Home Page link

Solar panels

Building Construction - Building Construction Industry Discussions. 

Page 3 of 7       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Solar panels Dave 05-29-2007
|--> Re: Solar panels thestuccocompan...05-29-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Dave on June 1, 2007, 1:56 am
>
>>
>>>>
>>> Just my observation. I went to seminars on solar panels and they just
>>> aren't ready for prime time.
>>
>> Well, I have done some research in this area. What you say may have been
>> true a few years ago. They have improved this technology. I considered
>> staying off of the grid because I built my house about a 1/2 mile from
>> the grid. I chickened out because the region I live in does not have
>> enough yearly sun exposure. I live in Maine. I do have some friends and
>> acquaintances though that do have total solar. They supplement with
>> generators. They do have to live a tad bit differently. They do not
>> have toasters, electric dyers, refrigerators. They do their laundry at a
>> Laundromat. The instead cook with propane.... they have a propane
>> fridge. They pump water on sunny days into a large cistern. One gut I
>> know has a pick up truck with a bank of batteries. He drives to work and
>> when he comes home he plugs his truck into the house to offer more power.
>> he also has a lot of battery operated devices. He likes being
>> independent and also loves it when storms blow through and everyone loses
>> power except him. I think people should let the government supplement
>> people and the solar. Other choices with solar could be a hybrid system.
>> We need to reduce our dependence on oil especially foreign oil. We are
>> all too spoiled and waste so much oil on electricity. We waste a lot of
>> resources on things like Christmas lights and the like.
>
>
> If it were REALLY about reducing dependence on foriegn oil in a
> SIGNIFICANT way we would be building nuclear power plants everywhere.
> (Like Europe is)The Navy has been using them on ships and subs for 50
> years with no problems. CHEAP ABUNDANT CLEAN POWER...... Instead we get
> theses feel good TAXPAYER financed programs. Like the original poster who
> wants the state,feds and insurance company to fund his solar panels that
> will never be cost effective so he can FEEL GOOD or the total BS ethanol
> which is no more than sweet deal for farmers at taxpayers expense because
> IT WILL NEVER BE COST EFFECTIVE. Don't even get me started on hybrid cars
> and Carbon Offset Payments.....
>
> And to the guy from Maine...who the hell are you to decide how much power
> anyone uses? Do you live in a Teepee and ride a bike to work or do you
> just like to lecture other people to feel superior like your buddy Al Gore
> and the rest of the Limosine Liberals??? Let me guess..Do as I say not as
> I do , right??? Moron...
>
> I'm from Maine too... Ever on AMG???
>>
>>
>
>

Having been in the U.S. Navy and retired, I see your point. Having
servicing weapons systems that use depleted uranium for warheads, and later
in my career, researching exactly what this material is and its physical
effects on people other than what the U.S. Navy provides as information, I
disagree for the present time.

Depleted uranium originates from nuclear power plants as a waste. Nor, do I
agree with the method of storing such used material for some generation down
the line to fix it. If its ever to happen or possible.

Is there an alternative to such relatively "free energy", no. But doesn't
alter the facts. I'm tired of the last 3 generations dumping on their
subsequent generations for their oversights of technology. Gotta stop
someplace as its becoming cumulative from one generation to the next. Some
generation needs to start with a clean slate, not all their previous
generations mistakes on their back to boot. Leave my great grand-kids outta
this.
Dave



Posted by Matt Barrow on June 1, 2007, 10:07 am

>>
>
> Having been in the U.S. Navy and retired, I see your point. Having
> servicing weapons systems that use depleted uranium for warheads, and
> later in my career, researching exactly what this material is and its
> physical effects on people other than what the U.S. Navy provides as
> information, I disagree for the present time.

Could you elaborate on that?
>
> Depleted uranium originates from nuclear power plants as a waste. Nor, do
> I agree with the method of storing such used material for some generation
> down the line to fix it.

Storage, though a tough problem, is not the boogy man you make it out to be.

If France, Japan and so many others can do it. so can we.






Posted by Matt Barrow on June 1, 2007, 9:57 am

> If it were REALLY about reducing dependence on foriegn oil in a
> SIGNIFICANT way we would be building nuclear power plants everywhere.

