And how much energy was used to produce these panels, transport and install them? How much energy will be used to maintain them?
I bet you you'll not get back the energy you already spent on building and installing these arrays, even after 25 years of useful life of these panels.
At 30% efficiency, the net energy equation is negative.
Not much more than the energy it costs to set up a coal or gas-fired generator plant. The cost of setting up each type of plant is broadly similar. But with the renewables, the inputs - sunshine and wind - are free. It is a massive burden on an economy to have to import coal and gas - costs money, contributes to your trade deficit and depresses GDP. So good for Portugal, hopefully this can bring down their deficit - and if they produce enough they can even start exporting surplus electricity to Spain. But I can understand the coal and gas producers screaming and hollering - they've lost a customer! Knowing politicians will seek to maintain the balance on the one hand we have the polluters and the other we have to bring the solution to minimize pollution building sources of renewable energy, but the companies that produce nergy with Fossil fuel will not want to stay with losses. In my opinion it had taken a long time to have clean energy. A single nuclear power plant would produce TEN TIMES the power of that expensive, finicky solar farm that Portugal would like you to believe is so wonderful. And that nuclear solution would run day and night, instead of just when there was bright sunlight. Have you checked out Portugal's climate? There is plenty of bright sunlight. Nuclear power stations are expensive to build - they are better suited to cold climates that don't have the benefit of sunshine (or strong wind as Portugal gets from the Atlantic). Plenty? Expensive? Better suited? I think you need to look in depth at these things before talking. They are simple numerical cost versus production issues, right? So which is "best" is simply which produces the most energy for the least money? I'm getting conflicting information re: nuclear subsidies Some sources say nuclear is not subsidized and so cheap that it sometimes has to be taxed to keep rates to be "fair" to other energy sources (World Nuclear Association), and others say nuclear isn't viable without subsidies (Union of Concerned Scientists)  Truth probably is in the middle |
|
|
|
200 Stranded Marines Needed A Plane Ride Home, Here's How Donald Trump RespondedWhen Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney, was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his unit’s return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasn’t available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This—according to Stickney—is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And that’s all we knew….I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by: The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided. The Marine says he and his family are—to this day—grateful for Trump’s kind gesture. "It may not seem like much to most people, but it was very important to a bunch of jar heads and more importantly their families waiting for them on the hot tarmac." Stickney says that his father—a Korean War veteran and former Eastern Airlines captain—claimed to have never seen a 727 turn around and refuel so quickly. His father was so appreciative of Mr. Trump's help; he said he would fly for Trump for free to thank him for what he did. Stickney says that in his 28 years of public service, he has yet to see this kind of support for the troops from any of the other candidates running for president: "I have not seen a Clinton or Sanders plane, or anything else for that matter, sent to support the troops." http://m.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/200-stranded-marines-needed-a-plane-14727522/Hmm... http://www.snopes.com/trump-tower-air/Hmm... Hmm...
Stickney, was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991.
Upon his unit’s return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami.
Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasn’t available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date.
I emailed Snopes letting them know they should reopen their article considering this info and amend it to make it less misleading, encourage y'all to do the same. I wonder if a false story was sent to Snopes on purpose. |
|
|
|
200 Stranded Marines Needed A Plane Ride Home, Here's How Donald Trump RespondedWhen Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney, was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his unit’s return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasn’t available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This—according to Stickney—is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And that’s all we knew….I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by: The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided. The Marine says he and his family are—to this day—grateful for Trump’s kind gesture. "It may not seem like much to most people, but it was very important to a bunch of jar heads and more importantly their families waiting for them on the hot tarmac." Stickney says that his father—a Korean War veteran and former Eastern Airlines captain—claimed to have never seen a 727 turn around and refuel so quickly. His father was so appreciative of Mr. Trump's help; he said he would fly for Trump for free to thank him for what he did. Stickney says that in his 28 years of public service, he has yet to see this kind of support for the troops from any of the other candidates running for president: "I have not seen a Clinton or Sanders plane, or anything else for that matter, sent to support the troops." http://m.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/200-stranded-marines-needed-a-plane-14727522/Hmm... http://www.snopes.com/trump-tower-air/ |
|
|
|
What are those? Some type of vape gear? Differently angled pictures of a Silver Surfer Vaporizer collated in one image, to see all the 'MURICA |
|
|
|
|
I would like to see more Latin and Greek
|
|
|
|
I would suppose the periodic table to be the same everywhere in this universe, the laws of physics to be the same, and so forth. Yep The article you liked to asserts that some magnetic fields could affect the rate of formation or stability of "free radicals."
But this is somewhat silly, many chemical solutions exist in ionic equilibrium with a simple example being salt in water. NaCl and H2O, radicals would be Na and Cl, plus the H and the O. As far as "health" is concerned there is a mythology about "free radicals" and their importance to being "healthy."
