OT: Solar Panels

From: AverageSecurityGuy 
------------------------------------------------------
Can any of you recommend a good brand of solar panels? I=92m looking for =
something in the 10W - 30W range with a charge controller. Amazon is =
running a sale on Instapark panels with the charge controller built in. =
I=92m planning to get one of these unless one of you convinces me =
otherwise.=20

--
Stephen Haywood
Owner, ASG Consulting
CISSP, OSCP
423.305.3700
asgconsulting.co




=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ At "10-30w" it matters little. Expect half of the rating in real world use. At higher voltages/power, invest in an MPTT controller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ This Solar Orb looks interesting. Not out on the market yet. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/12/3282981/solar-orbs/ And there is some interesting high end stuff that is dual use as windows. Great for a sun room. On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:46:46 -0500, Mike Harrison wrote:

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting AverageSecurityGuy : My co-worker uses the Harbor Freight solar panels to charge a battery farm at his cabin up in the woods of middle Tennessee. *shrug* Don't know if that would work for you or not, but thought I'd throw that out.

=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ I used 2 of those on my old trailer.. They'd been to Burning Man and many other places. about 10 watts was all I got out of them, but they worked and were cheap.

=============================================================== From: Ed King ------------------------------------------------------ http://widgets.harborfreight.com/wswidgets/common/displayCoupon.do?main=true&hdr=mag&week=0514&campaign=c&page=feb

=============================================================== From: AverageSecurityGuy ------------------------------------------------------ Price wise, this one from Instapark has the HF one beat. = http://www.amazon.com/Instapark%C2%AE-Black-Mono-crystalline-Solar-Panel/d= p/B004OZDI7O/ref=3Dsr

=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:53 PM, AverageSecurityGuy = wrote: http://www.amazon.com/Instapark%C2%AE-Black-Mono-crystalline-Solar-Panel/d= p/B004OZDI7O/ref=3Dsr

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I think you should run a Plutonium powered RTG, 400 watts constant baby!

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ thorium is the way to go. On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:34:53 -0500, Stephen Kraus = wrote: y! anel/dp/B004OZDI7O/ref=3Dsr

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Agreed. But you better have a big trailer to need a molten salt reactor

=============================================================== From: David White ------------------------------------------------------ Didn't I read or hear somewhere that the manufacturing process of solar panels uses more energy than the panel could ever recover in a reasonable amount of time? Perhaps the technology is getting better and/or what I heard was dead wrong, but I remember hearing that somewhere.

=============================================================== From: DaWorm ------------------------------------------------------ Semi off topic... How big of a solar panel and battery would it take to power a wifi router for a reasonable period, lets say all day and a few ours into darkness? There is a small park in Murray Hills where someone has set up a micro library. It is just a cabinet on a pole with some books and magazines, using an honor system. Leave something or take something. I was thinking it might be nice to use the Library Box software and an old router to put eBooks in there as well. Hopefully it wouldn't get stolen. But if it did, how much would someone be out? $100? $200? (Assuming the router and flash drive were already laying around and essentially free.) Jeff.

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ Think about the economics of that statement. If this were the case, no one would ever make them. -AW -- Aaron Welch Chief Mechanic @ Geek Ventures 423-505-9999 n2nightfall@gmail.com "Enabling people to do great things with their own ideas."

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ I think this would be fun to do with a whole network of devices like that. Sounds like a fun project. -AW

=============================================================== From: DaWorm ------------------------------------------------------ these isn't all that different than the internet, if someone has to search different "servers" for content. Beyond eBooks, there are lots of good audio books and even short films in the public domain. An old 4G stick might not be all that useful, but it could hold a bunch of stuff. I'm thinking of kids with tablets and phones seeing an SSID that says FREE

=============================================================== From: DaWorm ------------------------------------------------------ My original question was if it was feasible to implement the Library boxes using solar. If anyone would use them, that's another question. Jeff.