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2v9w9f (Links to amazon.com - "The Nuclear Energy
Option", which a bit dated (mid 90's) dispells a lot of myths with what was
the state-of-the-art in nuclear generation ten years ago).

> Like the original poster who wants the state,feds and insurance company
> to fund his solar panels that will never be cost effective so he can FEEL
> GOOD or the total BS ethanol which is no more than sweet deal for farmers
> at taxpayers expense because IT WILL NEVER BE COST EFFECTIVE. Don't even
> get me started on hybrid cars and Carbon Offset Payments.....

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/cartoons/smltoon051507c.gif


>
> And to the guy from Maine...who the hell are you to decide how much power
> anyone uses? Do you live in a Teepee and ride a bike to work or do you
> just like to lecture other people to feel superior like your buddy Al Gore
> and the rest of the Limosine Liberals??? Let me guess..Do as I say not as
> I do , right??? Moron...
>
> I'm from Maine too... Ever on AMG???

Want to cut gasoline usage by 15-20%? Get cities and towns to syncronzie
traffic signals.

I originally came from the road construction business (1975-1998). According
to a 1978 report (during the Carter energy fiasco), merely sync'ing traffic
signals would cut fuel usage by those amounts. Another similar report in the
early 80s stated much the same in conjuction with traffic safety. It claimed
about 40% of road deaths were due to "faulty" signals.

In the intervening years, it's gotten worse. Towns now use out-of-sync
lights in conjunction with traffic scams ...I mean CAMS, to bilk motorists
(can you say 7 second yellows now are 4.5 seconds and turn when you're 100
feet away? Sure you can).

Of course, the towns would have to forrgo about $12 billion in traffic fine
revenue, and they could not longer use the gridlock plight as an argument
for more money, personnel, "studies", etc. Also, they wouldn't kill about
12,000 people a year.

Of course, the money is more inmportant than a mere 12,000 citizens.

Matt B.



Posted by Matt Barrow on June 1, 2007, 10:03 am

>
>> If it were REALLY about reducing dependence on foriegn oil in a
>> SIGNIFICANT way we would be building nuclear power plants everywhere.
>
> Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2v9w9f (Links to amazon.com - "The Nuclear
> Energy Option", which a bit dated (mid 90's) dispells a lot of myths with
> what was the state-of-the-art in nuclear generation ten years ago).
>
>> Like the original poster who wants the state,feds and insurance company
>> to fund his solar panels that will never be cost effective so he can
>> FEEL GOOD or the total BS ethanol which is no more than sweet deal for
>> farmers at taxpayers expense because IT WILL NEVER BE COST EFFECTIVE.
>> Don't even get me started on hybrid cars and Carbon Offset Payments.....
>
> http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/cartoons/smltoon051507c.gif

That should be:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon051507c.gif




Posted by Buck Turgidson on June 3, 2007, 11:42 am
>
> I originally came from the road construction business (1975-1998).
> According to a 1978 report (during the Carter energy fiasco), merely
> sync'ing traffic signals would cut fuel usage by those amounts. Another
> similar report in the early 80s stated much the same in conjuction with
> traffic safety. It claimed about 40% of road deaths were due to "faulty"
> signals.
>


Jimmy Carter did more for energy conversation than anyone since. You're
lacking an historical perspective.



Page 3 of 7       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Any experience here with solar panels or windmills? June 5, 2008, 11:31 am
Solar October 22, 2006, 10:34 pm
Solar Ecopruneurs Wanted January 22, 2007, 12:25 pm
Re: solar powered mini-split AC? August 3, 2006, 10:20 am
structural insulated panels May 28, 2007, 1:11 pm
How to make SIPS or stress skin panels. July 24, 2006, 7:46 am
noise from polyiso nail base panels? December 9, 2006, 10:37 am
Need help installing W valleys in 3' metal roof panels July 24, 2007, 8:37 am
blue print match panels FAST December 15, 2007, 12:04 am
How to put (70) 2'x4'x5/8" panels in now I have ALLthe L- & T- ceiling grid in place February 12, 2007, 1:26 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap