It's now been realised that panels have been
installed so as to maximise their energy output, but the greatest
benefit to the system occurs if the panels face west, so maximise their
output in the afternoon. There's even talk about requiring that they be
moved.
If utilities were allowed to allocate the cost of the
infrastructure in an equitable way, those with solar panels would
find that all they done was to increase their cost of energy.
Some of what they had done. Solar power generation is distributed,
and coping with the shortfalls involves distributing less power than
has to be distributed from a few central power stations.
If the backup capacity were colocated with the solar power generation,
that would be true. But it's not, and nor is it practical to do so.
The above doesn't apply, of course, to people who go completely
off grid, but as you've noted, that requires extra equipment which
comes at a significant cost.
Not so much significant as prohibitive. If it wasn't the electricity
generating companies would use it to spread out their peak loads
Quite so.
and
possibly selling any excess to the utility for others to use.
It's not a 100% solution for pulling the plug on the grid and
living off the grid. To do that would require: 1. A major
reduction in typical home power consumption. 2. Production of
more power than is consumed. 3. A means of storing unused power
and later recovering it. 4. An intelligent controller that can
optimize production and consumption.
In general, production is fairly easy at low latitudes during
the summer, and quite difficult during the winter. It's also
difficult in urban locations that lack the space for a
sufficiently large array and have zoning ordinance that proscribe
large battery banks. Almost all of the examples of
self-sufficient off the grid power systems featured in Home Power
magazine are rural and have multiple sources of power (solar,
wind, hydro, co-generation) available.
The east coast blizzard problem could likely be handled by wind
power. When the weather is bad, the wind is usually blowing.
Wind power doesn't work well in a urban environment, so that's
again only suitable for rural.
There's a lot of rural space close to every urban centre.
More simply, when you use a non-concentrated form of energy
production, you need lots of room to store it. For example, fuel
oil is rated at 36 MJ/liter, while firewood is rated at 5
MJ/liter. So, for the same amount of heat delivered, you'll need
a wood burner that's 7 times as big. However a Li-Ion battery is
about 1 MJ/liter, so if you want to heat your house with an
electric heater, the batter pile will again be 5 times larger.
The numbers may be off a bit, but the ratios are in the
ballpark.
I don't think space is that big an issue. What really kills these
schemes is cost.
If you want a scheme that makes money today, yes. If you want a
scheme that's going to look good when the price of burning
fossil-carbon has doubled per kilowatt hour,
Not so very much. At the moment, coal fired electricity in Australia
costs about 4 cents per kilowatt hour before it enters the grid. That's
out of the 25 cents or so we pay. Double the 4 to 8, and it would hardly
be noticed in the scheme of things.
the situation is more
complex. Digging up fossil carbon is getting progressively more
expensive, and burning it and dumping the CO2 produced in the
atmosphere isn't going to be free for much longer either.
In Australia, we have plenty of uranium. At the moment, it's all shipped
abroad (pretty much in its raw state - which is typical of Australia -
no value adding before export). None is used locally, but it could be
used to produce electricity for not that much more than coal currently
costs.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 14/02/2015 11:21 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
There are two issue with geographical averaging. One is simply that it's
hard to define an upper limit to the area that can be adversely affected
at the same time. Some weather systems are very big.
The other is that the larger the area you're using for the averaging,
the greater the distances that power potentially needs to be moved to
cover shortfalls, and the greater the power involved. The distribution
capacity required is extra capacity, because it wouldn't otherwise be
required, so the cost of it needs to be included in the cost of solar power.
Sylvia.
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 13:43:22 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/02/2015 12:08 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:50:50 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
A guy was installing panels next door, and tried to sell me,
too. He said that power output was down about 50% on cloudy
days.
That depends on what you consider to be cloudy. Offhand clouds
seem to drop the output to somewhere between 15% and 70%
depending on cloud density and the position of the sun.
Here's about 9 months of numbers from an installation in
California. We haven't had much in the way of storms and clouds,
but when present, the effects on solar output is noticeable. All
the big drops in output are from clouds (or PG&E outages).
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/solar/380732/total-energy-21040613-20150213.jpg
The big plunge around the beginning of Feb 2015 is from a 3 days
storm. Even so, this 5.6 kw (21*270w) array still managed to
produce about 2.0 kw-hrs (about 15% of Feb normal) during the
storm.
