Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be made semi self-sufficient. What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI, Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never. That's based on a total installed cost of $7/peak-kW, which is the California average, based on actual systems installed. The data is taken from the CA gov't. tax records, which they collect on the basis of tax breaks claimed. Manufacturers' PV-module prices run $4/peak-kW. The $7 is an average that includes systems with battery storage and those without. Even ignoring the finite life of PV cells, the net-present-value of a solar electric system is negative. In other words, you lose more in interest payments than the value of the electricity they generate. And then, in reality, they have a finite life and have to be replaced. But I'm interested in whatever you have there. Ed Huntress |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Ed Huntress says...
You're implicating the wrong group, Gunner. It's your appointed, state board of education (or its equivalent) that limits discipline, in conjunction with your state legislature. Teachers would love nothing more than to have a freer hand. This is what the 'big gummint' types do, they throw blame around everywhere but where it should be. Blame the union, blame the teachers, blame the kids, blame the parents. But the real issue is that standards and protocols are set by local goverment. If it's screwed up, they're the ones that should fix it. They already have the control there. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
I know the teachers would like to have a freer hand in disiplining
kids, but remember the NEA and teachers are not the same. Dan "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:Qm60c.6962$ If the NEA has its way..never. Gunner You're implicating the wrong group, Gunner. It's your appointed, state board of education (or its equivalent) that limits discipline, in conjunction with your state legislature. Teachers would love nothing more than to have a freer hand. Ed Huntress |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m... I know the teachers would like to have a freer hand in disiplining kids, but remember the NEA and teachers are not the same. Yeah, well, my wife is one of both, and I spent three hours this morning with her at a board of ed. meeting, so I think I know where the lines are drawn. Almost every fundamental requirement that we're talking about here is dictated by the state -- practically every state. The NEA is interested in teaching conditions, compensation, job security, and things like that, Dan. They don't want *less* discipline in classrooms. They want *more*. But their hands are tied. The teachers who make up the NEA could go to jail for winging it. Ed Huntress |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On 27 Feb 2004 21:33:45 -0800, jim rozen
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: SHRHGTTG! Instant SEP. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: This is all simply dealt with. Everybody is given a treadmill/bicycle that generates power, and we all get fit. OR/AND We generate power by burning excess human fat.... .....there are plenty of excess humans, and the ones that can afford the "alternative" power sources under our increasingly sophisticated life-controlling systems of energy production have excess fat..... ....and in the end we will have a lot fewer, but much fitter and more comfortable and less guilt-ridden people. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:48:35 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI, Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never. There was one claim here, I can't remember by whom, that solar power actually had a negative _energy_ valkue, in that it took more energy to make a solar cell and the associated batteries etc than it generated in its life. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:57:24 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Ed Huntress says... You're implicating the wrong group, Gunner. It's your appointed, state board of education (or its equivalent) that limits discipline, in conjunction with your state legislature. Teachers would love nothing more than to have a freer hand. This is what the 'big gummint' types do, they throw blame around everywhere but where it should be. Blame the union, blame the teachers, blame the kids, blame the parents. But the real issue is that standards and protocols are set by local goverment. If it's screwed up, they're the ones that should fix it. They already have the control there. I don't know what you mean. They have almost no control over standards or means of discipline. That goes on at the state level, and now, with our state's-rights conservative President, it appears to be migrating to the federal level. Make that "anti-conservative president." After all, states rights has always been a conservative cause. President Bush, however, wants to see a transfer of authority from the states to the Federal government. And, after all, he is the president who has shown what can be done with the kind of education you can get without discipline... Al Moore |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
"Old Nick" wrote in message
... On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:48:35 GMT, "Ed Huntress" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI, Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never. There was one claim here, I can't remember by whom, that solar power actually had a negative _energy_ valkue, in that it took more energy to make a solar cell and the associated batteries etc than it generated in its life. I don't know what the present status is, but that was the case at least 15 years ago. Someone I talked to around that time who seemed to know what he was talking about (he was an engineer for a company that did process work on manufacturing of semiconductors) said that the life of PV cells had passed the threshhold, and that some cells made at that time (early '90s) were producing positive net lifetime energy. Gary C. probably knows more about this. Guessing here, a large portion of the lifetime energy of those cells probably is still lost to the manufacturing-energy overhead. Ed Huntress |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:27:58 GMT, Lewis Hartswick
brought forth from the murky depths: jim rozen wrote: Also the ability to jettison unruly students. I wonder how long it will take before the public schools are finally alowed to enforce some disipline? :-( I'm sorry, sir, but that goes against most of the 3 dozen the Self-Esteem Laws. Y'know, like "They shall have self-esteem even if it means you, the teacher, give them an "A" on a report that deserves to be handled carefully, and only with toilet paper." sigh ..-. Life is short. Eat dessert first! --- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Fitch R. Williams
says... (Dan Caster) wrote: I do not agree that you need to reduce the average class size. I do agree that some class sizes need to be reduced, but some can be enlarged. As far as I know there has been no studies that prove that smaller class sizes improve learning. What planet have you been on? One of the few "sure things" in education is that reducing class size improves the transfer of information to the students. It is one of the big advantages of private schools. In general I tend to agree with you Fitch, and will certainly agree with that proposition in general - but the reason I bought up the class size thing (because I was sure the anti-public schooling folks would say this) was my personal experience with my daughter's primary schooling in a local private (catholic) school. In spite of large class sizes (typically 35-ish) and the lack of any aids in the classrooms at all, it seemed to me that the teachers were doing an outstanding job of getting the material across to the kids. Now of course (mind reader that I am) I will suspect that your next comment will be "but just think of what they *could* have done with half the number of students!" Because my story is anecdotal only, I would have to smile and agree. But honestly, totalling up what the operating budget for that school was (based on the per kid cost) and then dividing by the number of teachers to get the rough pay for each one, I was pretty flabbergasted that they could run a school on that little money. But they did. Which gets me back to the point that the reason they *could* do that is because the kids are cherry-picked. If you had to admit the way a public school does, the entire thing would have the wheels come off in short order I bet. This implys that if you try to generalize that education system to the entire population, ie. close the public schools and voucher all the kids, then the total per-kid cost will have to wind up being much, much higher than one would think. My strong suspicion is it will assymptote to nearly the present cost of a public school education in whatever area is being looked at. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Ed Huntress says...
But the real issue is that standards and protocols are set by local goverment. If it's screwed up, they're the ones that should fix it. They already have the control there. I don't know what you mean. They have almost no control over standards or means of discipline. That goes on at the state level, and now, with our state's-rights conservative President, it appears to be migrating to the federal level. OK, by local (in the context of this discussion) I should have really said 'state' level. Because the alternative being discussed is having the federal government take over the whole shebang. But *funding* of education often happens on a purely local level - although not in NJ, as I well know. I'm not sure if you were there in the early '70s, but I almost didn't have to go back to high school one year because the NJ supreme court decided that purely local funding of schools violated the state constitution. So that was when the NJ state income tax came into being, to try to equalize the state of schools between, say, Newark, and Alpine. I'm sure there are plenty of states where funding is still done as it was in NJ, before (what was that?) title 9. As you suggest, it just blows me away to see folks who will kick and scream whenever federal government takes over another function, clamoring at full speed to get this - federal control over schooling. They are doing this because they know the federal government is perfectly willing (at this point) to let public education wither on the vine. But if a democratic administration should ever get back in office, I am positive that the first sound you will hear will be the wailing, whining, and gnashing of teeth of the anti-education types. "We want to get the big, bad, gummint's meddling ways out of our local lives!" Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30inch OD Circumference)
Good numbers but they are changing !
We make the A-300 that is 20%+++ eff so the large cells will kick up the percentage as they get into production on homes. They are used on some of the fancy bug like cars and on NASA's flying electric wing - New way of making the cells and it works. I noticed the local Green food store has a 30KW unit on their roof. At work we have a 256KW roof on two buildings. Naturally we have a bad position - so near the end of the airport - we have to wash them to get the junk off from the jets leaping off the runway. Martin Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be made semi self-sufficient. What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI, Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never. That's based on a total installed cost of $7/peak-kW, which is the California average, based on actual systems installed. The data is taken from the CA gov't. tax records, which they collect on the basis of tax breaks claimed. Manufacturers' PV-module prices run $4/peak-kW. The $7 is an average that includes systems with battery storage and those without. Even ignoring the finite life of PV cells, the net-present-value of a solar electric system is negative. In other words, you lose more in interest payments than the value of the electricity they generate. And then, in reality, they have a finite life and have to be replaced. But I'm interested in whatever you have there. Ed Huntress -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30inch OD Circumference)
I should have said who - here is the press announcement.
Martin PRESS RELEASES SunPower Corp. Solar Cell Achieves World Record Efficiency Release Date: Feb. 27, 2004 National Renewable Energy Laboratory Verifies 21.5 Percent Efficiency for A-300 Silicon Solar Cell Cypress Corpcom Sunnyvale, Calif., February 27, 2004 – SunPower Corp., a subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Corp., today announced that its A-300 silicon solar cell had been measured at 21.5 percent efficiency by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. This efficiency result is a world record for large-area (five-inch) silicon solar cells. SunPower’s A-300 solar cell was manufactured in the company’s Round Rock, Texas pilot line. SunPower’s revolutionary A-300 solar cells offer a significant efficiency improvement over currently available cells in the 12 to 15 percent range. Higher-efficiency solar cells provide solar power systems with more power-per-unit area and can provide users with significant cost savings. A-300 solar cells utilize a unique back-side contact design that maximizes working cell area, hides unsightly connection wires and enables high-speed automated module production. “SunPower's advancements in developing highly-efficient solar cells and modules are commendable,” said Richard King, team leader for Photovoltaic R&D at the Department of Energy. “The achievement of a 21.5 percent efficient solar cell demonstrates that SunPower's unique back-side contact technology can be utilized to manufacture cost-effective products that improve the versatility of solar-electric power systems.” “This efficiency world record constitutes an important milestone for SunPower and confirms the significant performance advantage of our product,” said Tom Werner, SunPower CEO. “This achievement demonstrates that SunPower’s leading-edge technology can be successfully implemented in a high-volume production process. The A-300 product allows us to offer our customers a combination of exceptional performance and competitive cost.” The 125-mm, single-crystal A-300 cell generates three watts of electricity, providing the most efficient cost-per-watt solution in the photovoltaic (PV) industry. These cells can deliver more kilowatts per square meter, making these cells ideal for rooftop systems, communications, building-integrated PV systems and consumer applications. About A-300 Unlike conventional solar cells, SunPower’s A-300 incorporates all electrical contacts on the back surface. This architecture allows for significantly higher conversion efficiency of light to electricity, and also eliminates unsightly reflective front-side contacts. With rated efficiency greater than 20 percent, the A-300 can deliver up to 50 percent more energy from a given roof area than traditional solar products. Availability The A-300 will be available in production quantities in the second half of 2004 from SunPower’s new manufacturing facility in the Philippines. Photo A high-resolution of the A-300 cell can be downloaded at: www.sunpowercorp.com/pub/a300.jpg. About SunPower SunPower—a majority-owned subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (NYSE: CY)—designs and manufactures high-performance silicon solar cells based on an interdigitated rear-contact design. SunPower’s latest A-300 solar cell achieves more than 20 percent efficiency, compared with currently available cells in the 12 to 15 percent range. The A-300 cell was developed and manufactured in SunPower’s Round Rock, Texas facility, which began operation in January 2003. The company’s initial products, introduced in 1992, were high-concentration solar cells with an efficiency of 26 percent. SunPower also manufactures a 22 percent efficient solar cell called Pegasus, which is the highest-efficiency non-concentrating silicon solar cell commercially available. An early application for the highly efficient and lightweight Pegasus solar cell was a high-altitude solar-powered aircraft. Pilotless solar-powered airplanes and blimps, which are nearing commercialization, can stay at a set altitude indefinitely and serve as telecommunications platforms over populated areas. SunPower solar cells were used on the NASA-sponsored AeroVironment airplane, “Helios,” that flew to a record altitude of 96,863 feet on August 13, 2001. For more information on SunPower or solar technology, please visit the SunPower website at http://www.sunpowercorp.com. -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
That's all nice, but the real question to be answered is:
"What's the cost per peek watt for your cells/modules?" As Ed pointed out, barring isolation from the grid and other power sources, solar electric just isn't economically practical. Shame too, I despise monthly bills. "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message . com... I should have said who - here is the press announcement. Martin PRESS RELEASES SunPower Corp. Solar Cell Achieves World Record Efficiency |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30inch OD Circumference)
John -
We make the cells and some modules but not panels. Others do the configuring and sell panels. The real issue is what lat due you live in - more south in the U.S. the better. There are some unique concepts on directing them, but when one is looking through a long section of air or pollution there is not much left. So much in this for the real answers. I don't work in that company is is owned by the one I work for. The real cost is based on the installer cost. Martin John Keeney wrote: That's all nice, but the real question to be answered is: "What's the cost per peek watt for your cells/modules?" As Ed pointed out, barring isolation from the grid and other power sources, solar electric just isn't economically practical. Shame too, I despise monthly bills. "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message . com... I should have said who - here is the press announcement. Martin PRESS RELEASES SunPower Corp. Solar Cell Achieves World Record Efficiency -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 28 Feb 2004 21:09:58 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: As you suggest, it just blows me away to see folks who will kick and scream whenever federal government takes over another function, clamoring at full speed to get this - federal control over schooling. Ive never claimed the Feebs should control schools, only require nationwide standards and give accreditation for those who comply, and remove accredation from those who fail to follow those standards. We have countless examples of such already on the books. Think unfunded mandate. G However..I could care less if its Underwriters Labs, etc who make up the standards. Gunner "To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas |
#459
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 28 Feb 2004 20:55:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: Because my story is anecdotal only, I would have to smile and agree. But honestly, totalling up what the operating budget for that school was (based on the per kid cost) and then dividing by the number of teachers to get the rough pay for each one, I was pretty flabbergasted that they could run a school on that little money. But they did. Which gets me back to the point that the reason they *could* do that is because the kids are cherry-picked. If you had to admit the way a public school does, the entire thing would have the wheels come off in short order I bet. This implys that if you try to generalize that education system to the entire population, ie. close the public schools and voucher all the kids, then the total per-kid cost will have to wind up being much, much higher than one would think. My strong suspicion is it will assymptote to nearly the present cost of a public school education in whatever area is being looked at. Jim Every Catholic school Ive been around, took virtually comers. Disiplinary problem kids got so many chances, then out they went. Those kids would be unteachable in public school as well, so why let them drag the rest of the students down with them. And yes..Catholic schools provide on average, an excellent education for about 50-75% of public school costs. Gunner "To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 04:31:51 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:48 -0500, Gary Coffman brought forth from the murky depths: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:55:53 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote: Don't you agree that we should be pursuing alternative fuels much, much more than we are now? If nothing else, reliance on fossil fuels makes us too dependent upon the external sources. Add smog and toxic wastes to that and it's pretty clear. What alternatives would you propose? The website does a fair job of explaining why alcohol, biodiesel, etc aren't viable. We've known how to make synthetic gasoline from coal for 60 years, but the costs, both in dollars and in environmental effects, make that unattractive. Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small quantities. It only appears that way because you're feeding parasitically off the dominant oil economy. But solar electricity/hot water should be part of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be made semi self-sufficient. Solar hot water is often economical for correctly sited buildings (many are not) with room for sufficient storage capacity (demand for hot water peaks in the early morning when the sun hasn't been heating any water for better than 12 hours). But solar electricity is not economical on household and larger scales, ie where average demand is 15 kW or greater. Solar electric costs about $5 a peak watt installed, but you can only get about 4 hours of peak sun, even on a bright sunny day. So you really need to spend in excess of $30 per average watt to have sufficient capacity. That's $450,000 for the average residence. In addition to that large up front cost, you have periodic battery replacement costs over the life of the system (the sun isn't shining during residential peak electricity usage times), and system life is currently about 20 years (the solar cells degrade). No way you can amortize that out to a lower figure than just buying power from your utility. Even running a diesel genset works out cheaper (which is why that's the method of choice at remote sites where grid power isn't available). Solar water heating and solar electric also have to be able to contend with extended sun outages in most climates. In other words, clear sunny days are not the norm for weeks at a time in many areas of the US. This means the systems have to be even more oversized, and storage has to be huge to see you through bad weather periods. That costs big $$$. On the automotive front, gas/electric hybrids have some potential, especially in large vehicular systems like delivery trucks, buses, etc. But the benefits are relatively modest while the costs and complexity are relatively high. The currently available small commuter vehicles have two strikes against them. The first is that the efficiency improvement is small compared to small diesels while costs are higher. The second is that buyers don't want them. People want SUVs, pickups, large sedans, etc which can serve other purposes besides just commuting, and which offer a perceived safety advantage in collisions. GM will be fielding a hybrid pickup (1500 series) in a couple of years. We'll see how the numbers work out on that. I'm not optimistic. What can all of us do to make this happen? Dare we even contact our congresscritters nowadays? Getting government involved in subsidizing these systems is a sure way to run up costs and delay implementation. If the systems aren't viable in the marketplace on their own, pushing them into the market with government subsidies or mandates is just a greater net loss, and tends to delay system improvements which might make them viable in the marketplace without subsidies. In other words, when you subsidize or mandate something, you tend to perpetuate it in a state not competitive in a free market. Bush is proposing $1 billion for the hydrogen economy, but we've Quick Q: Where will he get it? Mostly from the income tax, and increases in the national debt, same as any other government boondoggle. understood the chemistry and physics involved with that for nearly a century. It is the daunting cost of switching over the infrastructure that's the hold up there, and a billion won't begin to touch it. Besides what we really need to make the hydrogen economy go is plenty of nuclear power. That's not happening. IDAGS for "hydrogen production" and found some new ideas out there, including algae. http://tinyurl.com/2yr9r I'm aware of that work, but it is horribly inefficient, and requires significant nutrient inputs which are to date oil subsidized. As with most so-called "renewable" systems, it isn't, and depends on an oil subsidy to even begin to approach cost effectiveness. Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem. Only in the minds of those who already oppose nuclear power anyway. If you took all the high level waste from every commercial nuclear reactor since the beginning of the nuclear age and piled it up 3 feet deep, it would barely cover one football field. Of course that would be a silly thing to do, since reprocessing it will turn it into more fuel, but it gives What percentage/type of nuclear waste can be/is reprocessed? About 99% of non-breeder nuclear fuels can be recycled. The remaining 1% has other uses (for example, cobalt 60 sources). Of course with a breeder cycle, you get more fuel out than you put in (U238 and Thorium are bred to fissile isotopes). Presently, in the US, there is no breeder activity (the two main breeders in the US are currently shut down), and spent fuel rods from commercial reactors are stored on site rather than being recycled. In other countries, France, Taiwan, Japan, etc recycling for power reactors is occurring at about the 70% level at present. North Korea is believed to be running a breeder, as are India, Pakistan, and probably Israel. The Russians and the British have the capability, but their breeders are also currently shut down. The issues with respect to breeders at present are, first that there are sufficient excess stockpiles of refined U235 in the US and Russia to be a drag on the market. In other words there is sufficient low cost (subsidized by previous national weapons programs) U235 to run existing reactors for their expected lifetimes. So there's presently no economic demand for breeders. And second, there is a fear of proliferation of weapons grade materials produced by breeders. That's a concern mainly because all current breeders are designed primarily to produce weapons grade materials. It is technically possible (and feasible) to design breeders incapable of producing weapons grade materials, but no one is presently operating one. you a feel for the scope of the issue. If we desired, we could simply pile it up in a desert somewhere, put a fence around it and walk away for 500 years. At that point the radioactivity would have decayed to the level of the original ores dug out of the ground. Oops, most uranium is deadly enough right out of the ground. Oops, it isn't. *Nothing* is without risk, but natural uranium is a *much* smaller risk than many other industrial chemicals that are routinely used in bulk quantities, and to which the general population has a much larger exposure. So is the less powerful radon gas in large enough quantities. So is water, in "large enough quantities." In fact, natural uranium itself is practically benign, it is the radon daughters produced by its decay that is the primary hazard associated with natural uranium. Since U238 has a very long half-life, radon production is low, so other than in a confined space the effects are negligible. And what about dirty military and scientific waste, with much longer half-lives? A basic fact about radioactive materials is the longer the half-life, the lower the radioactivity level. In other words, materials have short half-lives because they are intensely radioactive. Materials with long half-lives have to have lower radioactivity (otherwise they'd decay quickly). So worry about the short half-life stuff, the long half-life stuff will take care of itself. The military programs did produce a lot of waste, and they didn't handle it very well. It needs to be reprocessed, but there's presently no economic incentive, or facilities, to do so in the US. *If* we had an active breeder program to produce fissionables for commercial power, the issue would be trivial. But we don't, and it isn't. But we could put all of it in Arizona or Nevada. They wouldn't mind. Who needs those states? They both have desert, too. Now. But in 500 years, it (and every other square foot of dirt on Earth) will be full of people if things go on as they have. I'm betting on a bigass (highly scientific lingo there, wot?) turn of events which will slow things down shortly. I just hope the Shrub doesn't start it. (WWIII) Yes, a national sacrifice zone would deal with the issue. It needn't be very large as noted in a previous post. I believe lack of water will keep large areas of the US southwest virtually uninhabited for a very long time. Most population growth is occurring in cities and their suburbs. Exurban growth is currently actually negative over the US as a whole. I don't expect that trend to change much in the next 500 years unless there is a radical reduction in transportation costs and times. Neither seems likely in the context of this discussion. Now there *are* large quantities of *low level* waste. But we've set the standards for that so strictly that it makes no sense at all. The concrete blocks in your foundation are more radioactive than most of what is classified as low level waste. Yet the rules say we have to entomb low level waste forever. Nonsense. Yeah, some of the regs are pretty stiff. Perhaps a new look should be taken. Indeed. Realize that we're talking about radioactivity levels lower than that of ordinary granite, or concrete, in most cases. It simply doesn't make any sense to treat that more restrictively than we do granite or concrete. No, hydrogen is not made by electrolysis of natural gas. Water I did some personal fuel-cell research a couple years ago and according to several sites I visited, their source was natural gas. Perhaps they've changed, but that was the soup du jour back then. YMMV http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_production.html shows a few methods, including those I remembered. Yep, that site lists the 4 main methods. Today, steam reforming of natural gas is the cheapest, so it is what's used for bulk hydrogen production. Electrolysis is the most efficient, and can be very cost effective if abundant supplies of electricity are available. Photo-disassociation is just another form of electrolysis, with the added inefficient step of photoelectric generation of the required current. Bio-production is *extremely* inefficient, and is currently done with an oil subsidy. Without that subsidy, it isn't even in the picture. is the source of hydrogen using electrolysis. Hydrogen from natural gas is produced by steam reforming over a hot iron catalyst. We do need large quantities of electric power to make hydrogen by electrolysis, that's why we need to be pushing nuclear power plant construction in a big way. I wonder if nuke power might be better in the long run than all the coal/gas/oil we're burning to produce electricity now. And I saw how much damage was done in the hydroelectric producing states a few years ago when the PRK was in trouble. It affected the cycle of fisheries and many other systems. I have a copy of "The Ultimate Resource" by Simon on hold at the library. It may prove to be interesting. Nuclear is clearly the best option. With breeding, it is virtually limitless in supply (at least 100,000 years), and it has the fewest external environmental impacts of any industrial scale power production method we know how to build. I'm thinking we might be better off without many of the chemicals and fertilizers being used nowadays, so downgrade the need for oil in that use, too. Then you condemn the world to starvation. We don't really NEED all these people, now do we? (Only half kidding.) snort Vive Malthus! The sticky question is, who gets to die? The Earth can only support about 1 in 60 of the people now alive if we revert to a pre-industrial (pre-oil or viable substitute) civilization. Properly nourished plants don't get eaten by bugs, so once we go back to organics, there will be enough. Add more hothouses, hydroponics, home gardens, etc. and food will be plentiful. You haven't researched this very carefully, have you? Removing many of the fertilizers and pesticides would stop other problems from occuring, such as poisoned wells/streams, algae blooms from the fertilizers, human/animal deaths, etc. Saaay, you're not a ADM investor, are you? No, I'm not an ADM investor, nor am I a fan of their business practices. But Green Revolution farming methods, and industrial scale farming, is how we currently feed the world. In 1900, 9 out of 10 Americans had to live on farms in order to grow sufficient "organic" food to feed the nation (a nation with a much smaller population than at present). Today the number off the farm is approaching 99 out of 100, but the remainder does feed the nation, and a good chunk of the rest of the world as well. They couldn't do that without synthetic fertilizers and chemicals. For example, using best "organic" practices, corn yields are about 70 bushels to the acre in my area. Using Green Revolution methods, current yields on my farm are 240 bushels to the acre, with *much* less labor input and a much lowered tillage requirement (less oil). While I'm definitely not a Global Warming believer, I do feel that we should be reducing our burden on the planet. The next Ice Age is coming! Or at least that's what some of the current crop of Global Warming doomsters were saying in the 1970s. There's even some reason to believe that they had it right the first time. Ice core evidence and climatological models say ice ages require the Arctic Ocean to first become open water before the glaciers can begin to creep down across the continents. (The Arctic Ocean is the primary moisture source.) That means a warming period is a necessary precursor of an Ice Age. The ice cores also show a CO2 buildup 80 times the current level immediately before the onset of the last Ice Age. Throw another log on the fire, it is getting chilly in here. On a more serious note, I'm a firm believer in stewardship. We need to manage our resources in an intelligent way for Man's benefit, now and in the future. I am not an Earth Firster or one of their fellow travelers, who believe that non-human ecosystems are automatically more valuable than the human ones. I have a healthy self-interest, and a more than passing interest in the futures of other members of my species. I'm much less concerned about the fate of some hoot owl or horny toad. I do believe that we have to tread intelligently, but I don't believe that necessarily means we can't tread heavily. I think that eventually we'll need to turn the entire Earth into an engineered environment. I believe we will be able to do that successfully. And I think we have a moral obligation to do it rather than let billions of humans perish. Gary |
#461
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
jim rozen wrote:
In general I tend to agree with you Fitch, and will certainly agree with that proposition in general - but the reason I bought up the class size thing (because I was sure the anti-public schooling folks would say this) was my personal experience with my daughter's primary schooling in a local private (catholic) school. In spite of large class sizes (typically 35-ish) and the lack of any aids in the classrooms at all, it seemed to me that the teachers were doing an outstanding job of getting the material across to the kids. The Catholic school in Traverse City also did an excellent job. I've no concept of the relative cost though. I think the school was subsidized by the church, but maybe it wasn't. Now of course (mind reader that I am) I will suspect that your next comment will be "but just think of what they *could* have done with half the number of students!" G Because my story is anecdotal only, I would have to smile and agree. But honestly, totalling up what the operating budget for that school was (based on the per kid cost) and then dividing by the number of teachers to get the rough pay for each one, I was pretty flabbergasted that they could run a school on that little money. But they did. Which gets me back to the point that the reason they *could* do that is because the kids are cherry-picked. If you had to admit the way a public school does, the entire thing would have the wheels come off in short order I bet. This implys that if you try to generalize that education system to the entire population, ie. close the public schools and voucher all the kids, then the total per-kid cost will have to wind up being much, much higher than one would think. My strong suspicion is it will assymptote to nearly the present cost of a public school education in whatever area is being looked at. I agree that being able to filter the student population is a big factor. I think they admit them all, or nearly all - i.e. they get a chance, but if they are a problem, they are sent back to public schools. The advantage in being able to get rid of problem kids is huge. They also aren't subject to the "mainstreaming" nonsense in public schools that has kids who have no business in a regular class in there anyway totally screwing up the learning environment for the other 39. The other huge advantage is that they aren't subject to the incredible collection of BS imposed by the state and the Federal governments. So they don't have to spend the manpower to fill out all the dumb reports that are used by the politicians and state bureaucrats to justify their positions and staffing - at incredible cost. I tend to agree that if the voucher system is put in place, it will, over time, succeed in raising the cost of education at private schools to about where it is now in public schools. Why? Because in no time at all you will find all sorts of new regulations being imposed on the private schools - they will be spending government money, and the government will want to tell them "exactly" how they are to spend it, and have in place "processes" to monitor that, and prevent fraud, etc. Look at the welfare administration overhead - transfer that exact mind set to administering voucher money (its the same government), and you have the picture. It isn't pretty. Fitch |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 06:51:47 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote: Solar hot water is often economical for correctly sited buildings (many are not) with room for sufficient storage capacity (demand for hot water peaks in the early morning when the sun hasn't been heating any water for better than 12 hours). Our solar-heated water storage tank is about 80 gallons. Wouldn't be a space issue even if it was twice as big. But solar electricity is not economical on household and larger scales, ie where average demand is 15 kW or greater. Solar electric costs about $5 a peak watt installed, but you can only get about 4 hours of peak sun, even on a bright sunny day. So you really need to spend in excess of $30 per average watt to have sufficient capacity. That's $450,000 for the average residence. $450k? That's very misleading. You could build an entire "other than average" house complete with a hybrid generation system for a lot less than that. We live off-grid, and our total investment, including property, home, appliances, and power system is about half that. Not counting sweat equity of course. :-) Daily consumption varies a lot depending on shop use etc., but probably averages about 12kWh per day. System cost, including tracked PV, wind, welder/generator, and everything else required for a modern off-grid home was about $25K for Arizona. Decent homes near here complete with a solar system start at $100k. Five acre parcels IIRC, about 40 minutes from town, but a bargain for young couples, retirees, weekenders etc. In addition to that large up front cost, you have periodic battery replacement costs over the life of the system (the sun isn't shining during residential peak electricity usage times), and system life is currently about 20 years (the solar cells degrade). Grid connected systems don't need batteries at all. Good batteries can live 20 years when required. PV warranties are 25 years. No way you can amortize that out to a lower figure than just buying power from your utility. Most people can't. In an area with high grid costs and or rebates tho'.... And don't forget that rates *might* go up. :-) Anyone interested in the economics of solar would do well to search for posts by Chris Torek in the energy groups. Regardless, PV payback is a hell of a lot better than SUV payback, or plasma TV payback. :-) Even running a diesel genset works out cheaper (which is why that's the method of choice at remote sites where grid power isn't available). I've watched a number of people in our area go the diesel route. It is cheaper to start with. After a couple of rebuilds and counting the time for hauling fuel it doesn't come out so well. With rising fuel costs and declining PV prices, home diesel systems are going to become a rarity. One guy I know who went on and on about how solar would be too expensive finally got tired of nursing his generator, sprung for solar, and has relegated the gennie to backup duty. Running a gennie overnight rather than using an inverter and batteries is not very desirable, and neither is living with only part time power. Solar water heating and solar electric also have to be able to contend with extended sun outages in most climates. In other words, clear sunny days are not the norm for weeks at a time in many areas of the US. This means the systems have to be even more oversized, and storage has to be huge to see you through bad weather periods. That costs big $$$. It's easier and cheaper to size the system for modest periods without sun/wind, and use a generator as necessary to fill in. Few systems can dispense with the backup generator altogether, so it's only a matter of planning its use as a second or third source. Wayne |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:46:25 -0500, "John Keeney"
wrote: That's all nice, but the real question to be answered is: "What's the cost per peek watt for your cells/modules?" As low as $2 a Watt. https://www.sunelec.com/Clearance/So...r_modules.html Wayne |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:14:32 -0800, Fitch R. Williams wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and the District of Columbia all have, or are starting, pilot voucher programs. Wisconsin's is the oldest, and has had positive measurable results in terms of improved test scores for Milwaukee children in the program. And where was the equivalent control group, with similar selection criteria, taken from in the public system? You have to be careful about looking at data about comparing schools. Saying the voucher system works by saying some select few that would have done well anyway, did better than the average of those left behind isn't much of a case. The district wide average performance on standardized tests improved. Now that was because the group using vouchers did much better than they were previously doing in public schools, while those remaining in public schools did not improve. But that's not such a bad thing. At least *some* kids are getting a better education, even if some remain virtually unteachable. What would be surprising, and damning to the voucher programs, is if the kids transferring to private schools did less well than those who remained behind in public schools. There is no indication that is the case, however. District wide scores are up, so *somebody* is doing better in school than they were before. School by school results show that it is the students now in private schools who are doing better. None of this should be very surprising. The students moving to the private schools are the ones with motivated parents who have high expectations for their children. Putting their kids in a less disruptive and more focused learning environment than is provided by the public schools was bound to produce better results. What is new with the voucher program is that the benefits of a private education are no longer limited to just the rich. Any motivated parent can choose to have their kids participate. Now none of this would be *necessary* if the public schools were properly doing their job. But they aren't, and throwing more and more money at them over the last 30 years hasn't improved matters. In fact things appear to be getting worse. Forty years ago when I attended public schools, there wasn't the violence, drugs, disruptive behaviors, etc that plague today's public schools. There weren't social promotion or "self esteem" factors influencing who graduated and who didn't either. You knuckled down, did the work, or you got held back or kicked out. That's gone from the current public school systems. It doesn't look like it will be coming back either. So the only alternative for a concerned parent is to take their kids out of those social sewers and put them in better schools. Vouchers let them do that without putting undue strain on their family budgets. It shouldn't *have* to be that way. Public school systems once worked. But what made them work has been lost. There are numerous reasons for that, many of them not tractable to correction in the current social climate (ie it wouldn't be politically correct). So other ways have to be found to give the kids who want to learn a better chance. Gary |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Fitch R. Williams
says... I tend to agree that if the voucher system is put in place, it will, over time, succeed in raising the cost of education at private schools to about where it is now in public schools. Why? Because in no time at all you will find all sorts of new regulations being imposed on the private schools - they will be spending government money, and the government will want to tell them "exactly" how they are to spend it, and have in place "processes" to monitor that, and prevent fraud, etc. Look at the welfare administration overhead - transfer that exact mind set to administering voucher money (its the same government), and you have the picture. It isn't pretty. Yes. Over time, I think that vouchers will drag the private schools *down* to public school levels. Once government is giving money to private schools, there will be all kinds of oversight associated with it. One example might be the ADA compliant thing. That's one of those regulations that public schools have to adhere to, private ones don't. Now with vouchers, a parent comes along and says "my kid wants to spend his voucher at your school, but he's in a wheel chair. Could you please put in an elevator and remodel the bathroom so he can attend?" When the school says "No" then that's when a lawsuit happens. The school would probably loose that suit. And then the pro voucher folks will again decry the intrusion of big gummint into private affairs! How ironic. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
In article , Gary Coffman says...
The currently available small commuter vehicles have two strikes against them. The first is that the efficiency improvement is small compared to small diesels while costs are higher. The second is that buyers don't want them. Nobody really gets this. People want SUVs, pickups, large sedans, etc which can serve other purposes besides just commuting, and which offer a perceived safety advantage in collisions. GM will be fielding a hybrid pickup (1500 series) in a couple of years. We'll see how the numbers work out on that. I'm not optimistic. Consider that a mildly tweaked honda civic gets about the same mileage as one of the honda/toy hybrids, right now, using conventional technology. But nobody wants to drive a roller skate, they all want the White Freightliner! Presently, in the US, there is no breeder activity (the two main breeders in the US are currently shut down), and spent fuel rods from commercial reactors are stored on site rather than being recycled. Why? There's no economic or technical incentive to do so, and there's a *huge* political cost to be paid if one tries to do so. This is hardly likely to change in the near future. Throw another log on the fire, it is getting chilly in here. Well as they say, "sometimes global warming means, it gets colder." :^) Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
Every Catholic school Ive been around, took virtually [all] comers. Disiplinary problem kids got so many chances, then out they went. Those kids would be unteachable in public school as well, so why let them drag the rest of the students down with them. But not the physically handicapped, in my personal experience. The school my daughter went to was not ADA compliant, no way. My worry is that once the discipline kid shows up with a voucher in hand, the gummint will say, this is the system, if you take even *one* voucher kid, you have to take this one too - and *keep* him! It's really amazing how just one kid like that can jam up the gears in a classroom. Seen it happen, saw it stop, too. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
Ive never claimed the Feebs should control schools, only require nationwide standards and give accreditation for those who comply, and remove accredation from those who fail to follow those standards. Heh. The second part of your post disagrees with the first part. If you set the standards and apply/deny accreditation at a federal level, you *are* installing federal control. That's how it will play out. In very short order certification will be *required*. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:37:29 +0800, Old Nick wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:48:35 GMT, "Ed Huntress" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI, Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never. There was one claim here, I can't remember by whom, that solar power actually had a negative _energy_ valkue, in that it took more energy to make a solar cell and the associated batteries etc than it generated in its life. Used to be true. Current generation cells achieve energy breakeven in about 7 years. Throw in the batteries, regulators, inverters, etc that make up the complete power system, though, and the claim might still be right. Gary |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:14:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: There was one claim here, I can't remember by whom, that solar power actually had a negative _energy_ valkue, I don't know what the present status is, but that was the case at least 15 years ago. Someone I talked to around that time who seemed to know what he I challenged the poster to provide backup, and heard no more. I wish I had. I _want_ to believe that solar power is worthwhile! I used economic, _very_ loose extrapolations, sort of "each level makes 100% on their costs" type of stuff, based on an el cheapo battery-topper-upper, and it did not look good. I do know I that when I started to talk of "alternative" energy sources when thinking of having to connect to the grid by paying for a kilometre of line, a friend and co-worker of mine, a qualified Electrical Engineer who also lived an unusual lifestyle, said "No"....in four words....one of which had 7 letters....the rest had 3 each. G ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
om... Good numbers but they are changing ! We make the A-300 that is 20%+++ eff so the large cells will kick up the percentage as they get into production on homes. They are used on some of the fancy bug like cars and on NASA's flying electric wing - New way of making the cells and it works. I noticed the local Green food store has a 30KW unit on their roof. At work we have a 256KW roof on two buildings. Naturally we have a bad position - so near the end of the airport - we have to wash them to get the junk off from the jets leaping off the runway. So, how do they pay, Martin? Or do they not pay for themselves? I don't see how they can. Ed Huntress |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
"Old Nick" wrote in message
... On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:14:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: There was one claim here, I can't remember by whom, that solar power actually had a negative _energy_ valkue, I don't know what the present status is, but that was the case at least 15 years ago. Someone I talked to around that time who seemed to know what he I challenged the poster to provide backup, and heard no more. I wish I had. I _want_ to believe that solar power is worthwhile! I used economic, _very_ loose extrapolations, sort of "each level makes 100% on their costs" type of stuff, based on an el cheapo battery-topper-upper, and it did not look good. I do know I that when I started to talk of "alternative" energy sources when thinking of having to connect to the grid by paying for a kilometre of line, a friend and co-worker of mine, a qualified Electrical Engineer who also lived an unusual lifestyle, said "No"....in four words....one of which had 7 letters....the rest had 3 each. G Haha! I guess he's not a believer. g I guess we'd all like to believe it can work out. The closest thing I've seen to economic efficiency is wind power, but even that is problematic, on a day when you're feeling optimistic and have a few large blind spots. Ed Huntress |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
In some locations ( not the Pacific Northwest ) solar hot water
augmentation does have a low ROI of about a year or two. By this I mean use of solar hot water collectors used to reduce the energy used for heating hot water. This was as I remember from a hospital in Florida that used simple Black pvc pipe solar heaters to reduce their energy costs. Other things they looked at or tried were not cost effective. One of the keys is figuring out what amount of augmentation is economical. Dan "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be made semi self-sufficient. What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI, Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never. But I'm interested in whatever you have there. Ed Huntress |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m... In some locations ( not the Pacific Northwest ) solar hot water augmentation does have a low ROI of about a year or two. By this I mean use of solar hot water collectors used to reduce the energy used for heating hot water. This was as I remember from a hospital in Florida that used simple Black pvc pipe solar heaters to reduce their energy costs. Other things they looked at or tried were not cost effective. One of the keys is figuring out what amount of augmentation is economical. Domestic hot water has long been recognized as the most cost-effective use of direct solar energy conversion. Passive home heating is next, although it usually must be designed into a new house. Active home heating is marginal and depends on proper siting as well as amortizing large investments. Lifetime maintenance costs and true amortization often are not figured into active heating, which makes many of the figures unreliable. What I was asking about is solar electricity generation. It still looks like we're on a cloud about this one, in which the net effect is a loss of energy, or a break-even at best, as well as very high costs. But I haven't tried to keep up with this field for over a decade. If there's something new, I'm interested. Ed Huntress |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
I went to ERIC and did not find anything about class size and
education. So I googled and on the first page of sites found articles that said that class size was important in the primary grades to age eight. And articles that said that class size alone did not make a difference, the difference only occurred if the teachers changed their method of instruction. And what I said was that changing the method of instruction was important. So I still disagree with you. The studies are not overwhelming. Dan "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:nF60c.7139 Then you must have missed 90% of education research over the past 20 years, Dan. The studies show a direct relationship, and they're both consistent and overwhelming, in private schools and public schools alike. Go to ERIC and read to your heart's content. Ed Huntress |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m... I went to ERIC and did not find anything about class size and education. It took me less than five seconds to find the first one: ERIC Digest 136, April 2000, "Capitalizing On Small Class Size." The descriptors you want to look for are "Class Size" and "Teacher Student Ratio." What you find in ERIC is summaries, a few papers, and extensive bibliographies. They're a clearing house, not a think-tank, so you have to use their bibliographies and links to see most of the actual writing. I've included a bibliography from the article above at the end of this post. The battle is not about the benefits of class size, but about the relative cost benefits of reducing class size versus alternatives. Here's a concluding remark from the ECS. They have a whole site developed to class-size arguments and issues, http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=24: "Clearly, reducing class size is a significant means of improving student achievement but high academic standards, a challenging curriculum, safe and orderly classrooms, and qualified teachers are no less significant in the arsenal of solid, research-proven reforms. When smaller class size is pursued in conjunction with such reforms, the combined impact on student achievement is far greater than any strategy by itself." The U.S. Dept. of Education also has a site and links about class-size reduction, which includes summaries and descriptions of the legislation: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/guidance.html Here's a sample reading list from that ERIC article: Achilles, Charles M. Let's Put Kids First, Finally: Getting Class Size Right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1999. 219 pages. ED 432 057. Achilles, C.M.; Karen Kiser-Kling; Ann Aust; and Jean Owen. "A Study of Reduced Class Size in Primary Grades of a Fully Chapter 1-Eligible School, Success Starts Small." San Francisco: American Educational Research Association, 1995. Arfstrom, Kari. "Small Districts Overlooked by Class Size Initiative." The School Adminstrator (February 2000): 55. Bain, H. P., and C. M. Achilles. "Interesting Developments on Class Size." Phi Delta Kappan 67 (May 1996): 662-65. Bohrnstedt, George W., and Brian Stecher, Eds. Class Size Reduction in California: Early Evaluation Findings, 1996-1998. Palo Alto, California: CSR Research Consortium, 1999. 157 pages. Bradley, Ann. "Quality Crisis Seen in California Teaching Ranks." Education Week XIX, 15 (December 8, 1999): 1, 9. Egelson, Paula; Patrick Harman; and C.M. Achilles. "Does Class Size Make a Difference?" Greensboro, NC: South Eastern Regional Vision for Education, 1996. Joint Legislative Audit Committee. ÒCalifornia's Public Schools: A Needs Assessment. Sacramento, California: Author, 1999. McRobbie, Joan. ÒSmaller Classes Aim to Launch Early Literacy. Focus Magazine. (WestEd). Fall 1996. ED 423 604. McRobbie, Joan; Jeremy D. Finn; and Patrick Harman. ÒClass Size Reduction: Lessons Learned from Experience. Policy Brief No. 23. (WestEd). August 1998. (http://www.wested.org/policy/hot_top/csr/ht_hm_csr.htm) So I googled and on the first page of sites found articles that said that class size was important in the primary grades to age eight. And articles that said that class size alone did not make a difference, the difference only occurred if the teachers changed their method of instruction. And what I said was that changing the method of instruction was important. So I still disagree with you. The studies are not overwhelming. You need a broader selection of studies. Selecting on the basis of Google hits can be misleading. The studies as a whole are, as I said, overwhelming. Ed Huntress |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inchOD Circumference)
Ed Huntress wrote:
But I haven't tried to keep up with this field for over a decade. if there's something new, I'm interested. http://daystartech.com/technology.html Jon |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
... Ed Huntress wrote: But I haven't tried to keep up with this field for over a decade. if there's something new, I'm interested. http://daystartech.com/technology.html Thanks, Jon. It's interesting, but it would be even more interesting to see something that addresses land-based solar power with a complete cost analysis. Like some other thin-film producers, they don't say much about product life or installation costs. Ed Huntress |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inchOD Circumference)
Ed Huntress wrote:
Like some other thin-film producers, they don't say much about product life or installation costs. There is the Daystar Solar which does turnkey solar installations, it's a link in the menu. Perhaps they have further data. There are a couple other companies working on similar technology. I don't think it's quite the benefit it's supporters would like us to believe just yet, but that is due partly to the current price of oil. Jack that up 50% and suddenly a lot of technology will probably start to make sense. It's going to happen sooner or later. Then again, maybe we can start making our own oil if these guys turn out to have something commercially viable: http://www.changingworldtech.com/techfr.htm I sure hope this one works out. Doesn't solve all problems, but answers some of them. Jon |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 29 Feb 2004 07:42:11 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Ive never claimed the Feebs should control schools, only require nationwide standards and give accreditation for those who comply, and remove accredation from those who fail to follow those standards. Heh. The second part of your post disagrees with the first part. If you set the standards and apply/deny accreditation at a federal level, you *are* installing federal control. That's how it will play out. In very short order certification will be *required*. Jim Standards are not controls. Accreditation is a form of control. If you refuse to graduate students who can pass standardized testing, you loose your accreditation. No parent will send their child to an inferior school if they can help it, when there are others on hand. If your school cannot meet the simple requirement of graduating students able to pass the national standardized testing..then the funding agency can say the vouchers are not to be used at that school. I do however agree that all politics HAVE to be kept out of the design of the Nationwide Standardized Academic testing Standard. It has to be uniform, and apply to each and every normal school, be it private or public. Gunner "To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Clearance between router cutter and guide bush ? | UK diy |