I think I was just wondering if it was possible if different free radical behaviors/concentrations that could exist in other places would affect things around their local environment, especially if said free radicals were somehow more stabilized. To look at this question one would need to separate the mythology and lore of "antioxidents and free radicals" as it is promoted in "natural medicine" and such from the actual chemistry and biochemistry. For the actual facts I would suggest a source such as www.webMD.com. Rather than guessing as to the answer to your question you might look for peer reviewed articles which vary magnetic and gravitational fields while growing plants and or animals. I know there have been many such on the ISS space station at least for gravity. Thank you amigo, I never really looked into those space studies in depth before but I was aware of them as a kid. |
|
|
|
And how much energy was used to produce these panels, transport and install them? How much energy will be used to maintain them?
I bet you you'll not get back the energy you already spent on building and installing these arrays, even after 25 years of useful life of these panels.
At 30% efficiency, the net energy equation is negative.
Not much more than the energy it costs to set up a coal or gas-fired generator plant. The cost of setting up each type of plant is broadly similar. But with the renewables, the inputs - sunshine and wind - are free. It is a massive burden on an economy to have to import coal and gas - costs money, contributes to your trade deficit and depresses GDP. So good for Portugal, hopefully this can bring down their deficit - and if they produce enough they can even start exporting surplus electricity to Spain. But I can understand the coal and gas producers screaming and hollering - they've lost a customer! How do you manufacture and transport solar panels and wind turbines again? Coal and gas. I bet they increased their trade deficit by buying solar panels. Probably on a loan or subsidies too. At government levels of efficiency. |
|
|
|
I don't call myself atheist. But the hate these so called religious people have for other religion, the war and hypocrisy, I think the world have been better without any religion. These people call religion to be good and peaceful, but that holds true only talking about their own religion. Mine is good and others is not. So much stupidity. There's no hell or heaven but there religious extremist are turning this earth to a living hell.
just reading your words gives me goosebumps specially There's no hell or heaven but somehow i agree on what you said that the world have been better without any religion because just imagine what if we have no religion then there are no wars on what are they believing in. Humans will find other things to fight about Large majority of people are not born with instincts to kill other humans. It is not natural to kill for some abstract ideas. Same can be observed in rest of the animal kingdom. Religion (and other COMMON beliefs) is what made otherwise insignificant monkey rule the world. Unified beliefs helped people to form large groups with common goals. Neanderthals lost to Sapiens not because they were weaker or could not fight. A Neanderthal would rip a little Sapiens monkey apart in 10 seconds or less. They lost because their bands were small, 50-100 people, vs hordes of 5000-1000 of Sapiens. They did not stand a chance. All thanks to religion. Today, people invented bunch of other ideas to 'unite' them. Government, nationalism, all other *-isms, racial & tribal divides, political differences, and of course religions. All of these abstract ideas can be used to start new wars. In the end, all wars are about resources, ideologies are there to convince people to go along and commit horrible acts. People who went through the hell of war on the front lines, have seen, done atrocities, come back psychologically damaged. No matter if they are American, German, Russian or Japanese. They all become pacifists in the end. No abstract ideas will ever convince them that a given war is a just war. So why to hate Religion? Because in the end, it causes pain and misery to a large number of people, religious or not.Non sequitur. |
|
|
|
I would suppose the periodic table to be the same everywhere in this universe, the laws of physics to be the same, and so forth. Yep The article you liked to asserts that some magnetic fields could affect the rate of formation or stability of "free radicals."
But this is somewhat silly, many chemical solutions exist in ionic equilibrium with a simple example being salt in water. NaCl and H2O, radicals would be Na and Cl, plus the H and the O. As far as "health" is concerned there is a mythology about "free radicals" and their importance to being "healthy."
I think I was just wondering if it was possible if different free radical behaviors/concentrations that could exist in other places would affect things around their local environment, especially if said free radicals were somehow more stabilized. |
|
|
|
I don't call myself atheist. But the hate these so called religious people have for other religion, the war and hypocrisy, I think the world have been better without any religion. These people call religion to be good and peaceful, but that holds true only talking about their own religion. Mine is good and others is not. So much stupidity. There's no hell or heaven but there religious extremist are turning this earth to a living hell.
just reading your words gives me goosebumps specially There's no hell or heaven but somehow i agree on what you said that the world have been better without any religion because just imagine what if we have no religion then there are no wars on what are they believing in. Humans will find other things to fight about |
|
|
|
Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.