=============================================================== From: AverageSecurityGuy ------------------------------------------------------ I ran a Linksys wifi router for a few hours on 4 AA batteries. -- Stephen Haywood Owner, ASG Consulting CISSP, OSCP 423.305.3700 asgconsulting.co boxes using solar. If anyone would use them, that's another question.

=============================================================== From: DaWorm ------------------------------------------------------ Cool. So maybe not too much needed. Maybe I need to drop a 1ohm 1% resistor inline on the power input and measure the current draw under load. Once I know that, I'll get the mAH needed to run it, which will tell me the battery size, then from there figure out the solar charger needed to keep it charged... Hmmm, yet another project. Jeff.

=============================================================== From: Unkmar ------------------------------------------------------ Please report the results of your experiment when completed. Inquiring mind want to know.

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ +5 -- Aaron Welch Chief Mechanic @ Geek Ventures 423-505-9999 n2nightfall@gmail.com "Enabling people to do great things with their own ideas."

=============================================================== From: AverageSecurityGuy ------------------------------------------------------ I made a mistake. I ran a Netgear WGR614v10 on 8 AA batteries for a few = hours. I bought a 8-pack battery holder from RadioShack and cut the wall = charger from the power cord. I then wired the battery pack to the power = cord and it worked great. The power requirements for this router are 12V = and 1A, which means a battery rated for 8Ah should run this for 8 hours = if the router is pulling maximum power all the time. A 10W solar panel, with full equator sun will provide about .5A. To = fully charge an 8Ah battery you would need 16 hours of full equator sun. = In Tennessee, we average about 4 hours of full equator sun a day. During = Winter this number is lower and during Summer the number is higher. You = can look at this solar insolation chart for more details. = http://solarinsolation.org/ This means with a 10W solar panel in = Tennessee it will take you approximately 4 sunny days to fully recharge = the 8Ah battery. You need to size your panel and battery for what you = believe will be the worst case scenario. Hope this makes sense.=20 -- Stephen Haywood Owner, ASG Consulting CISSP, OSCP 423.305.3700 asgconsulting.co resistor inline on the power input and measure the current draw under = load. Once I know that, I'll get the mAH needed to run it, which will = tell me the battery size, then from there figure out the solar charger = needed to keep it charged... wrote: boxes using solar. If anyone would use them, that's another question.

=============================================================== From: AverageSecurityGuy ------------------------------------------------------ BTW, If you can run the gear off of 12V DC instead of using an inverter = you will save some money (not buying an inverter) and power (not = converting DC to AC). I just found this instructable on making a solar = powered Raspberry pi, Wireless camera system. = http://www.instructables.com/id/Raspberry-Pi-Completely-Wireless-IP-Camera= -Solar/ It may be helpful. -- Stephen Haywood Owner, ASG Consulting CISSP, OSCP 423.305.3700 asgconsulting.co On Feb 17, 2014, at 10:44 AM, AverageSecurityGuy = wrote: few hours. I bought a 8-pack battery holder from RadioShack and cut the = wall charger from the power cord. I then wired the battery pack to the = power cord and it worked great. The power requirements for this router = are 12V and 1A, which means a battery rated for 8Ah should run this for = 8 hours if the router is pulling maximum power all the time. fully charge an 8Ah battery you would need 16 hours of full equator sun. = In Tennessee, we average about 4 hours of full equator sun a day. During = Winter this number is lower and during Summer the number is higher. You = can look at this solar insolation chart for more details. = http://solarinsolation.org/ This means with a 10W solar panel in = Tennessee it will take you approximately 4 sunny days to fully recharge = the 8Ah battery. You need to size your panel and battery for what you = believe will be the worst case scenario. resistor inline on the power input and measure the current draw under = load. Once I know that, I'll get the mAH needed to run it, which will = tell me the battery size, then from there figure out the solar charger = needed to keep it charged... wrote: boxes using solar. If anyone would use them, that's another question.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ I haven't seen that. But I have seen that claim for nuclear. Also Duke University had a study stating that Solar is now more cost = effective than Nuclear. http://phys.org/news200578033.html Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has long maintained that al= l = energy subsidies should away. Then our energy picture would look quite = different. Tradition energy sources such as fossil fuels and nukes get huge subsidi= es. http://www.ted.com/talks/amory

