It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For a couple hours today, all Germany's electrical power will be supplied by renewable energy

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Solar panels provide a lot of power at sunny summer noon, news at 11.. Average capacity factor of solar is still cca 0,3, and even less in Germany (a little over 0,1 seems to be the norm). Solar panels do not produce any power roughly half of the time, no matter how many you build. Intermittency is the Achiless heel for most renewables.


Can a light bulb produce photons for a solar panel?

This fact depends upon the storage and access/conversion components- as was mentioned earlier in thread. Bunker dwellers are going to rely on fossil fuels???

An Earth Battery is more practical...


An earth battery is an early type of voltaic cell buried in the ground so that the soil acts as the electrolyte. The electrodes are made of two dissimilar metals such as iron and copper.

The earliest example of an earth battery is by Alexander Bain in 1841. Bain buried plates of zinc and copper in the ground about one meter apart and used the resulting voltage, of about one volt, to operate a clock. In 1898, Nathan Stubblefield received US patent 600457 for his electrolytic coil battery, which was a combination of an earth battery and a solenoid. The battery generated power for telegraph transmissions and the solenoid formed part of a tuned circuit that amplified the signalling voltage.

These devices were used by early experimenters as energy sources for telegraphy. However, in the process of installing long telegraph wires, engineers discovered that there were electrical potential differences between most pairs of telegraph stations, resulting from natural electrical currents (called telluric currents) flowing through the ground. Some early experimenters did not recognise that these currents were, in fact, partly responsible for extending the earth batteries' high outputs and long lifetimes.



How?

I hope in my lifetime that this veil being lifted comes to fruition...What is a rectifier used for?

Dank Deutschen für den Weg ...
edit on (5/28/1212 by loveguy because:
my edit sig.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
If find it funny how people, in this day and age, say that something like further improving existing technology is impossible.

The belief that humans cannot rely fully on renewable energy is completely unfounded. I think, looking at our current technological advancements that were once thought of as impossible, that one would be savvy enough to realize that "Impossible" really has no meaning. Its only a matter time(and maybe not even that if we were to hit some sort of Singularity scenario any time soon).



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


*sigh* I knew I should have just gone to bed and forgotten about eating.

www.cato.org...

www.masterresource.org...

www.countercurrents.org...

www.kjonline.com...

- Apparently, "intelligent grids" aren't.

sharpgary.org...

- And that's a pretty good wrap for it.


Reason?


Madness?


Don't you understand?


This is Sparta!


Climate change is going to make vast areas of this planet uninhabitable for humans, creating a massive refugee population.This is REASON to do something, immediately.


. . .

Where did you get such an idea?

You want to talk of sources... but I've never come across, even in some fairly heavy-worded environmentalist propaganda, the idea that I am going to have to abandon my house in five years because the desert is overtaking it.

I've heard Gore insinuate that the ice caps are going to be gone in a few decades - but he's functionally retarded and doesn't realize that there's not enough energy hitting the Earth's surface to do that in the time frame he is talking about.


There is scientific paper after scientific paper published about the effects these changes are going to have. Here are just a few.


I'm going to warn you that I won't get drawn into a debate over the issue of climate change. I'll simply tell you that it boils down to I'm rated at a substantially higher intelligence than you (and most of the people who wrote any material you site), and know it to be the bull# that it is.

That said - the climate changes. Exactly how and why is not a simple answer as it's a dynamic, chaotic system. Further complicating the issue is that it's a relatively new area of study. The climate doesn't really leave much in terms of a record - what we think we know is only gathered from inference based on presumptions about the dynamics of ecosystems long past. We really only have accurate measurements from the past thirty years to rely upon... which, interestingly enough, is when people started freaking out about entering another ice age (and when using that to ration natural gas supplies failed - they decided they were initially wrong and we're all going to be living in the middle of the Sahara).

We also do pollute. I don't like pollution any more than I like being around people when they are smoking (I put up with it only when necessary).

reply to post by The Sword
 



Why not FREE ENERGY instead?