One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water. It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them. Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe... Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions? That's possible. But you can go down that line of inquiry and define the possible situations also. The self organizing mechanisms of matter require phase dynamics, gas-liquid-solid. That means a certain range of temperatures for the elements involved such as Carbon hydrogen oxygen nitrogen Silicon hydrogen ..... Sulfur hydrogen .... For any proposed system excess thermal energy will overwhelm organizational tendency toward life, and insufficient thermal energy energy will prevent it. For example, the Moon cannot support any life. Neither can Mercury or Venus. Your mentioning of those elements reminded me of the Arecibo "Response" which led me to this webpage about it and the original message http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/circulos_cultivos/esp_circuloscultivos12.htmMy head hurt after reading it, which may indicate that the writer is a crackpot, but whatever In any case, I realize now, what a time it must have been to be alive since around the 60s. I wonder what I'll see in my lifetime. Relativity question: can significantly different magnetic fields in another part of the galaxy/universe affect the behavior of chemicals in that localized area compare to say, on Earth Lol, yes, Hoagland is a crackpot. No, magnetic fields very remote cannot be thought of affecting local conditions. There is a "crackpot theory" about that which is called the "electric universe, electric sun, etc." IIRC. I'm still laughing over the "number of planets" arguments. "How many planets are in the solar system?" Yesterday's answer. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.
Today's answer.
Fuck, who knows. I mean, if in another part of the known universe there exists a hypothetically drastically different magnetic field (baseline if you will), could the behavior of some arbitrary chemicals be different than somewhere else like here, same chemicals? I think this means probably: http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.1/magnetic.html |
|
|
|
Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.
One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water. It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them. Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe... Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions? That's possible. But you can go down that line of inquiry and define the possible situations also. The self organizing mechanisms of matter require phase dynamics, gas-liquid-solid. That means a certain range of temperatures for the elements involved such as Carbon hydrogen oxygen nitrogen Silicon hydrogen ..... Sulfur hydrogen .... For any proposed system excess thermal energy will overwhelm organizational tendency toward life, and insufficient thermal energy energy will prevent it. For example, the Moon cannot support any life. Neither can Mercury or Venus. Your mentioning of those elements reminded me of the Arecibo "Response" which led me to this webpage about it and the original message http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/circulos_cultivos/esp_circuloscultivos12.htmMy head hurt after reading it, which may indicate that the writer is a crackpot, but whatever In any case, I realize now, what a time it must have been to be alive since around the 60s. I wonder what I'll see in my lifetime. Relativity question: can significantly different magnetic fields in another part of the galaxy/universe affect the behavior of chemicals in that localized area compare to say, on Earth |
|
|
|
lol I gotttta get me to Dublin |
|
|
|
Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.
One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water. It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them. Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe... Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions? |
|
|
|
Wow thank you, forgot Dublin was such a big spot for music! |
|
|
|
British PM, who described Trump’s remarks about Muslims as ‘divisive, stupid and wrong’, may have to greet him at Downing Street The British government is preparing for a diplomatically awkward visit to the UK by Donald Trump, raising the possibility that David Cameron will have to greet him as the official Republican candidate in Downing Street after describing his remarks about Muslims as “divisive, stupid and wrong”. Traditionally, presidential candidates go abroad during the campaign to underline their foreign policy credentials, but No 10 will be torn between the difficulties of a Trump-Cameron encounter and the alternative of being left out in the cold by its most important ally.Government sources said Trump had extensive business interests in Scotland, hinting that he may make a flying visit to the reopening of his golf course in Scotland in late June. There would be no requirement for Cameron to meet Trump then. But protocol means the status of a Trump visit would change if it came after the Republican convention in July, since, as the official Republican candidate, he would be expected to be offered meetings with the prime minister in Downing Street, as well as with the official Labour opposition leader. Protocol does not require that he meet the Queen. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic have been discussing the possibility of a Trump visit. Work is under way within the Foreign Office to make contact with Trump’s foreign policy team, but this has been complicated by the fact that even some of those named as foreign policy advisers by Trump have yet to meet the maverick politician.It is an article of faith in Foreign Office thinking that the UK must remain close to America, partly due to the countries’ vital intelligence and military relationship.Mitt Romney, the unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate in 2012, visited London, as well as Poland and Israel. His visit to the UK was not a success, as it was perceived that criticised London’s preparations for the Olympic Games.Some in Downing Street now regret Cameron’s attack on Trump as incautious, and had warned the Foreign Office that Trump, despite the ridicule, was likely to emerge as the Republican candidate. Cameron made his criticisms of Trump after the Republican candidate suggested he would ban Muslims visiting the US. Trump has since said it was just a suggestion. Speaking to Good Morning Britain this week, the billionaire said he did not think he was going to have a very good relationship with the UK if he was elected in November. He also bridled at criticisms of his intelligence, saying “Number one, I’m not stupid, OK? I can tell you that right now – just the opposite. Number two, in terms of divisive, I don’t think I’m a divisive person. I’m a unifier, unlike our president now. I’m a unifier”. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/no-10-makes-plans-for-potentially-awkward-uk-visit-by-donald-trumpCameron's cognitive dissonance will settle... in due time  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/05/david-cameron-donald-trump-deserves-respect |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