So the grid had to provide the remaining 85%. It doesn't matter
that this was only for three days out of nine months. During those
three days, the backup was required, and therefore had to exist.
For that particular location. Geographical averaging means that the
back-up actually required is rather less than the potential maximum
output of that particular set of solar cells.
There are two issue with geographical averaging. One is simply that it's
hard to define an upper limit to the area that can be adversely affected
at the same time. Some weather systems are very big.
The other is that the larger the area you're using for the averaging,
the greater the distances that power potentially needs to be moved to
cover shortfalls, and the greater the power involved. The distribution
capacity required is extra capacity, because it wouldn't otherwise be
required, so the cost of it needs to be included in the cost of solar power.
Sylvia.
D
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn
Guest
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:50:23 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:
snip
The Geologists know. It is from organic matter. LOCAL, RECENT
(relatively) MATTER.
SPACE objects brought and continue to bring WATER here. Not coal.
It didn't rain coal. It rained KT boundary layer, and the hell those
years of exposure brought. Lots of organic matter to meld into the
Earth's layered 'onion'.
We need to send a bunch of water up to The Moon or over to Mars to
reduce what is here and get some beach front back. Maybe find Atlantis
again before it is over.
More likely see Yellowstone blow its top again. That is what most of us
deserve anyway.
You know not the hour.
snip
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody's teasing you, you're
just misunderstanding. The point at issue is whether most terrestrial
hydrocarbons are of biological or primordial origin.
There was some excitement in the 1980s, iirc, about "deep gas", i.e.
primordial methane trapped deeper in the crust than ordinary gas fields.
Nothing came of it that I know of, except a lot of worn-out drill
bits.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
The Geologists know. It is from organic matter. LOCAL, RECENT
(relatively) MATTER.
SPACE objects brought and continue to bring WATER here. Not coal.
It didn't rain coal. It rained KT boundary layer, and the hell those
years of exposure brought. Lots of organic matter to meld into the
Earth's layered 'onion'.
We need to send a bunch of water up to The Moon or over to Mars to
reduce what is here and get some beach front back. Maybe find Atlantis
again before it is over.
More likely see Yellowstone blow its top again. That is what most of us
deserve anyway.
You know not the hour.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:18:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is the theory that oil and gas are of inorganic origin. I don't
know the status of that. There are lots of hydrocarbons on comets and
such.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:17:23 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
ql4tdadh3vrteepguskoqjjbs8ok57tgr6@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:39:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:11:07 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
There's gigatons of coal, oil, and natural gas, enough to last
hundreds of years.
Perception is everything. I still remember the alarmist headlines
during the 1973-74 "energy crisis" proclaiming that we're running out
of literally everything. There were predictions that we'll run out of
gasoline by the next century. None of that happened, but the effect
on the economy and public buying habits were spectacular.
"Peak oil."
"The Canadian oil sandsa natural combination of sand, water, and oil
found largely in Alberta and Saskatchewanare believed to contain one
trillion barrels of oil. Another trillion barrels are also said to be
trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,[185] but are in the
form of oil shale."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms
I will tell you something, what "I" think about that.
First, in school, we learned that oil came from plants that died etc etc.
I never believed that, but to speak up was not a good idea.
There is the theory that oil and gas are of inorganic origin. I don't
know the status of that. There are lots of hydrocarbons on comets and
such.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:05:38 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
We have so much antisocial behavior going on here, this little offense
is way down in the noise.
But I do notice that people in Truckee behave way better than people
in San Francisco. When I go up there, I have to remember to switch
social gears. When the Safeway+Tesla lot is full, it's because the
town is jammed with city-tourists.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 14/02/2015 3:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:44:26 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 14/02/2015 5:34 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:09:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:11:46 -0800) it happened
John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
4rqqda56ajmpl4gcqfa0m20fob6p395u4a@4ax.com>:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/
Quote:
"During the earnings call the company revealed it made a loss
of $108m (Ł71m) in its fourth quarter, blaming poor sales in
China "
More to come?
There's a beautiful Tesla charging station in the parking lot of
the Safeway in Truckee. I've never seen a car charging there.
Shoppers park their gasoline cars in the charging slots when
things are busy.
Yes - there's always someone who thinks the rules don't apply to
them.
Sylvia.
Why waste perfectly good parking spaces that nobody uses?
If it's not used, it should be reallocated. Until then, it should be
left vacant if not used for its designated purpose. Otherwise it just
encourages antisocial behaviour.
Sylvia.
We have so much antisocial behavior going on here, this little offense
is way down in the noise.
But I do notice that people in Truckee behave way better than people
in San Francisco. When I go up there, I have to remember to switch
social gears. When the Safeway+Tesla lot is full, it's because the
town is jammed with city-tourists.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
J
John S
Guest
On 2/14/2015 9:31 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Does that make it inorganic?
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:18:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:17:23 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
ql4tdadh3vrteepguskoqjjbs8ok57tgr6@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:39:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:11:07 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
There's gigatons of coal, oil, and natural gas, enough to last
hundreds of years.
Perception is everything. I still remember the alarmist headlines
during the 1973-74 "energy crisis" proclaiming that we're running out
of literally everything. There were predictions that we'll run out of
gasoline by the next century. None of that happened, but the effect
on the economy and public buying habits were spectacular.
"Peak oil."
"The Canadian oil sandsa natural combination of sand, water, and oil
found largely in Alberta and Saskatchewanare believed to contain one
trillion barrels of oil. Another trillion barrels are also said to be
trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,[185] but are in the
form of oil shale."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms
I will tell you something, what "I" think about that.
First, in school, we learned that oil came from plants that died etc etc.
I never believed that, but to speak up was not a good idea.
There is the theory that oil and gas are of inorganic origin. I don't
know the status of that. There are lots of hydrocarbons on comets and
such.
Does that make it inorganic?
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:57:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:
Don't be a PITA. You know what I meant.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On 2/14/2015 9:31 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:18:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:17:23 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
ql4tdadh3vrteepguskoqjjbs8ok57tgr6@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:39:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:11:07 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
There's gigatons of coal, oil, and natural gas, enough to last
hundreds of years.
Perception is everything. I still remember the alarmist headlines
during the 1973-74 "energy crisis" proclaiming that we're running out
of literally everything. There were predictions that we'll run out of
gasoline by the next century. None of that happened, but the effect
on the economy and public buying habits were spectacular.
"Peak oil."
"The Canadian oil sandsa natural combination of sand, water, and oil
found largely in Alberta and Saskatchewanare believed to contain one
trillion barrels of oil. Another trillion barrels are also said to be
trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,[185] but are in the
form of oil shale."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms
I will tell you something, what "I" think about that.
First, in school, we learned that oil came from plants that died etc etc.
I never believed that, but to speak up was not a good idea.
There is the theory that oil and gas are of inorganic origin. I don't
know the status of that. There are lots of hydrocarbons on comets and
such.
Does that make it inorganic?
Don't be a PITA. You know what I meant.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Guest
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:41:14 -0500, "Tom Miller"
<tmiller11147@verizon.net> wrote:
<tmiller11147@verizon.net> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ck7r4bFh737U2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/02/2015 5:34 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:09:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:11:46 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
4rqqda56ajmpl4gcqfa0m20fob6p395u4a@4ax.com>:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/
Quote:
"During the earnings call the company revealed it made a loss of $108m
(Ł71m) in its fourth quarter,
blaming poor sales in China
"
More to come?
There's a beautiful Tesla charging station in the parking lot of the
Safeway in Truckee. I've never seen a car charging there. Shoppers
park their gasoline cars in the charging slots when things are busy.
Yes - there's always someone who thinks the rules don't apply to them.
Sylvia.
There's a charging station at the local Walgreen's that has the cord cut
off. Guess someone was farming copper. I never saw any car parked there
charging up.
Well, with no cord... ;-)
J
John S
Guest
On 2/14/2015 10:05 AM, John Larkin wrote:
I'm not, John. No, I do know what you meant. How can I ask the question
so that you are not offended?
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:57:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:
On 2/14/2015 9:31 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:18:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:17:23 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
ql4tdadh3vrteepguskoqjjbs8ok57tgr6@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:39:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:11:07 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
There's gigatons of coal, oil, and natural gas, enough to last
hundreds of years.