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:29:55 -0500 Rod wrote: I suspect one problem with that is that some of our energy subsidies are indirect. You could make the case that our military and Middle East foreign policy are strong petroleum subsidies. Sure, I'd like to see those pulled back to sanity, but disentangling ourselves from that is a political nightmare. Both domestically and abroad. But, yeah, in general when you remove externalities and subsidies people can make rational choices. Dan

=============================================================== From: Wil Wade ------------------------------------------------------ ... Reminded me of this mess: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/01/17/263101422/why-u-s-taxpayers-started-and-stopped-paying-brazilian-cotton-farmers

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I'm more for a return to nuclear, and subsidized by wind and solar, and hydro where possible. However, there will always be a need for on-demand power generation that only coal, nuclear, or natural gas can provide, and nuclear is the only one that isn't a fossil fuel. That, and I'd rather see a return to public utilities versus privately owned plants.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ My only argument with 'Removing the subisides' is that power plants cost a lot to create. Lets step back into the past for a bit: Prior to NASA, there was no corporate interest in going to space, there was no money to be made. Without NASA's pioneering efforts, we would not have made the strides in space exploration that we did, that eventually led directly to private space companies. The same can be said for power plants: Without something to bait a company into building a plant, why should they do it? Why not just keep dilapidated and ancient power generation systems and just maintain them? Its part of the reason 'Clean Coal' and Natural Gas is being pushed so heavily: Its Cheap. Its not clean. Its not a solution, its another band-aid for a company that wants to invest the minimum amount possible to make the maximum profit. Subsidies can at least help push companies towards cleaner and more energy efficient power generation methods, where no other influence can touch them.

=============================================================== From: James Nylen ------------------------------------------------------ I think a truly rational valuation of energy sources would include at least the following characteristics: - Long time horizon (30+ years) - Fairly certain results and execution (due to competent people being involved in managing the project) - Estimates of environmental impact (because what we do to the earth is already catching up to us, and will only get worse) Unfortunately all of these seem to be too much to ask, for various reasons. So, I agree that government subsidies can help, but they have to be managed competently as well. Which, again, is probably too much to ask.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I think subisidies are less the issue, more the lobbying power that Citizens United gave to the energy sector. Lose that lobbying power, and suddenly subsidies would be more effective at shaping the energy industry.

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting Stephen Kraus : I'd like to see space-based solar. You know if you had geosynchronous power generation satellites that either sent the power down via microwaves or laser it would probably be competitive with fossil fuels, if the fossil fuels didn't have such a large subsidy.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ The only problem is microwaves strong enough to transmit energy from space would be better weapons than power transmitters

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ Nuclear is one of the worst offenders on subsidies. Starting with Price = = Anderson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price=E2=80=93Anderson

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ That is more because nuclear plants are expensive. Its kind of a no-duh situation, nuclear plants are more sophisticated and require more engineering and equipment. But in the long run, I'd rather have nuclear than coal or natural gas, especially if we can built NEW reactors versus keeping old ones in service.

=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ The problem is getting the new (SMR Small Modular Reactor) designs certified by rules for 1970's style reactors... at the speed of Government. What I have seen from the experts presenting to the Engineers Club (chattanoogaengineersclub.org - bad website, great group) is there is some awesome new technology, that can't get approval under anachronistic rules sets and non-science savvy tree huggers and fundies. Yes, the religious non-science literate crowd weighs heavy in the government. I want a "Mr. Fusion" in my house... powering things from Banana Peels... (Banana's are slightly radioactive)