No one is stopping you. Go ahead and make it happen.


Why pay some schmuck for access to heat, hot water and electricity when all three are basic human necessities for survival?


. . . Why pay some schmuck for food?

By all means. Go stand outside and demand that the world give you heat, water, and electricity; claiming its your right.

You might get all three if you do it during a thunder storm while holding a large metal pole.

It's not a right. It's a resource - just like everything else. If you want resources, you either have to get them yourself or be willing to trade someone for resources they have.

Which is why you pay someone for food (or trade him something).


And while we're at it, those same schmucks get off scot-free when they make cars/appliances that will break on purpose in order to keep themselves in business fixing them!


Nothing is meant to last indefinitely. Every machine is made of parts that will invariably suffer erosion of its surfaces through mechanical wear or chemical corrosion (or both).

Modern manufacturing, with its focus on efficiency, has decided that most people replace appliances or devices once every three to eight years (depending upon what it is) - and building it to last longer than that time frame is simply a waste of resources (more metal, increased weight, higher shipping costs, higher shelf price - less competitive).

It's not built to fail (usually) so much as it's built to last only slightly longer than most people will bother to hang on to it. And why spend extra energy and resources building a device when it doesn't matter to the consumer?

Which is why your expensive-but-quality markets exist - because there are still people who want the robust build of appliances/goods/etc.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





I'm going to warn you that I won't get drawn into a debate over the issue of climate change. I'll simply tell you that it boils down to I'm rated at a substantially higher intelligence than you (and most of the people who wrote any material you site), and know it to be the bull# that it is.


Ha ha, rated by whom? You? Dick.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by Aim64C
 





I'm going to warn you that I won't get drawn into a debate over the issue of climate change. I'll simply tell you that it boils down to I'm rated at a substantially higher intelligence than you (and most of the people who wrote any material you site), and know it to be the bull# that it is.


Ha ha, rated by whom? You? Dick.



you aren't really excelling on this thread, are you



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Come on Blue! Its kind of difficult to have a senseible conversation when you have members, like Aim64C, continuously citing that,



I am intellectually superior to all but a hand full of individuals in the human race (overall - not counting individuals of abnormal mastery over single subjects)


You think that is cool?



you see into the future and know exactly the extent of "climate change" and exactly how much was due to mans' energy usage?


No I don't but scientists have by conducting something called an experiment. Its called global climate modelling.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 



Ha ha, rated by whom? You? Dick.


By the examinations administered to the people you consider geniuses.

By the time you get into the 98 and 99 percentile - ranking among them isn't really possible as the type of intellect is often unique to each case. My specialty is memory, recall, and linking of related subjects. I'll remember a book for as long as I live and be able to recall and link the information within it to any new memories seamlessly. It's why many people have difficulty following a point or plan of mine until it is complete - I am able to link ideas together in moments that would require a brainstorming team of average people to compare.

And, yes, I am being a dick. Because you're being ignorant.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 



No I don't but scientists have by conducting something called an experiment. Its called global climate modelling.


You're new to this whole science thing, apparently.

You cannot experiment with the environment. It is impossible with any foreseeable technology (barring some "magichanics").

Why, you may ask? Because for an experiment you must be able to isolate a variable before you can draw conclusions about the impact that variable has. You can't test whether plants need sunlight and water. You can only test for both individually. You, also, must have a control group.

This is important to distinguish. Science only accepts experiments as conclusive. No hypothesis can be properly tested without an experiment. And you can't set up a valid experiment involving the Earth's climate.

Which is why you have to take climate science with a grain of salt. Satellite measurements indicate no statistically significant rise in ocean levels or global temperatures (the readings must be "calibrated to adjust for global warming" in order to display the convenient result). Of course - what represents the best measure of a global average temperature is also up for debate.

Do you measure surface temperature?
Or one of the several layers of atmosphere?
Do you include ocean temperatures?
How do you compensate for the "urban heat island" when the phenomena legitimately contributes to warming but can skew averaged data?

