On Jul 20, 9:53*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:

As to the co2, we are also raising the co2 level. *That's a fact. *The
bydrocarbons were buried in the ground. *We're releasing them and
breaking them up and combing the freed carbon with oxygen to produce
co2. *Who knows maybe we will be the start of the next cycle that
produces new hydrocarbons for some other lifeform to dig up a couple
hundred million yeasr from now. *On the short term the consequences
might not be so good for us.

I trust you'll permit an analogy to illustrate the CO2 in the atmosphere and
its increase.

If the atmosphere could be represented by the area of a football field,
including the end-zones, the amount of CO2 is roughly equal to the area
occupied by a prostate official who died as a result of seven stab wounds
inflicted by irate fans after he made four consecutive bad calls against the
home team.

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain left on
the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person coming to his
aid.

(In case you're interested, the remaining seventeen minutes of play took
place without a single penalty.)

In other words, CO2 ain't much (one three-hundredths of one percent).

That is a fake statistic,
The increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times is 35%.
From 280 to 382 parts per million.
You are either devious or stupid.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

On Jul 20, 10:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Mostly true but we never recover 100% of the original elements and
never will. *The 'pie in the sky' types keep pointing to new
discoveries as if those "new discoveries' will continue to be made for
infinity.

Nothing lasts forever. The Romans denuded all of North Africa and much of
Europe and used the wood for charcoal. Just as the trees were about to run
out, it became practical to mine and exploit coal. (The industrial
revolution was fueled by coal).

While in some places coal is still very economical, oil proved to be more
versatile and, in many instances, cheaper.

Heck, the archetype villain, John D. Rockefeller, and his example of
monoply, Standard Oil, drove the price of Kerosene down from $3.00/gallon to
a nickle. In less than three years. Of course the people who sold
"renewable" energy (i.e., whale oil) squealed and were eventually put out of
business, but for the rest of us, the night was brightened.

Point is, as with trees and whales, even renewables face the same problems
as truffles. There is only so much and only so many pigs to find it.

Whale oil is not renewable, or sustainable when you use up the whales
faster than they breed.
Oil and is still being produced today but obviously at a far less rate
thn we consume it.
So, more drivel.

Solar power and wind are renewable.They can't be depleted.

However, the one being largely ignored is geothermal power.

On Jul 21, 12:56*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote :





harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02*pm, Frank wrote:

On 7/19/2011 6:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Warning: It's not pretty. Summary of a report based on power
usage by about 1/3rd of the nation's consumers (110 million)
over three years.

"For years, it's been an article of faith among advocates of
renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a
cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The
reality: wind energy's carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are
vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce
carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used
on any kind of scale. "

And in conclusion:

"The wind energy business is the electric sector's equivalent of
the corn ethanol scam: it's an over-subsidized industry that
depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while
providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if
anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon
dioxide emissions. The latest Bentek study should be required
reading for policymakers. It's a much-needed reminder of how the
pesky facts about wind energy have been obscured by the tsunami
of hype about green energy."

http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/19/win...-carbon_2.html

The report overlooks the fact that wind energy is for the
children.

Nice, clean windmill sound nice but energy consumed in building
them and the need for back-up diesel generators are not
considered.

Nor the noise and dead birds.
if in a cold weather place,they may freeze up or the blades may ice over
and throw big chunks of ice when they break loose.

They may or may not be putting them offshore here in
Delaware and you can imagine the compounding cost of installation
and effect of salt water on them, *They don't use above ground
transmission lines either and cables have to be run under the sea
surface.

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/2...107170308-Hide
quoted text -

All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.
then there's inverter maintenance,and if storage batteries used,battery
maintenance.
Plus,the hazards of battery chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Wind turbines need more maintenance,being rotating machinery.







Bell Labs just put up a PV farm not far from me.
These are in a field about 4 feet from the ground.
I'm curious about how they are going to cut the grass or
keep plants from growing in there.

I thought they might use mulch or a ground cover, but so far
it doesn't look like it.

They used to just mow the area with a big ride on mower.
Now the panels are in the way. *Maybe they can be tilted out
of the way.

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. *Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? *how big a plant is it? how many MW?

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have grid linked solar panels. There is zero maintentance. The
rain washes them off (it is special glass).
Once in a while I look to see if they are still there.

On Jul 21, 1:00*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:45:28 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

I mis-remembered. There were five (picked by Ehrlich). The wager was
$1,000 each. Whatever the differential in price after a decade would
go to the winner.

chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten

"Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800
million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by
September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of
Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped
significantly. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980,
was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was
down to $3.88 a decade later."

Why does costing more make them harder to find?

It doesn't. Being harder to find makes them cost more. Price is a
convenient metric for scarcity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah,you got it mixedup *:-)

Population is the main problem I think.
Everything comes back to that.
Nature will soon organise a cull.

That's what Malthus thought. He was wrong. That's what Ehrlich thought. He,
too, was wrong. In fact, EVERYBODY who has EVER predicted that
over-population spells our doom has been wrong.

By the principle of inductive reasoning, I suggest that you, too, are wrong.

harry? *Wrong? *You don't need induction to come to that conclusion!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you need to look up inductive reasoning.
& BTW that would not be an example of it.

On Jul 21, 1:06*am, Home Guy wrote:
jamesgangnc used improper usenet mesage composition style by
full-quoting:

The energy potential in a wind field is measured in terms of the
swept area of the blades.

So how can you capture a respectible fraction of this energy by
using thin blades that "see" or experience only a small fraction
of this swept area, vs using fatter blades that expose themselves
to a greater percentage of this wind field?
Fat and thin. *They are all airfoils.

A typical air foil is an airplane wing. *The "foil" is cross-sectional
profile - curved upper surface, flat lower surface. *The foil is what
gets you life when it's moved forward through the air. *You create a
low-pressure area on the upper surface.

I can move air with flat blade angled at 45 degrees. *The blade doesn't
need a foil-shaped cross section - instead it can be flat. *When a flat
blade is angled (any angle other than 0) and rotated, it is pushing air
out of the way as it turns.

Similarly, wind that wants to move past the blade must push it aside,
and in doing so it will rotate the hub. *The more surface area you
present to the wind (ie the wider the blade) the more rotational force
you transmit to the hub.

Do you think they woudn't use fat blades if they worked better?

Maybe it's all a scam. *Maybe wind turbines don't need to cost a few
million each, and be hundreds of feet tall with blades made from exotic
materials and methods.

You think engineers didn't design the blades on wind turbines?

Explain what's wrong with my concept.

How much cross-sectional area is occupied by the blades in a water
turbine as water flows past them in a hydro-electric station?

The thing you describe is a "plate or thin aerofoil" and is commonly
used in fast jets.
Which is used in fans etc. is to do with the velocity of air passing
over the blades.
"Conventional" aerofoils are are more suited to low speeds.

On Jul 21, 1:34*am, wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:
wrote :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23Â*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02Â*pm, Frank wrote:
All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.
Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

then * there's * inverter * maintenance,and * if * storage * batteries
used,battery maintenance. * Plus,the hazards of *battery chemicals and
lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. *Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? *how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...rl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. *The article says it's enough power to power
200 homes.

--
Dan Espen

You need to know that is MWp (p= peak)

So much less in cloudy weather. Nothing at night.
They may achieve peak output for four hours on a good day.
One hundredth of that when there is heavy cloud or rain.

On Jul 21, 3:31*am, Home Guy wrote:
Robert Neville wrote:
If a fan has fan blades that are designed to *efficiently move
air*, then why won't that same basic blade design also be
*efficiently moved by air* ?

Basic aerodynamics/physics. A fan blade is a wing.

The function of a wing is to provide lift in a vector perpendicular to
it's surface.

Please explain how or why a wind-turbine blade needs to provide lift?

It actually can't provide lift, because (a) it's not turning under it's
own power, and (b) if it did produce any lift, that lift would be a
vector force pointing out of the down-wind-facing surface of the blade,
and would act to pull the blades forward and destabilize the support
colum and topple it.

The larger the blade, the more drag (energy loss).

So by that logic, a sailing ship would be propelled faster (capture more
wind energy) by having a small sail vs a large sail.

Great logic.

You may have noticed (or more likely not) the blades are not set at
90d to the airflow.
Have you not thought that there might be a reason for this?

"harry" wrote

The cull has already started in Ethiopia. It will spread.
Few people/governments seem willing to donate money to alleviate it.
(Least of al the USA.
Ergo, these people will die.

I don't think any normal person wants to see others die. Under the guise of
helping, we are making it possible for more people to die though. By feeding
them, we make reproduction easier, the population grows, and even more help
is needed. Cut back or do not increase the help, people will die. If the
people cannot sustain themselves on their own territory, they should move or
die. Better they die of natural causes someplace and leave no offspring,
rather than die of starvation and leave another generation to do the same.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Uh, there are many things wrong with a government subsidizing
anything. I don't have much problem with research grants, but
subsidizing production is an outrage. Poor Mexicans are almost
starving because the cost of tortillas is almost prohibitive, thanks
to our ethanol subsidies!

Not true. The corn used to produce ethanol is what is fed to beef and
pork (as well as poultry)

which is then fed to them as DDGS

If the poor Mexicans are almost starving because of the cost of
tortillas, it's because they aren't growing enough corn...they aren't
producing ethanol

It was my understanding that, before the ethanol cultists took over the U.S.
government, we exported corn to Mexico. Now, corn growers turn their corn
into fuel, much to the despair of Mexicans.

As a result, literally millions of Mexicans are crossing our borders in what
has become known as "The Great Tortilla Quest"!

wrote:

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.
Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.


Let me rephrase:

"Okay, middle-aged home owner. Once every two weeks, climb up on your roof
with some soapy water..."

Do your part to keep "falls" the number one cause of emergency room
admissions.

Harry K wrote:
On Jul 20, 8:01 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

The predictions may have been wrong, but the ultimate outcome is
based on logic.

Ultimately we'll have a standing room only future.

But it'll be a while. A long while.

At the population density of Hong Kong, the earth's population, some
six billion people, would fit in the state of Georgia.

Which, come to think on it... would be a terrible thing.

So we should just ignore the problem and go along procreating at an
unsupportable rate? Just sentence our future off spring to starvation
and subsistance living?


Alarmist! The people in Hong Kong aren't starving!

And even if your projections of gloom do appear on the horizon, there's
always sustenance in the form of sea plankton energy bars.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"harry" wrote

The cull has already started in Ethiopia. It will spread.
Few people/governments seem willing to donate money to alleviate it.
(Least of al the USA.
Ergo, these people will die.

I don't think any normal person wants to see others die. Under the
guise of helping, we are making it possible for more people to die
though. By feeding them, we make reproduction easier, the population
grows, and even more help is needed. Cut back or do not increase the
help, people will die. If the people cannot sustain themselves on
their own territory, they should move or die. Better they die of
natural causes someplace and leave no offspring, rather than die of
starvation and leave another generation to do the same.

Yep. Attacking the wrong problem. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Give a country democracy and they'll soon be exporting food.

Harry K wrote:

It ain't the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that counts. It is the
_effect_ it has.

I hope you aren't in the "CO2 isn't a gsreenhouse gas" crowd. Or like
my old man "if a little bit is good, a bunch more lot is better".

The climate is warming. Whether due to nature, to man or a
combination of both can be argued but the basic fact is that it _is_
warming.


Possibly. Some analysts demonstrate that the planet has NOT warmed by any
detectable amount since 1998.

Even if the planet IS warming, it is far, far better - according to some
computations - to deal with the consequences than try to mitigate a possible
cause.

harry wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:

As to the co2, we are also raising the co2 level. That's a fact. The
bydrocarbons were buried in the ground. We're releasing them and
breaking them up and combing the freed carbon with oxygen to produce
co2. Who knows maybe we will be the start of the next cycle that
produces new hydrocarbons for some other lifeform to dig up a couple
hundred million yeasr from now. On the short term the consequences
might not be so good for us.

I trust you'll permit an analogy to illustrate the CO2 in the
atmosphere and its increase.

If the atmosphere could be represented by the area of a football
field, including the end-zones, the amount of CO2 is roughly equal
to the area occupied by a prostate official who died as a result of
seven stab wounds inflicted by irate fans after he made four
consecutive bad calls against the home team.

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

(In case you're interested, the remaining seventeen minutes of play
took place without a single penalty.)

In other words, CO2 ain't much (one three-hundredths of one percent).

That is a fake statistic,
The increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times is 35%.
From 280 to 382 parts per million.
You are either devious or stupid.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

I know maths is hard, but in simple terms:

382 / 1,000,000 = 0.000382 = 0.03%

Which is what I said.

And anybody who takes what the EPA reports as Gospel is trying to play
Chinese checkers with only three marbles.

On 7/21/2011 6:32 AM, HeyBub wrote:
....

It was my understanding that, before the ethanol cultists took over the U.S.
government, we exported corn to Mexico. Now, corn growers turn their corn
into fuel, much to the despair of Mexicans.
....

That's what the consortium of the food manufacturers and processors
would like you to think; they're spending millions in a campaign to
demonize ethanol as the convenient whipping boy to justify higher
consumer costs.

From a USDA brief...

....The United States experienced record demand and corn production
during 2007/08 that pushed U.S corn exports to 61 million metric tons.
However, a slowing world economy and reduced demand for corn are
projected to dampen corn exports in the near future. Nonetheless, global
population increases and consumer demand for meat products will continue
to support expanding feed grain exports in the long term.

World Corn Trade

While the United States dominates world corn trade, exports account for
only a relatively small portion of demand for U.S. corn—about 15
percent. ...

From a (somewhat) surprising source; an Indian analysis...

That last argument is in line with statements of leading UN
representatives, ... that fuel policies pursued by the US and the EU
were one of the main causes of the current worldwide food crisis.

There are various arguments thrown into the current discussion about
rising food prices. Food prices are the result of a complex scenario
on a global scale. To claim monocausal reasons to be responsible for
the food price rise like the rising production of biofuels and
ethanol seems misleading. Probably, a whole package of various
factors can be identified as causing higher food prices, one of them
being the higher oil price. The oil price directly affects farm
operation costs, input costs, and transport costs of produce, then
distribution and retailing costs. All that adds up. Other factors
being a change in diets. FAO itself admits in studies that a
Westernization of diets takes place in Asian economies.

That the production of ethanol cannot be the main reason for the
price rise one can easily make out from the fact that one of the
highest price rises of about 200% was seen with rice, a cereal not
known to be usedfor ethanol production so far.

As for the Mexican imports, they've gone up as well, significantly.
However, as another noted, all corn for ethanol production is yellow
field corn, not white or sweet corn for (direct) human consumption.

It's a complex, global economic system now and the interplay between
competing governments various policies are certainly factors but there's
far more going on that simply US ethanol. The rise of the EU and their
protective and restrictive policies combined w/ the demise of the former
Soviet Union has markedly changed the European marketplace. Brazil and
Argentina being in the southern hemisphere can play the US weather
patterns and target export markets specifically for those years when
prices are high owing to poor weather in the US (and, to a far lesser
degree, the US can try to anticipate in the other direction).

China has become a wild card; they oscillate between a large importer to
a significant exporter depending on current conditions there and the
whims of their central government regarding trade and subsidies.

It's all tied together...

--

" wrote:

So by that logic, a sailing ship would be propelled faster
(capture more wind energy) by having a small sail vs a large sail.

But a sail *does* have lift. Note that drag is a function of V^3.

Is that your way of saying "yes, a smaller sail would propel a given
ship faster than a large sail" ?

If that's not what you're trying to say, then please explain.

harry used improper usenet message composition style by full-quoting:

I can move air with flat blade angled at 45 degrees. The blade
doesn't need a foil-shaped cross section - instead it can be flat.
When a flat blade is angled (any angle other than 0) and rotated,
it is pushing air out of the way as it turns.

Similarly, wind that wants to move past the blade must push it
aside, and in doing so it will rotate the hub. The more surface
area you present to the wind (ie the wider the blade) the more
rotational force you transmit to the hub.

Explain what's wrong with my concept.

The thing you describe is a "plate or thin aerofoil"

Well ****.

If a conventional airplane wing is a foil, and if a flat plate can be a
foil, then ****, everything and anything can be a foil according to
you. So where does that get us?

No matter which way you cut it, you're still left with capturing a
lateral force (ie = wind pressure) and convert it into rotational
energy. A flat blade angled at 45 degrees will probably get you the
most torque and rotational speed out of a given breeze of air (but it's
totally possible that optimal blade angle is a function of RPM), and the
more surface area your blade has, the more of that wind energy it can
convert into rotational energy.

In article , dpb wrote:

n

As for the Mexican imports, they've gone up as well, significantly.
However, as another noted, all corn for ethanol production is yellow
field corn, not white or sweet corn for (direct) human consumption.
You have any data on how the make up of the corn crop has changed?
FOr example (and example only as this is n=1 "study", some of the
farmers in our area changed from growing sweet corn to yellow field corn
precisely because of the extra money they could get.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

harry again used improper usenet message composition style by
full-quoting:

So by that logic, a sailing ship would be propelled faster (capture
more wind energy) by having a small sail vs a large sail.

Great logic.

You may have noticed (or more likely not) the blades are not set at
90d to the airflow.
Have you not thought that there might be a reason for this?

The point I was making (which seems to have gone right over your head
like a breeze of air) is that the amount of energy you can capture from
the wind is proportional to the amount of surface area your "conversion
surface" has. Since a wind turbines "conversion surface" must rotate in
a stationary location, that surface must be angled with respect to the
direction of the wind. But a ship naturally does not want to be
stationary and hence it extracts the maximal amount of energy from the
wind by having the sails at exactly 90 degrees to wind direction.

I'm surprised I have to explain such a fundamental and elementary
concept in such excruciating detail. Are you perhaps female - and hence
you have a problem grasping forces and physical principles?

harry writes:

On Jul 21, 1:34Â*am, wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:
wrote :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23ÂÂ*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02ÂÂ*pm, Frank wrote:
All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.
Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

then Â* there's Â* inverter Â* maintenance,and Â* if Â* storage Â* batteries
used,battery maintenance. Â* Plus,the hazards of Â*battery chemicals and
lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. Â*Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? Â*how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...rl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. Â*The article says it's enough power to power
200 homes.

You need to know that is MWp (p= peak)

No I don't.

So much less in cloudy weather. Nothing at night.
They may achieve peak output for four hours on a good day.
One hundredth of that when there is heavy cloud or rain.

So?

--
Dan Espen

wrote in :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23ÂÂ*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02ÂÂ*pm, Frank
wrote: All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.

That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.

Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.

then there's inverter maintenance,and if storage
batteries used,battery maintenance. Plus,the hazards of battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.


BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so there's
maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then there's snow/ice
removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...ystem-to-power
-bell-labs-campus-3 http://tinyurl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. The article says it's enough power to
power 200 homes.


Is that peak or average output?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...

If the poor Mexicans are almost starving because of the cost of tortillas,
it's
because they aren't growing enough corn...they aren't producing ethanol

Actually if poor Mexicans are starving it's because the cost of corn
imported from the U.S. under free trade agreements is so low it undercuts
small Mexican farmers. That in turn drives Mexicans to come north in search
of work, presumably on those farms growing the corn they can't afford to
grow back home.

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23ÀšÃ‚Â*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02ÀšÃ‚Â*pm, Frank
wrote: All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.

That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.

Dust lightly with soft towel.

Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.

Yes, all those panels.
The video said every 2 weeks.
How much dirt is in the air where you live?
In places with no rain, just dusting will do the job.
Downwind of a coal plant, maybe more than every 2 weeks.
I still see no evidence that more often than 2 weeks is required.

So I still don't see a lot of water being used.

then there's inverter maintenance,and if storage
batteries used,battery maintenance. Plus,the hazards of battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.

Yeah, what about them. They're also subject to random meteorite hits.
Anything can go wrong. Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.

BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so there's
maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then there's snow/ice
removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).

The system at Bell Labs is not tracking.

They could remove snow if they want, or just wait until it slides off.
We get snowfall in Central NJ but it's not going to stick to a slick
glass panel for long.

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...ystem-to-power
-bell-labs-campus-3 http://tinyurl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. The article says it's enough power to
power 200 homes.

Is that peak or average output?

Read the article or do more research.

I don't get it. Are you against power generation or does it just
feel good to point out that someone has to push the snow off the panel.

Sure there are problems, I'm well aware of all the issues, I've heard it
all before. I still see an open field that wasn't doing anything but
growing grass, still growing grass but now also pushing some power into the
grid. It's going to take a lot of fancy BS to convince me this is a bad thing.

--
Dan Espen

"harry" wrote in message
...

So in one post you complain that everything costs more in your socialist
paradise, then in the next you whine about capitalism. Couldn't you at
least choose one bumper sticker and stay with it rather than hopping
around
like a demented rabbit?

Where have I complained that everything costs more?

Your words, sunshine:

"Which commodities were they? (Just about everything seems more
expensive to me.)"

America is the proof that capitalism (as practised in America) is a
fraud.

And Britain (formerly Great) is proof that socialism is an unfunny joke.

On Jul 21, 10:54*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"harry" wrote



The cull has already started in Ethiopia. It will spread.
Few people/governments seem willing to donate money to alleviate it.
(Least of al the USA.
Ergo, these people will die.

I don't think any normal person wants to see others die. *Under the guise of
helping, we are making it possible for more people to die though. By feeding
them, we make reproduction easier, the population grows, and even more help
is needed. *Cut back or do not increase the help, people will die. *If the
people cannot sustain themselves on their own territory, they should move or
die. * *Better they die of natural causes someplace and leave no offspring,
rather than die of starvation and leave another generation to do the same..

Exactly so. There are regular calamities. each is bigger than the
last one due to increased population.
At some point a calamity will be too big to handle will come along.

It this the one?

On Jul 21, 12:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.
Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

Let me rephrase:

"Okay, middle-aged home owner. Once every two weeks, climb up on your roof
with some soapy water..."

Do your part to keep "falls" the number one cause of emergency room
admissions.

Not neccesary. The glass is self cleaning. Any bird****, the next
rain washes it off.

On Jul 21, 12:40*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"harry" wrote

The cull has already started in Ethiopia. It will spread.
Few people/governments seem willing to donate money to alleviate it.
(Least of al the USA.
Ergo, these people will die.

I don't think any normal person wants to see others die. *Under the
guise of helping, we are making it possible for more people to die
though. By feeding them, we make reproduction easier, the population
grows, and even more help is needed. *Cut back or do not increase the
help, people will die. *If the people cannot sustain themselves on
their own territory, they should move or die. * *Better they die of
natural causes someplace and leave no offspring, rather than die of
starvation and leave another generation to do the same.

Yep. Attacking the wrong problem. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Give a country democracy and they'll soon be exporting food.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Democracy can't be given. I thought even you would see that by now.

On Jul 21, 12:48*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:

As to the co2, we are also raising the co2 level. That's a fact. The
bydrocarbons were buried in the ground. We're releasing them and
breaking them up and combing the freed carbon with oxygen to produce
co2. Who knows maybe we will be the start of the next cycle that
produces new hydrocarbons for some other lifeform to dig up a couple
hundred million yeasr from now. On the short term the consequences
might not be so good for us.

I trust you'll permit an analogy to illustrate the CO2 in the
atmosphere and its increase.

If the atmosphere could be represented by the area of a football
field, including the end-zones, the amount of CO2 is roughly equal
to the area occupied by a prostate official who died as a result of
seven stab wounds inflicted by irate fans after he made four
consecutive bad calls against the home team.

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

(In case you're interested, the remaining seventeen minutes of play
took place without a single penalty.)

In other words, CO2 ain't much (one three-hundredths of one percent).

That is a fake statistic,
The increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times is 35%.
From 280 to 382 parts per million.
You are either devious or stupid.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

I know maths is hard, but in simple terms:

382 / 1,000,000 = 0.000382 = 0.03%

Which is what I said.

And anybody who takes what the EPA reports as Gospel is trying to play
Chinese checkers with only three marbles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Both devious and stupid. Never thought it possible.

On Jul 21, 2:00*pm, Home Guy wrote:
harry used improper usenet message composition style by full-quoting:

I can move air with flat blade angled at 45 degrees. *The blade
doesn't need a foil-shaped cross section - instead it can be flat.
When a flat blade is angled (any angle other than 0) and rotated,
it is pushing air out of the way as it turns.

Similarly, wind that wants to move past the blade must push it
aside, and in doing so it will rotate the hub. *The more surface
area you present to the wind (ie the wider the blade) the more
rotational force you transmit to the hub.

Explain what's wrong with my concept.

The thing you describe is a "plate or thin aerofoil"

Well ****.

If a conventional airplane wing is a foil, and if a flat plate can be a
foil, then ****, everything and anything can be a foil according to
you. *So where does that get us?

No matter which way you cut it, you're still left with capturing a
lateral force (ie = wind pressure) and convert it into rotational
energy. *A flat blade angled at 45 degrees will probably get you the
most torque and rotational speed out of a given breeze of air (but it's
totally possible that optimal blade angle is a function of RPM), and the
more surface area your blade has, the more of that wind energy it can
convert into rotational energy.

No. Not true. An oversimplification. If the blades are close
together (by being broader) each blade works in the turbulence of it's
predecessor.
Also, the most turbines have to work at a constant speed, but the wind
speed varies.

The baldes are designed to minimise this effect at the minimum wind
speed they are designed to function at. The effectis less marked at
higher windspeeds.
This is also why many have variable incidence.

On Jul 21, 2:09*pm, Home Guy wrote:
harry again used improper usenet message composition style by
full-quoting:

So by that logic, a sailing ship would be propelled faster (capture
more wind energy) by having a small sail vs a large sail.

Great logic.

You may have noticed (or more likely not) the blades are not set at
90d to the airflow.
Have you not thought that there might be a reason for this?

The point I was making (which seems to have gone right over your head
like a breeze of air) is that the amount of energy you can capture from
the wind is proportional to the amount of surface area your "conversion
surface" has. *Since a wind turbines "conversion surface" must rotate in
a stationary location, that surface must be angled with respect to the
direction of the wind. *But a ship naturally does not want to be
stationary and hence it extracts the maximal amount of energy from the
wind by having the sails at exactly 90 degrees to wind direction.

I'm surprised I have to explain such a fundamental and elementary
concept in such excruciating detail. *Are you perhaps female - and hence
you have a problem grasping forces and physical principles?

********.
A sailing ship travels fastest when reaching. You need to get an
education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points_of_sail

It can theoretically travel faster than the wind.

wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23Ã, am, jamesgangnc
wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02Ã, pm, Frank
wrote: All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.

That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.

Dust lightly with soft towel.

Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.

Yes, all those panels.
The video said every 2 weeks.
How much dirt is in the air where you live?
In places with no rain, just dusting will do the job.
Downwind of a coal plant, maybe more than every 2 weeks.
I still see no evidence that more often than 2 weeks is required.

So I still don't see a lot of water being used.

i have 44 panels on my roof. it takes about 2 gallons of water to wash them.
no additives to the water, just plain water. at the end, i get dirty water,
that goes on a plant.

if you have tree sap on your panels, then you have them installed in the
wrong place. there shouldn't be any nearby trees.

simple dusting won't work. the dust gets baked on and sticks.

then there's inverter maintenance,and if storage
batteries used,battery maintenance. Plus,the hazards of battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

mine are warranteed for 25 years for failure and will produce 95% of new
power ratings.


what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.

Yeah, what about them. They're also subject to random meteorite hits.
Anything can go wrong. Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.

the converter has a 10 year warrantee. that doesn't mean the need
replacement at that time. they could last 25 years or more.

your a/c has a 5 year warrantee. do you replace it every 5 years?


BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so
there's maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then
there's snow/ice removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).

The system at Bell Labs is not tracking.

They could remove snow if they want, or just wait until it slides off.
We get snowfall in Central NJ but it's not going to stick to a slick
glass panel for long.

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...ystem-to-power
-bell-labs-campus-3 http://tinyurl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. The article says it's enough power to
power 200 homes.

Is that peak or average output?

Read the article or do more research.

I don't get it. Are you against power generation or does it just
feel good to point out that someone has to push the snow off the
panel.

Sure there are problems, I'm well aware of all the issues, I've heard
it
all before. I still see an open field that wasn't doing anything but
growing grass, still growing grass but now also pushing some power
into the grid. It's going to take a lot of fancy BS to convince me
this is a bad thing.

On Jul 21, 5:38*pm, wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:
wrote :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23ÂÂ*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02ÂÂ*pm, Frank
wrote: All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.

That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.

Dust lightly with soft towel.

Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.

Yes, all those panels.
The video said every 2 weeks.
How much dirt is in the air where you live?
In places with no rain, just dusting will do the job.
Downwind of a coal plant, maybe more than every 2 weeks.
I still see no evidence that more often than 2 weeks is required.

So I still don't see a lot of water being used.

then * there's * inverter * maintenance,and * if * storage *
batteries used,battery maintenance. * Plus,the hazards of *battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.

Yeah, what about them. *They're also subject to random meteorite hits.
Anything can go wrong. *Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.

BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so there's
maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then there's snow/ice
removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).

The system at Bell Labs is not tracking.

They could remove snow if they want, or just wait until it slides off.
We get snowfall in Central NJ but it's not going to stick to a slick
glass panel for long.





Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. *Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? *how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...ystem-to-power
-bell-labs-campus-3http://tinyurl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. *The article says it's enough power to
power 200 homes.

Is that peak or average output?

Read the article or do more research.

I don't get it. *Are you against power generation or does it just
feel good to point out that someone has to push the snow off the panel.

Sure there are problems, I'm well aware of all the issues, I've heard it
all before. *I still see an open field that wasn't doing anything but
growing grass, still growing grass but now also pushing some power into the
grid. *It's going to take a lot of fancy BS to convince me this is a bad thing.

--
Dan Espen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have PV panels. They are supposed to last a minimum of 25 years.
There is no maintenance.

On Jul 21, 5:45*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

So in one post you complain that everything costs more in your socialist
paradise, then in the next you whine about capitalism. *Couldn't you at
least choose one bumper sticker and stay with it rather than hopping
around
like a demented rabbit?
Where have I complained that everything costs more?

Your words, sunshine:

"Which commodities were they? *(Just about everything seems more
expensive to me.)"

America is the proof that capitalism (as practised in America) is a
fraud.

And Britain (formerly Great) is proof that socialism is an unfunny joke.

Well the SA (formerly United) is also broke.
I don't beleive you know what socialism is. Though you have it in
America too.

On Jul 21, 6:18*pm, "chaniarts" wrote:
wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:

wrote :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23Ã, am, jamesgangnc
wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02Ã, pm, Frank
wrote: All power plants have maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.

That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.

Dust lightly with soft towel.

Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.

Yes, all those panels.
The video said every 2 weeks.
How much dirt is in the air where you live?
In places with no rain, just dusting will do the job.
Downwind of a coal plant, maybe more than every 2 weeks.
I still see no evidence that more often than 2 weeks is required.

So I still don't see a lot of water being used.

i have 44 panels on my roof. it takes about 2 gallons of water to wash them.
no additives to the water, just plain water. at the end, i get dirty water,
that goes on a plant.

if you have tree sap on your panels, then you have them installed in the
wrong place. there shouldn't be any nearby trees.

simple dusting won't work. the dust gets baked on and sticks.



then * there's * inverter * maintenance,and * if * storage
batteries used,battery maintenance. * Plus,the hazards of *battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

mine are warranteed for 25 years for failure and will produce 95% of new
power ratings.



what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.

Yeah, what about them. *They're also subject to random meteorite hits..
Anything can go wrong. *Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.

the converter has a 10 year warrantee. that doesn't mean the need
replacement at that time. they could last 25 years or more.

your a/c has a 5 year warrantee. do you replace it every 5 years?





BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so
there's maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then
there's snow/ice removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).

The system at Bell Labs is not tracking.

They could remove snow if they want, or just wait until it slides off.
We get snowfall in Central NJ but it's not going to stick to a slick
glass panel for long.

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. *Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? *how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...ystem-to-power
-bell-labs-campus-3http://tinyurl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. *The article says it's enough power to
power 200 homes.

Is that peak or average output?

Read the article or do more research.

I don't get it. *Are you against power generation or does it just
feel good to point out that someone has to push the snow off the
panel.

Sure there are problems, I'm well aware of all the issues, I've heard
it
all before. *I still see an open field that wasn't doing anything but
growing grass, still growing grass but now also pushing some power
into the grid. *It's going to take a lot of fancy BS to convince me
this is a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is the frame of your PV array earthed/grounded?

"chaniarts" writes:

wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote in :

then there's inverter maintenance,and if storage
batteries used,battery maintenance. Plus,the hazards of battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

mine are warranteed for 25 years for failure and will produce 95% of new
power ratings.


what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.

Yeah, what about them. They're also subject to random meteorite hits.
Anything can go wrong. Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.

the converter has a 10 year warrantee. that doesn't mean the need
replacement at that time. they could last 25 years or more.

your a/c has a 5 year warrantee. do you replace it every 5 years?

No I don't.

Just trying to be generous. The original statement was that inverters
required "maintenance". I thought maintenance on a piece of electronics
sounded weird so I looked it up. The only thing I could find is someone
saying to replace them every 10 years.

If it was my PV array, I'd take that as a cue to have a replacement on
hand around year 10 if I really had to keep the array going.

Like you, I wouldn't be surprised at 25 years.

Anyway, all these arguments about the draw backs of PV arrays strike me
as weird. As if someone had a belief system that wouldn't survive if
they admitted that PV arrays generate power.


--
Dan Espen

On 7/21/2011 8:08 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , wrote:

n

As for the Mexican imports, they've gone up as well, significantly.
However, as another noted, all corn for ethanol production is yellow
field corn, not white or sweet corn for (direct) human consumption.
You have any data on how the make up of the corn crop has changed?
FOr example (and example only as this is n=1 "study", some of the
farmers in our area changed from growing sweet corn to yellow field corn
precisely because of the extra money they could get.
....

Nationally, no I don't have any (altho I'm sure it's available in the
detailed USDA production statistics data). If I think I'll ask when go
into FSA office this afternoon if they have convenient way to get
statistics internally that would take me quite some time digging for
since don't know where that would be readily accessible (and I don't
have high speed connection so random surfing isn't much fun... ).

There's never been any sweet/white corn in this area (except for the
strip or two planted for own use in regular field that isn't for
production anyway) so there's not been any shift here in that direction.
We've never irrigated and have only tried dryland corn a few years;
it's never been reliable on our ground so we stay w/ milo for the summer
grain crop (a shorter corn-like plant w/ a bushing single grain head w/
round orange to red/orange seed; very attractive but much more drought
tolerant than even the dryland corn hybrids). Unless this weather
breaks very soon, though (and there's no indication that's going to
happen), what there is isn't going to make a crop; it's severely
stressed already and won't last long w/o some rain...

What there has been in this area this year has been a sizable shift to
cotton on dryland and even some irrigated owing to the extended drought
and requiring far less water and also more sunflowers; we're marginal
bean country and virtually no beans were planted. It's been so hot and
dry that many have abandoned irrigated corn or cut back to half or even
quarter of circle to try to salvage at least a partial crop letting rest
burn up.

--

On 7/21/2011 11:38 AM, DGDevin wrote:
....

Actually if poor Mexicans are starving it's because the cost of corn
imported from the U.S. under free trade agreements is so low it
undercuts small Mexican farmers....

I've seen that touted before but world corn markets are currently (and
have been for several years) at all-time highs. Why aren't they
planting fence-row to fence-row to take advantage of these prices now?

I don't believe the argument makes any sense; I don't know a lot about
Mexican ag sector away from the border country but I think the biggest
problem for it is the same as for the rest of the Mexican economy of
corruption and instability makes it unpalatable and nearly impossible to
run any modern business venture as an individual as is the greatest
proportion of US production ag. While they may be technically organized
for legal and tax reasons, as LLC or other entities rather than as sole
proprietorships, they're still "family farm" operations, just larger
(which is virtually mandatory given the cost of labor, equipment and
other inputs, it takes a significant scale factor over which to amortize
the investment).

--

On Jul 21, 9:00*am, Home Guy wrote:
A flat blade angled at 45 degrees will probably get you the
most torque and rotational speed out of a given breeze of air (but it's
totally possible that optimal blade angle is a function of RPM), and the
more surface area your blade has, the more of that wind energy it can
convert into rotational energy.

If you look at the old stereotypical "prairie" style windmills, that's
how they are. A disk with pie-shaped blades angled at 45 degrees,
facing directly into the wind with the help of a fin.

All that surface area catches a lot of wind, but it also creates a lot
of aerodynamic drag which makes it require higher wind speeds to turn.
The air pushing through the "fan" creates rotational energy, but the
air AROUND the fan is creating drag as the tips of the blades contact
it.

The reality is that what makes a good propeller or helicopter rotor
also makes a good windmill blade. Maximum lift with minimum drag. THAT
is why we have thin blades. The cross-section of a modern wind turbine
blade is a high lift, low drag airfoil that will catch air and turn
the rotor at far lower wind speeds than a solid disk of 45 degree flat
plates.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Where have I complained that everything costs more?

Your words, sunshine:

"Which commodities were they? (Just about everything seems more
expensive to me.)"

Got nothing more to say about that now huh?

Well the SA (formerly United) is also broke.

Wrong again, unless you think having a pile of debt is the same thing as
being broke (which of course it isn't). When we bought our house we had a
big mortgage (long since paid)--that debt didn't mean we were broke. When
you cannot afford to pay your bills then you're broke, and the U.S. can
afford to pay its bills despite the willingness of its elected
representatives to spend more than the govt. takes in. However that
situation can be fixed, only a little over a decade ago the U.S. actually
had a balanced budget, and then the Republicans got back into power and
spent like drunken sailors.

I don't beleive you know what socialism is.

What a delusional ideologue who can't even remember what he posted in this
thread believes is not my concern.

Though you have it in
America too.

Not on anything like the scale you do, not even close.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Democracy can't be given. I thought even you would see that by now.

Seems to have worked in Japan, hasn't it.