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Lloyd's will insure satellites and some pretty risky ventures. ----- Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ There been few 3rd and 4th gen projects that have stalled or canceled overseas, a climate more favorable to Nukes. Still don't have long solution to the waste issue after 60 years, the carbon foot print accrued during building, proliferation, or peak uranium. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416325/the-coming-nuclear-crisis/ ----- Mike Harrison wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I want a Toshiba 4S in my backyard. 10 MW baby, on demand! Yes, the current NRC rules are archaic, a couple of my fellow nuclear grad students are doing work on Molten Salt reactors and new reactor designs, and we have some AWESOME and extremely safe reactors we could build, if they were not currently not up to 1950s standards.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Rod, Aside from construction, they are essentially carbon neutral, and even then their expected lifespan will easily outpace the footprint from construction. Compared to coal and natural gas that literally continues to build its carbon footprint, its much more favorable. We have waste solutions, but not one that satisfies everyone, mainly because that is impossible. We have lots of good ideas, but none that satisfy most of the lobby groups. Proliferation is not an issue with 3rd and 4th gen reactors, as most of them actually burn the fuel to the point where it is worthless as fissile materiel for weapons, many of the molten salt designs will actually run on weapons grade plutonium and burn it down to much less reactive non-weapons grade materiel. I'd rather burn a nuclear weapons core as power generation than sitting in a silo waiting to rain death and destruction.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ And there problems with Plutonium in commercial reactors. DoE is hanging out huge incentives for utilities to do that. Duke Energy had began initial test phase of mox fuel and had to shut it down due to technical problems. Now DoE is trying to get TVA to be its guinea pig. On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:49:38 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Most of the commercial reactors were designed to handle plutonium, so its hardly being a guinea pig.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ There is limited number fast nuetron reactors that can use Plutonium. Thermal Nuetron reactors can only use it in the second cycle. Reactor grade Plutonium used in commercial reactors is PU 238 as opposed to Pu239 in Weapons grade. Both must be processed as a mix oxide fuel. If it were so easy why is the Dept of Energy having a hard time getting current utilities to take Areava's mess? On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:41:28 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Pu-239 is used in MOX fuel as well as Pu-238. They are both useful as a reactor fuel to enrich Uranium for burning as a fuel. As for the DOE having issues, can you cite that for me? The main problem is a distinct lack of Generation III reactors in the United States, almost all the planned Gen III (which allow for the burning of Plutonium fuel) were cancelled or delayed by lobby groups and political pressure. Weapons grade Plutonium burns great as a reactor fuel. Fast Neutron Reactors will eat it up, as they can use ANY isotope as fuel. We don't have many, so its kind of a moot point to blame the DOE for a lack of plants, all of which are shut down as of this moment. Once again: Would you rather it just sit around in a bomb, or be burned in a fast neutron reactor?