When you really start getting down and scrutinize the source of the statistics (before you even get into the methods of processing those statistics); serious problems arise; it becomes clear we are in no condition to make any conclusive statements about the 'trajectory' of our climate. We have only begun to acquire data.

Now... does that mean we should not be looking for alternatives to petroleum?

No.

What it does mean is that we have to stop and take a look at what is and is not practical to satisfy our energy needs.

Residential power is only one tiny part of the equation; and by far the easiest to work into renewable energy schemes. People tend to go to sleep when the sun goes down (or be at a night shift), and homes can easily be constructed with some cultural changes to be far more energy efficient.

The real issues come from the industrial and transportation segments. Replacing fossil fuels isn't just replacing the power plants. A lot of manufacturing processes still involve the use of natural gas for melting metals and other critical construction processes. While electric methods exist - preference is usually regional and related to the local energy market. For automobiles - the issue is not just power storage - but also generation. A good 50% of the energy used by gasoline vehicles must be produced in electrical means (accounting for the greater efficiency of electric drive systems) and distributed.

All of the energy needed to turn metal into thousand degree pools and send goods/people across the country need to be generated by alternative sources and stored by super capacitors and/or batteries (and super capacitors have a long way to go before reaching that kind or marketability).

That is why the notion that wind and solar are going to be able to provide all the world's energy is a dubious one. Yeah - there exist ways to cut down on our energy needs... but you're looking at absolutely massive amounts of energy. Sure - the sun puts out a lot of it... but how many fields can you replace with solar farms before it becomes a serious ecological concern?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You sir, have made my day in this thread.



It baffles me why so many crew continue to preach about and go batsh*t over Solar and Wind as a viable Energy source. Aim' has already gone over the points, no need to reitterate - I agree.

I'm all for change. I'm aware things as they are now are not [AVOIDING THE USE OF THE WORD 'Sustainable', because that is just turning into another political buzzword...] ideal.

While controlled Fission and Fusion techs are still seen as science fiction to many, I in my speculative and unorthodoxly-hopeful nature like to think that it is a further progressed and developed technology than most of us are aware and/or, understand.

But I digress.

My question is, why is the global community (more or less) still pumping so much time, effort and money into these [solar & wind] technologies that, frankly, are dismissable as an interim answer to what will one day be the ultimate energy solution (be that Fusion or not).

This whole debacle is turning into the goddamned Crusades of the Energy Age, and hindering true progress.

- d.
edit on 30-5-2012 by derpest because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
First of all, kudos to Germany. No sarcasm; this is an achievement.

But second of all, let's see it for what it is: on an unusually sunny day, enough power is produced to power the nation for a couple of hours on the lowest energy use rate they experience. That's a far cry from being world-shaking.

I did a little looking around. Here is a report on a massive Japanese solar facility dated May 24, 2012.

What they plan to bring into development this July is a 1,270,000 square metre solar power plant – roughly the size of 27 baseball stadiums according to Kyocera – that will come at a cost of almost $US309 million.

Some 290,000 Kyocera multicrystalline solar modules will make up the majority of the plan, which, according to the company, will be able to generate enough energy to power 22,000 average households annually, aiding to offset 25,000 of carbon emissions yearly.

Sounds impressive, right?

$309,000,000 to build a plant to power 22,000 homes means it costs over $14,000 per home powered. That does not include maintenance, repair, and operation costs... the latter admittedly far less than conventional plants, but still extant. Not very economical. My power bills here, for home and separate shop, typically run about $1500 a year, which means if the above costs are not considered it will still take over 9 years before the plant is paid for. Then we can talk about paying for the upkeep for the past 9 years. Then we can talk about Kyocera making a profit.

Oh, did I mention that Asian countries get cut-rate deals on solar cells? They are priced far, far below what anyone in America can get them for. Double or even triple that price for any other country.

This is a very expensive PR project. It makes people recognize the name Kyocera as a leader in innovation and as being "green".

Solar power is excellent as a niche power source for low-current low-voltage remote applications. It works fine as a trickle charger for emergency battery backup systems. But for household use it is simply too expensive and too unreliable, and for industrial use it is simply not feasible. Wind works much better, but still has its limitations, and hydro requires running water which we are about out of in developed nations. Still, we do not have a power surplus. That means we have to have additional sources of power, like it or not. And there is little left in our arsenal besides fossil fuels and nuclear, which we are already using.

Nice thread, good news, but not the answer to the world's energy needs. Sorry.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




But second of all, let's see it for what it is: on an unusually sunny day, enough power is produced to power the nation for a couple of hours on the lowest energy use rate they experience. That's a far cry from being world-shaking.


Yes I agree Redneck, and did point this out in the opening post. The point is that it is a start and highlights the potential in renewbales.



$309,000,000 to build a plant to power 22,000 homes means it costs over $14,000 per home powered. That does not include maintenance, repair, and operation costs... the latter admittedly far less than conventional plants, but still extant. Not very economical. My power bills here, for home and separate shop, typically run about $1500 a year, which means if the above costs are not considered it will still take over 9 years before the plant is paid for. Then we can talk about paying for the upkeep for the past 9 years. Then we can talk about Kyocera making a profit.


Presented like that I agree Solar does not sound very economical but in years to come as the technology improves it will inevitably lead to a lowering in price.

In the UK our tidal potential is vast and investment is going into research on it.


Testing tidal prototypes is to get easier thanks to a facility being built at the University of Edinburgh’s King’s Buildings campus. Due to open in summer next year, the FloWave TT test centre will contain the first water tank in the world able to simulate combinations of waves of up to 28 metres high and currents up to 12 knots at one-tenth scale.

www.onlinetes.com...

There is a project, the Severn barrage, that is being considered in the UK.


Hain, an MP from Neath, Wales, last week resigned as Labor Party's shadow secretary for Wales partly to concentrate on the Severn barrage project. He and other backers say it could generate as much as 5 percent of Britain's energy needs at a time when an expansion of nuclear power is in doubt. The Corlan Hafren proposal would feature more than 1,000 "state-of-the-art" turbines embedded in the concrete barrage and would use both ebb and flow tides to generate power.

The project will have the "biggest, most positive effect on Wales of anything in the next few years, short of government macro-economic policy," Hain told the newspaper. "There will be tens of thousands of jobs created in the construction industry and potentially tens of thousands more in other sectors," he said.

Among its hoped-for spinoff benefits would be new road and rail transportation routes linking South Wales and southwestern England, creating a cohesive market of 2.2 million people living in and around Cardiff and Newport in Wales and Bristol in England. Read more: www.upi.com...


This cannot be applied to all countries, such as landlocked ones. However what about geothermal?


Deep geothermal energy could be exploited across the UK, with 'hotspots' including Cornwall, East Yorkshire, Hampshire, Northern Ireland and Scotland, according to the study. The power source could also supply enough heat directly to warm all the UK's homes and buildings, although the infrastructure is not in place in this country to deliver the heat to where it is needed. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...[ /code]


edit on 31-5-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





By the examinations administered to the people you consider geniuses. By the time you get into the 98 and 99 percentile - ranking among them isn't really possible as the type of intellect is often unique to each case.

My specialty is memory, recall, and linking of related subjects. I'll remember a book for as long as I live and be able to recall and link the information within it to any new memories seamlessly. It's why many people have difficulty following a point or plan of mine until it is complete - I am able to link ideas together in moments that would require a brainstorming team of average people to compare.

And, yes, I am being a dick. Because you're being ignorant.


Hmm, from your posts one would never gleam you had such intelligence. You, sir, are THE master at obfuscating stupidity. On par with George Bush and Muammar Gaddafi, I would say. You know -if I was you and had your intelligence- I wouldn't be wasting my time on a conspiracy forum bragging about how smart I was. I would cure cancer or something.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

The point is that it is a start and highlights the potential in renewbales.

I disagree that the potential is even there with solar. Its record is less than stellar (no pun intended).

Technology is a wonderful thing and it keeps giving us new advances in various fields. But it has its limits; physical laws cannot be broken, no matter how badly we wish they could.


Presented like that I agree Solar does not sound very economical but in years to come as the technology improves it will inevitably lead to a lowering in price.

The huge number of problems with solar power (expense, DC-AC conversion, voltage conversion, dependability, physical size) cannot all be met with improvements. Consider the physical size requirement: almost 314 acres to power 22,000 homes. That is a lot of space required, and I know of no way, practically or theoretically, to increase the sun's output to compensate for that.

So while you may be correct about price, that dynamic does not address the other issues. And with solar, price does not seem to be following the normal dynamic anyway.


In the UK our tidal potential is vast and investment is going into research on it.

Of all the technologies being considered now, wave energy seems to hold the most promise. As I understand things, the problem right now is dependability under the naturally harsh environment of constant exposure to salt water.


This cannot be applied to all countries, such as landlocked ones. However what about geothermal?

Like solar, geothermal energy is spread pretty thin and requires a lot of area to harvest in quantity. It also brings up a concern about dropping undergound temperatures. All energy systems at present use energy in a natural form, leaving less energy behind in that form: solar power robs solar energy from the collection area; wind energy reduces the velocity of the prevailing winds; hydro power slows the natural water flow; fossil fuel energy removes the chemical energy available of the deposits. As such, geothermal energy will cool the subsurface of the crust in the area it is used. The question, as with any energy system, is how much?

That's not say geothermal energy is dangerous (I have considered using it here for some time), but that it may well not be plentiful enough to produce an appreciable amount of usable energy in populated areas without having unpleasant consequences.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 



Yes I agree Redneck, and did point this out in the opening post. The point is that it is a start and highlights the potential in renewbales.


It does nothing new, really.

Solar panel technology has been relatively stagnant the past twenty years or so. There have been minor advances in one direction or another - but the barrier is right around 20% conversion efficiency.

Cheaper solar cells are only one miniscule part of the problem. The reality is that solar power requires vast amounts of area to be repurposed for solar farms. This is simply not all that practical when looking at the other resource needs of the human and animal populations. Solar power production literally competes directly with agricultural industries.

There are two areas where solar stands out (and two areas that should be explored). Embedded/transparent solar technology. IE - photovoltaic roadways, rooftops, windows (more tint = more power and less heating of the interior space), and other 'invisible/transparent' applications that go atop existing structures. A number of photovoltaic paints exist - and development in this area is where solar technology is more practical from a systemic outlook.

The other is in space. There's a lot of space in space (go figure). Collection and conversion of solar energy in space before being beamed through the atmosphere to receiving stations would be about the only other means of realistic power production (systemic - not necessarily economical). Of course - these would still suffer from issues with locale - beaming down gigawatt-hours of power through the atmosphere -in any form- is going to carry potential dangers to anything organic caught in the mix (as you would be likely using a form of maser - a laser beam of the microwave spectrum - to beam this energy to its target). So the necessary reduction in power density to mitigate these risks may offset any benefits pending another method of transmission.

Of course - if we are discussing orbital habitats - the issue is moot.


This cannot be applied to all countries, such as landlocked ones. However what about geothermal?


Geothermal relies upon hotspots that have been shown to be non-renewable in nature. The spot will eventually cool and become useless as a power supply.

Only near-mantle drilling could turn geothermal power into something approaching renewable. Drilling holes that deep, however, turns out to be well beyond our engineering limitations at this point in time. Let alone setting up a thermal plant.

For the most part - any geothermal power plant must be looked at as an interim solution and non-renewable. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued - but that it is a cost/benefit/time issue. How much power can you get for how long and at what cost?

reply to post by TsukiLunar
 



Hmm, from your posts one would never gleam you had such intelligence.


I don't expect you to be capable.

I'll word it this way: The average person has an IQ of 100 (an IQ of 100 -is- the mean of all test scores). Most people have IQs between the range of 95 and about 110 - give or take a bit. A person is considered borderline intellectual functional with an IQ of 84 and below - with disability at 69 and below.

The lowest score I have is a 130 (varies from type of test to type of test and from age group to age group). Simply put: Considering the distortion of IQ scores at the extremes is similar between low and high scoring populations; it can be said that the difference between the average person and myself is the equivalent of the difference between an average person and a mentally disabled individual.

I don't expect you to grasp the magnitude of your handicap - or that you are even handicapped.


You know -if I was you and had your intelligence- I wouldn't be wasting my time on a conspiracy forum bragging about how smart I was. I would cure cancer or something.


Why do you presume our reasons for visiting this forum are dissimilar?

People are always quick to throw out these assertions - and they aren't entirely without base. Certainly - there are better uses of my intellect than bickering on a forum. However - it begs the question of why one would consider himself intellectually relevant and, in the same breath, assert that one's self is participating in a waste of time.

You are either claiming yourself to be of an intelligence below considerations of time management or wasting time, yourself while being of valid intelligence.

Either of which draw suspicion on the legitimacy of your point.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





I don't expect you to be capable.


Obviosly. Go easy on me, kay, smart guy?




I'll word it this way: The average person has an IQ of 100 (an IQ of 100 -is- the mean of all test scores). Most people have IQs between the range of 95 and about 110 - give or take a bit. A person is considered borderline intellectual functional with an IQ of 84 and below - with disability at 69 and below.


I don't understand. What about the butter? Do we use them on kitties?




The lowest score I have is a 130 (varies from type of test to type of test and from age group to age group). Simply put: Considering the distortion of IQ scores at the extremes is similar between low and high scoring populations; it can be said that the difference between the average person and myself is the equivalent of the difference between an average person and a mentally disabled individual.


130! Wow you sure are something. I am glad you have deemed it appropriate to indulge one such as myself. I may not have had the mental ability to control my bowels long enough to awkwardly stumble my way through reading your reply, but after doing so I feel as though I have learned something great.




I don't expect you to grasp the magnitude of your handicap - or that you are even handicapped.


Trust me, I am handicapped.




Why do you presume our reasons for visiting this forum are dissimilar?


I would never presume to know how a mind such as your works. The intricacies are far too many for my feeble brain.




People are always quick to throw out these assertions - and they aren't entirely without base. Certainly - there are better uses of my intellect than bickering on a forum. However - it begs the question of why one would consider himself intellectually relevant and, in the same breath, assert that one's self is participating in a waste of time.


Indeed, I may not understand most of the words you just used, but it sounded good. That's enough for me.




You are either claiming yourself to be of an intelligence below considerations of time management or wasting time, yourself while being of valid intelligence.



Serious time: "130" is not that special, like at all. I thought we were talking upper 180s at least. Man, did I overestimate you.

130? Ha. Go jerk it somewhere else.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C

The lowest score I have is a 130

It has been my experience that there really is no such thing as an overall IQ. Certain people have tendencies in different areas. Traditional IQ tests examine only one area: theoretical thinking.

Don't be too proud of those fancy numbers. I don't have any idea what mine is, nor do I want to know; I am happier just being me.

Now back to the discussion...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



It has been my experience that there really is no such thing as an overall IQ. Certain people have tendencies in different areas. Traditional IQ tests examine only one area: theoretical thinking.


Generally speaking, a lot of IQ tests are geared towards younger children and attempt to compare their thought process and critical thinking capacity to that of an adult.

Answers aren't necessarily correct or incorrect - but are appreciated on a continuum of marked performance.

More "accurate" IQ tests (used in the extremes of intelligence analysis) aren't really tests in the standard sense. Classical tests can be learned - one's ability to provide an optimal answer is not necessarily an indication of an intelligent processing of information.

Which is why the more sophisticated exams intended for the higher percentiles that suffer extreme distortion in 'normal' testing tend to be expensive and uncommon. The results aren't fed into a computer. The tests aren't all written out on paper or submitted via the web browser.

Of course; also at the higher IQs - the individuals' intelligence is just that - individual. I'm not the fastest or most accurate at Sudoku and other games of the type. I'm no master of chess (though I'm not helpless). What I do best is, as I mentioned before, remember and link ideas. My specialty is taking a broad range of concepts and putting them to use for a single goal.

Basically - a self-contained design team that draws from multiple backgrounds and specialties at one time.


Don't be too proud of those fancy numbers. I don't have any idea what mine is, nor do I want to know; I am happier just being me.


I use it for illustrative purposes.

While lunar is right - "130" is not "all that impressive" - It's the lowest score I've got and is within the top 1% of the population.

But you are right - the number is not really all that important.

What's important is that there has been no counter to the points made - logical or otherwise. One can criticize my approach - but not my knowledge of the subject at hand.

reply to post by TsukiLunar
 



Serious time: "130" is not that special, like at all. I thought we were talking upper 180s at least. Man, did I overestimate you.

130? Ha. Go jerk it somewhere else.


You're right. It isn't all that impressive as my lowest IQ score.

However... it is apparently more than sufficient to produce an air tight case against the practicality of a "purely renewable" world of energy.

Though I'm not sure what point you had, aside from taking issue with my manner.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
My wife's FaceBook clan was talking about this today and she gave me an ultimatum....The frigerator has to be running on solar power SOON.

Thanks Germany.....another honey-do project for me.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I thought this might suit the topic:

www.spiegel.de...

Sorry for the link being german, if google doesn't do a proper translation-job: it's basically about a model project that's recently been conducted near the Berlin area by Siemens to see if it was possible to run trucks through overhead wires like trains... pretty amazing, at least in my opinion... it's called an e-highway..



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DonOdie
 


Yeh that sounds amazing.

A couple of paragraphs from the piece.


The automotive supplier Siemens has presented at the Electric Vehicle Symposium in Los Angeles recently, a system for the electric operation of trucks. The vehicles for them to have a hybrid drive, which is a combination of diesel engine and electric generator. But unlike the well-known hybrid car, the truck does not store the electricity in a battery, but relate it with an overhead line, similar to trams and trains. The eHighway mentioned concept, which is currently being tested on a test track in Berlin, the vehicles are equipped with a reading system on the roof.

As long as the road runs through a pipe network, the trucks are traveling in the current operation. They have to leave the electrified route to the destination to go about in a city that works the electronic system the connector, and the diesel engine in the vehicle will start automatically. The machine then drives a generator to produce electricity. The wheels of the truck are therefore always driven electrically - a technique that, for example, in a similar form in the Opel Ampera is used.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Interesting article on Germany's solar production and problems mainly the competition from China and the over commoditisation of panels and big power interests from Germany's established power corporations.


Most visitors to cloudy Germany would never guess that the country is the world leader in solar energy, with nearly as much photovoltaic capacity as the rest of the world combined. The country isn't exactly bathed in the sun's rays. A side-by-side solar resource map put out by the U.S. government-owned National Renewable Energy Laboratory, with red indicating brilliant sun and purple denoting thick cloud cover, shows the United States dressed in healthy hues of yellow and orange while Germany is almost entirely frostbitten blue-violet. Aside from Alaska and part of western Washington state, just about every inch of the United States gets more energy from the sun than the sliver of southern Germany that gets the most. Yet Germany installed 7,500 megawatts of solar panels last year, compared with 1,855 in the United States -- a country with nearly four times Germany's population and 28 times its landmass.

But even as solar energy production continues to boom, Germany's manufacturers of solar technology are collapsing at an alarming rate. In the four months preceding Q-Cells' bankruptcy, another leading German solar cell firm, Solon, filed for bankruptcy, as did two major solar thermal firms in the country. Two weeks after the Q-Cells bankruptcy, the Arizona-based module producer First Solar announced that it was shutting down its operations in Germany. How did this decidedly unsunny country come to dominate the world solar energy market, only to see its solar manufacturing crash to the ground? The roots of the industry's ascent -- and its eventual demise -- lie in an unlikely conversation 22 years ago.


www.foreignpolicy.com...



new topics




 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join