Perception is everything. I still remember the alarmist headlines
during the 1973-74 "energy crisis" proclaiming that we're running out
of literally everything. There were predictions that we'll run out of
gasoline by the next century. None of that happened, but the effect
on the economy and public buying habits were spectacular.
"Peak oil."
"The Canadian oil sandsa natural combination of sand, water, and oil
found largely in Alberta and Saskatchewanare believed to contain one
trillion barrels of oil. Another trillion barrels are also said to be
trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,[185] but are in the
form of oil shale."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms
I will tell you something, what "I" think about that.
First, in school, we learned that oil came from plants that died etc etc.
I never believed that, but to speak up was not a good idea.
There is the theory that oil and gas are of inorganic origin. I don't
know the status of that. There are lots of hydrocarbons on comets and
such.
Does that make it inorganic?
Don't be a PITA. You know what I meant.
I'm not, John. No, I do know what you meant. How can I ask the question
so that you are not offended?
J
John S
Guest
On 2/14/2015 10:51 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Okay, well, I can tell that you guys are just making fun of me. Never
mind, then.
Organic as in coming from life forms, vs. organic as in carbon-hydrogen chemistry.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Okay, well, I can tell that you guys are just making fun of me. Never
mind, then.
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 2/14/2015 1:00 PM, John S wrote:
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody's teasing you, you're
just misunderstanding. The point at issue is whether most terrestrial
hydrocarbons are of biological or primordial origin.
There was some excitement in the 1980s, iirc, about "deep gas", i.e.
primordial methane trapped deeper in the crust than ordinary gas fields.
Nothing came of it that I know of, except a lot of worn-out drill bits.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
On 2/14/2015 10:51 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Organic as in coming from life forms, vs. organic as in
carbon-hydrogen chemistry.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Okay, well, I can tell that you guys are just making fun of me. Never
mind, then.
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody's teasing you, you're
just misunderstanding. The point at issue is whether most terrestrial
hydrocarbons are of biological or primordial origin.
There was some excitement in the 1980s, iirc, about "deep gas", i.e.
primordial methane trapped deeper in the crust than ordinary gas fields.
Nothing came of it that I know of, except a lot of worn-out drill bits.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Guest
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:19:08 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I used an el chepo light meter (non-calibrated) and got yesterday on a
cloudy day 1000-2000 lx no matter what direction. Today with some
overcast and perhaps 2/8 cloudiness, I got 30 000 lx.
While I wouldn't trust accurate readings from that silicon based
meter, but even with that tool and other measurement tools, I still
claim that the direct sunlight is several times stronger than the
light coming through the clouds.
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:41, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:47:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
Overcast decreases solar power for non-concentrated panels, but doesn't eliminate it. You are always going to have excess capacity in any solar set-up.
I have heard this claim repeated a few hundred times, but never seen
any actual test reports supporting it.
Try looking in some of the text books that dealt with solar power in the
late 1970's. In the UK to a very good approximation the incident energy
from direct sunlight and indirect scattered light are about equal and
about 10% better for an optimally sloped roof.
I used an el chepo light meter (non-calibrated) and got yesterday on a
cloudy day 1000-2000 lx no matter what direction. Today with some
overcast and perhaps 2/8 cloudiness, I got 30 000 lx.
While I wouldn't trust accurate readings from that silicon based
meter, but even with that tool and other measurement tools, I still
claim that the direct sunlight is several times stronger than the
light coming through the clouds.
J
John S
Guest
On 2/14/2015 12:50 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Of course I am. That's why I asked.
On 2/14/2015 1:00 PM, John S wrote:
On 2/14/2015 10:51 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Organic as in coming from life forms, vs. organic as in
carbon-hydrogen chemistry.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Okay, well, I can tell that you guys are just making fun of me. Never
mind, then.
What in the world are you talking about? Nobody's teasing you, you're
just misunderstanding.
Of course I am. That's why I asked.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, 16 February 2015 12:13:26 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>
No sane person needs any kind of muscle car. Transportation is there to get you from A to B. Muscle cars shave seconds off journey times, but are much more expensive to insure because the consequences of a moment's inattention can be more dramatic when there's more power available.