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:49:52 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote: Duke Energy just shut down a DoE test program using 239 mox in their commercial reactors, while still in the initial phase. It's been a year or two but it was considered a set back for the DoE's plan to use processed Mox supplied by Areva in American commercial reactors. "And the Duke test uncovered a flaw in the fuel assembly design. Metals used in reactors tend to expand as they are bombarded with radiation, because the subatomic particles that sustain the radiation weaken bonds in the metal. But the test assemblies, built for the department by Areva, expanded more than expected. Engineers are now considering alternative metals." Correction This goes back to 09. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09nuke.html Again It doesn't seem to work in our standard commercial reactors. see above False Dichotomy. Plutonium is mainly an alpha emitter real easy to shield. Just keep it a stable form that doesn't get internalized into the body.. -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Arguing that its a false dichotomy is just moving the goal posts: Do you want nuclear weapons, or do you want clean power? Pick one. Pick only one. One will dispose of fissile weapons materiel and turn it into non-weapons materiel. The other keeps weapons in circulation. It doesn't work because nobody has been willing to construct new reactors. Our current reactor designs date from 1960. You are arguing that because we only have OLD reactors, obviously its not worth trying NEW reactors? So what is your point. Same point with the Duke Energy test. Yes, 40+ year old designs are not going to work great, considering the designs were only meant to run off Uranium and then create plutonium as a side product for weapons. Duke Energy is unwilling to fund a new plant, because they'd rather burn coal and natural gas and it better satisfies stockholders. Its a publicly traded company, they are more interested in satisfying stock holders than solving problems. I don't get what you are trying to prove with your points. We need new reactors, that isn't anything surprising or new.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ iOn Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:15:54 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote: BS stephen it is a false choice. And no it is not a clean power or have forgotten about the waste issue. At least PU 239 is mostly an alpha emitter which is easy to shield for. And these days just because it is not fissile doesn't it isn't weapons material as the dirty bomb issue proves. Those great third and fourth gen designs are running into road blocks outside of the US. Nuclear is just losing out on the cost benefit analysis. Life cycle costs are just too prohibitive. Obviously you didn't even look at the quote I sent you. They are having technically difficulties with fuel assembly provided by Areva. The same Areva that is trying to build 3rd and 4th Gen plants in Europe. But keeps losing contracts due to cost overruns.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Areva does NOT have a Generation III reactor, so you are arguing I am creating a false dichotomy while creating one yourself. Areva cannot use the system the DOE wants to use because their reactors were never designed for it, their reactors were designed to GIVE Pu-239, not BURN Pu-239. "BS stephen it is a false choice. And no it is not a clean power or have forgotten about the waste issue. At least PU 239 is mostly an alpha emitter which is easy to shield for. And these days just because it is not fissile doesn't it isn't weapons material as the dirty bomb issue proves." So tell me about Coal Ash and Fracking. EVERY power system has a waste issue: Solar has manufacturing waste, wind has mining waste A LOT OF mining waste. So WHAT if nuclear has waste, we simply have to cope with waste because EVERY system will have waste, either before or after generation. There is no zero sum solution, and that is the exact problem with the majority of those arguing for green energy: There isn't just some perfect energy solution with zero waste. At all. Even geothermal involves a lot of drilling and manufacturing the turbines, plant, and all the equipment. Its a CLEANER power system. There is no such thing as a totally clean system, you took my words out of proportion.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Oh, just a reminder too: Hydroelectric has killed and displaced more people than nuclear, coal, and natural gas combined.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ Somebody better tell them that. They tout their 3rd gen tech. There are several differing technologies vying to be 3rd and 4 gen . As for pebbel bed the big South African project was done in by costss. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pebble-Bed-Modular-Reactor-Project-Canceled-135840.shtml On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:43:55 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ You have sroll doll down but it is there. On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:41:16 -0500, Ed King wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Rod: So what is your point? I stand by nuclear, the evidence supports its use as a generation system over coal and natural gas, and being the cheap vs. expensive is what got us into our current climate predicament. Arguing about the expense of generation systems is not helping solve climate change. We wasted tons of time using the 'cheapest solutions', and its only dug the hole deeper. We have better reactor designs we could use, and designs so safe they make burning coal look like a full blow runaway fire. Solar, Wind, and Nuclear are what I support for power generation. There is simply insufficient evidence to support not using it.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ It is the most expensive on a per kilowatt-hour basis. And cannot exist without massive government subsidies. Further more what to do with waste, hasn't been dealt with in 65 years. On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 12:43:13 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ No, attempts have been made to deal with the waste that have been stonewalled at every turn, including reactors that could consume said waste and make it less dangerous. But what do I know, its just my field of study. As for the cost, I'll reitterate it again: We've been screwing up our planey with 'cheap energy' for more than 100 years, cheap doesn't mean good, and if it takes subsidies to get away from coal and gas, so be it.

=============================================================== From: Keith ------------------------------------------------------ I'm intrigued by alternative nuclear tech like molten salt thorium-based reactors and fast reactors that burn expended traditional nuclear waste. I'm confident that we could transition to less dangerous and environmentally impactful nuclear resources if we just put some cash into it. The unfortunate thing about solar is that it's only on when the sun is bearing down so it makes it difficult to implement as a constant solution without batteries which are their own brand of waste, expense, and are of limited use. I'm not saying solar isn't useful, it just isn't a replacement for traditional tech like coal.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Solar is awesome, so is wind, and they are great during the day at low-medium demand for taking up slack, but as you pointed out they have their weaknesses I would LOVE to see more thorium reactor research, saddly no one in the US seems to want to press for it, I'd love to get on the research team for that. Thorium salt reactors are also multi-fuel, they can burn about evrything including waste and odd isotopes with ease, and are not a proliferation risk.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ No generating tech is always on. Load balancing is constant problem with traditional generating tech. Hence Raccoon Mountain Facility. Traditional generating stations go offline for all sorts of crazy reasons. We only notice when there is cascade failure. The thing with renewables in tandem with smart grid is that power generation and storage becomes more modular. Germany, a country not known for its sunny climate, produces up to 60% of its power through solar. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/15/renewable-solar-wind-energy-produced-much-60-germanys-electricity-october-3rd/ On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:08:50 -0500, Keith wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Germany's baseload is natural gas and coal, on an average day they never achieve that 60% solar generation on a normal day, their normal generation is mainly coal. They rarely achieve that 60%. Its a peak, not an average.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ http://energy.law.wvu.edu/wvulaw

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ Your missing the point. the fact that a grey north European country can produce 5 Terawatts thru solar alone is impressive. We have a much better profile for Solar, Wind, and Tidal resources. That combined with better energy efficiency could be a deal changer. Why are not all new home constructions required to include thermal mass? We can build houses now that require no active heating or cooling. No real trick. The Anaasazi discovered that about 12 century BC. Though the ones this community in New Mexico are building are a lot nicer. http://www.travelchannel.com/video/new-mexicos-earthships Why is most of our shipping done via transcontinental truck instead of rail? Based on per ton/mile/gallon of fuel the most to least efficient is barge, rail, truck. On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:07:12 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Still doesn't answer baseload. You are dancing around the problem with partial solutions. Industry and commercial need baseload, and frankly you are asking a lot if you think everyday Joe is going to give up their AC and climate control for you. You are trying to address variables thst are constants, not under your control. What we can control is power generation types and efficiency. Germany is still wholly dependant upon fossil fuels, their solar piwer does NOT address their actual needs, and you've missed the point yet again: despite their solar initiatives, they are still wholly vested in fossil fuels, which pretty much nulls any benefit to the environment their solar might have. Not to mention the MASSIVE footprint of solar for equivalent output, and despite that footprint, its not a constant output, it can vary or even be almost nonexistent.

=============================================================== From: Rod ------------------------------------------------------ you hit the nail on the real problem. Any energy crisis is NOT a technological problem. It is a sociological problem. We could get viable tokamak fusion tech tomorrow and society would still find a way to outstrip its capacity. We would find ways to waste it. On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:49:20 -0500, Stephen Kraus wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Yes, but arguably it would not be dooming the planet with carbon emissions and fossil fuels either, and arguably tokamak would be so expandable as to cover even gigantic demands. And we have operational tokamaks, just not net positive output tokamaks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gn0wtieMWo&list=PL89A61FF37256E111

=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ Just adding a final note to the thread. almost 2 weeks ago I put a Unisolar ePVL-68, a flexible 68 watt solar panel on the roof of our RV with a MorningStar 10amp PWM (not MPTT) controller. It was an awesome easy install and you can barely tell it's on the RV compared to the biger panels. I've seen it peak at 4amps at 12 volts... working well so far. total cost of less than 300 for 60-ish watts is a little pricey but I'm impressed by the way it fit on ther roof flush and the general quality of materials. And the adhesive: I don't think I could get it off if I tried. Worth considering if you need such stuff.

=============================================================== From: Unkmar ------------------------------------------------------ Humor: Pictures, or it didn't happen. Nuclear: Nuclear power is here to stay. The percentage of our current power production that is nuclear is too large to go away. I prefer safer and cleaner nuclear power over same old weapon makers. I believe that most of the old reactors were built with two purposes. Firstly, creating weapons grade material. Secondly, power generation. We now have several tested and untested designs to burn the weapons material. Why not build reactors that will burn what was considered waste. Sure, you will likely still have waste when done. 1. It will be less waste. 2. You generated additional power. 3. Other designs may actually burn that waste product as well. Solar: Solar power comes in several forms, what is your need? Hot water for showers or radiator heat for winter days? Pool warmer? Reflect and/or diffused light for indoor lighting. Partially or completely close a light vent to reduce or shut off the light. The light valve can be a photoelectric panel that collects the light for power that is not currently used for lighting. The efficiency and price of photoelectric panels is getting better everyday. It is already a viable option. The main hurdle to using solar is planning. Power storage: Chemical batteries are not the only storage method. Two options are gravity and inertia. One example, TVA pumps water up to mountain top lakes as energy storage during non-peak. Then, later allows the water to flow down and power generators during peak. Some one recently invented the gravity light. Lift some weight such as a bucket of sand, dirt, or water and place it on a hook that pulls a pulley attached to a gearing system that turns a dynamo generating a small current powering a light for a few hours. I can imagine something similar with a much larger weight. Say, lifting a boulder a few inches by a via gearing driven by a motor/winch that doubles as the dynamo for power generation. Some places have envisioned slowly spinning up a large flywheel during excess power and draining from the continued rotation power drops.

=============================================================== From: Joe Freeman ------------------------------------------------------ a little more than 10 years ago, we looked hard at putting three flywheel generators in at the CenturyTel data center. The ones we looked at would have been buried in the ground, but they were huge and took like a week to spin up, but would have given us enough backup power to run the dc for several days without running the NG or diesel gensets. I don't remember why we didn't do it for sure, but it was probably cost. It was right after a crispy fried squirrel took out both "redundant" power feeds coming into the building. We found out that while we had 'redundant entrance facilities' the power company was feeding both sides to us from the same transformer a couple of streets over. Squirrel vs transformer = no power to the dc. Fortunately we had three gensets on the building (two diesel + 1 NG). You have to understand, of course, that that DC was in a small town in extreme northern Louisiana. Think minutes from Arkansas. Not much larger than Apison. Not a lot of choice when it comes to power providers.

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ The thing about storing a lot of energy as kinetic energy is that you're sitting on a system that contains a lot of energy. We know how to handle fuels, chemical potential energy, we've got quite a bit of experience in dealing with that, but if you think about a gallon of gasoline as enough energy to propel two tons of steel twenty five miles, then you have to think about a flywheel with equivalent energy as capable of doing the same thing. There. In your basement. Just waiting for a bearing to go bad and go screaming through your foundation and bouncing off whatever other critical equipment you may be running in your basement. A few years ago I was thinking about energy storage technologies for Burning Man. Most people brought a car or even a big SUV, parked it for the week. What if we had a simple vehicle lift, use photovoltaics to lift that big weight into the air, let it down slowly and generate power from it at night. Call an SUV 2,000 kilograms. In earth gravity that's 19600 newtons, lifted two meters that's 39200 joules. Release that over an hour, you get whopping ten or eleven watts back out. So a hundred watts means you've got to be lifting that SUV 20 meters into the air, or lifting 10 SUVs over your head. Running a data center means you have to start lifting and lowering your building. Storing that as kinetic energy means that rather than lifting those SUVs up into the air, you're storing that in a way that's susceptible to bearing failure or materials flaws in your flywheel (as it breaks apart and throws chunks everywhere), and all of a sudden keeping large gasoline or diesel fuel stores on your roof for your genset seems a hell of a lot less scary. Dan

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Ahhh bearing failures....