Since only a narcissist would buy a new Audi - who else would spend that kind of money on a car whose main job is to look impressive - your incapacity to imagine the answer implies a rather low level of self-knowledge.
My wife gets around in a Mercedes 180B because it was the cheapest car at the Sydney motor show that offered four-way adjustment on the passenger front seat. On long trips, she spends half the time sitting there, and without four-way adjustment she can't get comfortable.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:28:27 -0800, "Harry D" <harryd@tdsystems.org
wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:ec62eatip8n89hm0ueb3i48uhp3a9ilan0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:34:03 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
<snip>
I have ridden in a Tesla. Acceleraton is impressive, but useless; my
A3 has more acceleration than any sane person needs.
No sane person needs any kind of muscle car. Transportation is there to get you from A to B. Muscle cars shave seconds off journey times, but are much more expensive to insure because the consequences of a moment's inattention can be more dramatic when there's more power available.
Teslas are ugly
and impractical. I wonder what will happen as the batteries begin to
wear out, at $25K a set. Who would want to buy a used Tesla?
Since only a narcissist would buy a new Audi - who else would spend that kind of money on a car whose main job is to look impressive - your incapacity to imagine the answer implies a rather low level of self-knowledge.
My wife gets around in a Mercedes 180B because it was the cheapest car at the Sydney motor show that offered four-way adjustment on the passenger front seat. On long trips, she spends half the time sitting there, and without four-way adjustment she can't get comfortable.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:34:03 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
We just made a Safeway run, and I had a camera handy.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_3.jpg
Still no sign of customers. It's a 7200 foot climb from SF to Truckee,
and Tesla batteries don't like to be cold. Not a good ski car!
The red thing is my 250 HP Audi Rabbit, which is a good ski car.
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:09:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:11:46 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
4rqqda56ajmpl4gcqfa0m20fob6p395u4a@4ax.com>:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/
Quote:
"During the earnings call the company revealed it made a loss of $108m (Ł71m) in its fourth quarter,
blaming poor sales in China
"
More to come?
There's a beautiful Tesla charging station in the parking lot of the
Safeway in Truckee. I've never seen a car charging there. Shoppers
park their gasoline cars in the charging slots when things are busy.
We just made a Safeway run, and I had a camera handy.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_3.jpg
Still no sign of customers. It's a 7200 foot climb from SF to Truckee,
and Tesla batteries don't like to be cold. Not a good ski car!
The red thing is my 250 HP Audi Rabbit, which is a good ski car.
H
Harry D
Guest
"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:ec62eatip8n89hm0ueb3i48uhp3a9ilan0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:34:03 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
We just made a Safeway run, and I had a camera handy.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_3.jpg
Still no sign of customers. It's a 7200 foot climb from SF to Truckee,
and Tesla batteries don't like to be cold. Not a good ski car!
The red thing is my 250 HP Audi Rabbit, which is a good ski car.
John, What do you think about the design of the electron pumps? Looks pretty
robust to me, just like the car.
The Tesla is safer than your 'bit and better traction in snow. Batteries
suck, so cold is a problem but handles elevation better than your animal. I
bet you would just love to drive a Tesla, more acceleration, no screaming
valves, seamless shifting from zero to 100, to zero with minimal wheel slip.
Oh, those pumps operate at about 1 minute per recharge mile where your 'bit
is about is about 0.02 minutes per refuel mile.
Cheers, Harry
news:ec62eatip8n89hm0ueb3i48uhp3a9ilan0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:34:03 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
More to come?
There's a beautiful Tesla charging station in the parking lot of the
Safeway in Truckee. I've never seen a car charging there. Shoppers
park their gasoline cars in the charging slots when things are busy.
We just made a Safeway run, and I had a camera handy.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_3.jpg
Still no sign of customers. It's a 7200 foot climb from SF to Truckee,
and Tesla batteries don't like to be cold. Not a good ski car!
The red thing is my 250 HP Audi Rabbit, which is a good ski car.
John, What do you think about the design of the electron pumps? Looks pretty
robust to me, just like the car.
The Tesla is safer than your 'bit and better traction in snow. Batteries
suck, so cold is a problem but handles elevation better than your animal. I
bet you would just love to drive a Tesla, more acceleration, no screaming
valves, seamless shifting from zero to 100, to zero with minimal wheel slip.
Oh, those pumps operate at about 1 minute per recharge mile where your 'bit
is about is about 0.02 minutes per refuel mile.
Cheers, Harry
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:28:27 -0800, "Harry D" <harryd@tdsystems.org>
wrote:
The 2WD drive versions sure aren't. I don't know how a 4WD Tesla
handles in the snow; I've never seen one up here.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/20/norwegian-winter-parks-popular-tesla-electric-cars/
Batteries
>suck, so cold is a problem but handles elevation better than your animal.
I can accelerate up the steepest slope around here, blasting past 100
MPH.
I
My valves don't scream!
I have ridden in a Tesla. Acceleraton is impressive, but useless; my
A3 has more acceleration than any sane person needs. Teslas are ugly
and impractical. I wonder what will happen as the batteries begin to
wear out, at $25K a set. Who would want to buy a used Tesla?
wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:ec62eatip8n89hm0ueb3i48uhp3a9ilan0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:34:03 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
More to come?
There's a beautiful Tesla charging station in the parking lot of the
Safeway in Truckee. I've never seen a car charging there. Shoppers
park their gasoline cars in the charging slots when things are busy.
We just made a Safeway run, and I had a camera handy.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tesla_3.jpg
Still no sign of customers. It's a 7200 foot climb from SF to Truckee,
and Tesla batteries don't like to be cold. Not a good ski car!
The red thing is my 250 HP Audi Rabbit, which is a good ski car.
John, What do you think about the design of the electron pumps? Looks pretty
robust to me, just like the car.
The Tesla is safer than your 'bit and better traction in snow.
The 2WD drive versions sure aren't. I don't know how a 4WD Tesla
handles in the snow; I've never seen one up here.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/20/norwegian-winter-parks-popular-tesla-electric-cars/
Batteries
>suck, so cold is a problem but handles elevation better than your animal.
I can accelerate up the steepest slope around here, blasting past 100
MPH.
I
bet you would just love to drive a Tesla, more acceleration, no screaming
valves, seamless shifting from zero to 100, to zero with minimal wheel slip.
Oh, those pumps operate at about 1 minute per recharge mile where your 'bit
is about is about 0.02 minutes per refuel mile.
My valves don't scream!
I have ridden in a Tesla. Acceleraton is impressive, but useless; my
A3 has more acceleration than any sane person needs. Teslas are ugly
and impractical. I wonder what will happen as the batteries begin to
wear out, at $25K a set. Who would want to buy a used Tesla?
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 16/02/2015 3:38 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
His insurer is probably laughing all the way to the bank. There are
always outliers with statistics. Indeed, if they're absent, one has to
suspect that the data has been fudged.
Sylvia.
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ckd6evFt255U2@mid.individual.net...
On 16/02/2015 12:32 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
No sane person needs any kind of muscle car. Transportation is there
to get you from A to B. Muscle cars shave seconds off journey times,
but are much more expensive to insure because the consequences of a
moment's inattention can be more dramatic when there's more power
available.
Actually, I think it's because those who desire to own muscle cars are the
kind of people most likely to wrap vehicles round any available obstacle,
though the insurers will simply go by the statistics.
Sylvia.
My neighbor has a red Ferrari but hardy ever drives it. He spends most of
his time polishing it. And when he drives it a few miles, he needs to remove
all the wheels to clean the dust off the disc brakes when he gets home.
His insurer is probably laughing all the way to the bank. There are
always outliers with statistics. Indeed, if they're absent, one has to
suspect that the data has been fudged.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 16/02/2015 12:32 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Actually, I think it's because those who desire to own muscle cars are
the kind of people most likely to wrap vehicles round any available
obstacle, though the insurers will simply go by the statistics.
Sylvia.
No sane person needs any kind of muscle car. Transportation is there
to get you from A to B. Muscle cars shave seconds off journey times,
but are much more expensive to insure because the consequences of a
moment's inattention can be more dramatic when there's more power
available.
Actually, I think it's because those who desire to own muscle cars are
the kind of people most likely to wrap vehicles round any available
obstacle, though the insurers will simply go by the statistics.
Sylvia.