Post by thread:[EE]:: Super-Safe, Small & Simple Nuclear Reactor

I must say "Thank you Toshiba...."? Who can say me what are going to hapen on 2040´s, whe hundred of this need to refueling....? We are going on wrong direction. We have a lot of Windpower unused, Hidrogen cars, solar cells, fuel cells......etc. Pablo Ginhson > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:04:48 +1300> From: spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> Subject: [EE]:: Super-Safe, Small & Simple Nuclear Reactor> To: .....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MIT.EDU> > SSSS Nuclear Reactor.> It must be, its name says it is.> > http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Toshiba%27s_Home_Nuclear_Fusion_Reactor> > I'm certain that they are correct when they say -> > " ... the new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, > could change everything for small remote communities, > businesses or even a group of ... "> neighbours ..."> > While it's not it's envisaged mode, you could fit one of > those in a shipping container !!! :-)> > Runs for 30 years on a single fuel load.> Liable to introduce a whole new class of lease-hold > agreements.> > > Russell> > >

IMHO: I agree. Industrial nations are obsessed with using more and more energy, instead of envisioning life beyond non-renewable resource consumption. "Just what is it you need electricity for?" The environmental impacts of a) the uranium mining, and b) the construction/running/decommissioning of nuclear reactors are, to date, great and highly questionable. I think it's stupid to pursue nuclear power while direct and indirect solar energy remains relatively untapped. It's a brave and rare politician who will stand up to defend energy reduction. Matt (Written on a 250w mains powered PC) Pablo Ginhson wrote: > I must say "Thank you Toshiba...."? > Who can say me what are going to hapen on 2040´s, whe hundred of this need to refueling....? > We are going on wrong direction. We have a lot of Windpower unused, Hidrogen cars, solar cells, fuel cells......etc. > > Pablo Ginhson >

Solar heating has been interesting me greatly lately. The cost per equivalent watt is very very low compared to solar-electric. Especially with a $400 natural gas bill. - Martin Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: {Quote hidden}> IMHO: > > I agree. Industrial nations are obsessed with using more and more > energy, instead of envisioning life beyond non-renewable resource > consumption. "Just what is it you need electricity for?" > > The environmental impacts of a) the uranium mining, and b) the > construction/running/decommissioning of nuclear reactors are, to date, > great and highly questionable. > > I think it's stupid to pursue nuclear power while direct and indirect > solar energy remains relatively untapped. > > It's a brave and rare politician who will stand up to defend energy > reduction. > > Matt > > (Written on a 250w mains powered PC) >

Not to hijack the thread, but this impinges on a peeve of mine - roofing color. If you look at older homes, in the US at least, there are dark color roofs in colder-winter states, with deciduous trees overhead, and white concrete roof tiles in the more tropical southern areas. These white tiles really help keep the house cool in the heat (been there) and the trees/black roof help heat in the winter more north (no leaves on trees) and the trees shade it and make color unimportant (maybe black even helps as a radiator?) in the summer. Now we have sprawls of developments all over the US with no trees, no white tiles anywhere, and black roof tiles. I would venture that most of the energy cost in a big swath across the US is Summer cooling. I know mine is by far. This is purely for aesthetic reasons if you ask anyone, no one wants to put white tiles on. The women I ask say "black won't show the dirt as much"... Think of the energy reduction! I'm in that middle swath, and I could save 2/3 of my electric bill, but you can't get the tiles and what with deed restrictions and all you are limited. My next house will be white tile capable! Even if I could do it here, and there are white-ish asphalt tiles, I know I'll make a lot enemies who will conclude I've somehow lowered the housing values. White tile roof with solar water heating on top as capacity needs dictate and for much of the US power usage would decline 75%!! Why can't we make that work?? Martin wrote: > Solar heating has been interesting me greatly lately. The cost per > equivalent watt is very very low compared to solar-electric. Especially > with a $400 natural gas bill. > - > Martin > > Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: >

More interesting (to me) than white tiles would be evaporative cooling, but I don't think this is something that is really available for residential applications. But I'm sure the effect would be even more pronounced in summer than what lighter tiles could do. Regards, - Marcel On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Dr Skip <drskipKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Not to hijack the thread, but this impinges on a peeve of mine - roofing color. > If you look at older homes, in the US at least, there are dark color roofs in > colder-winter states, with deciduous trees overhead, and white concrete roof > tiles in the more tropical southern areas. These white tiles really help keep > the house cool in the heat (been there) and the trees/black roof help heat in > the winter more north (no leaves on trees) and the trees shade it and make > color unimportant (maybe black even helps as a radiator?) in the summer. > > Now we have sprawls of developments all over the US with no trees, no white > tiles anywhere, and black roof tiles. I would venture that most of the energy > cost in a big swath across the US is Summer cooling. I know mine is by far. > This is purely for aesthetic reasons if you ask anyone, no one wants to put > white tiles on. The women I ask say "black won't show the dirt as much"... > > Think of the energy reduction! I'm in that middle swath, and I could save 2/3 > of my electric bill, but you can't get the tiles and what with deed > restrictions and all you are limited. My next house will be white tile capable! > Even if I could do it here, and there are white-ish asphalt tiles, I know I'll > make a lot enemies who will conclude I've somehow lowered the housing values. > > White tile roof with solar water heating on top as capacity needs dictate and > for much of the US power usage would decline 75%!! > > Why can't we make that work?? > > > > Martin wrote: > > Solar heating has been interesting me greatly lately. The cost per > > equivalent watt is very very low compared to solar-electric. Especially > > with a $400 natural gas bill. > > - > > Martin > > > > Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: > > > > > --

Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, while their owners sit inside in front of the tube listening to pleas from the authorities to limit water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, despite the recent weather. Jack On 2/25/08, Dr Skip <.....drskipKILLspam.....gmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Not to hijack the thread, but this impinges on a peeve of mine - roofing > color. > If you look at older homes, in the US at least, there are dark color roofs > in > colder-winter states, with deciduous trees overhead, and white concrete roof > tiles in the more tropical southern areas. These white tiles really help > keep > the house cool in the heat (been there) and the trees/black roof help heat > in > the winter more north (no leaves on trees) and the trees shade it and make > color unimportant (maybe black even helps as a radiator?) in the summer. > > Now we have sprawls of developments all over the US with no trees, no white > tiles anywhere, and black roof tiles. I would venture that most of the > energy > cost in a big swath across the US is Summer cooling. I know mine is by far. > This is purely for aesthetic reasons if you ask anyone, no one wants to put > white tiles on. The women I ask say "black won't show the dirt as much"... > > Think of the energy reduction! I'm in that middle swath, and I could save > 2/3 > of my electric bill, but you can't get the tiles and what with deed > restrictions and all you are limited. My next house will be white tile > capable! > Even if I could do it here, and there are white-ish asphalt tiles, I know > I'll > make a lot enemies who will conclude I've somehow lowered the housing > values. > > White tile roof with solar water heating on top as capacity needs dictate > and > for much of the US power usage would decline 75%!! > > Why can't we make that work?? > > > Martin wrote: > > Solar heating has been interesting me greatly lately. The cost per > > equivalent watt is very very low compared to solar-electric. Especially > > with a $400 natural gas bill. > > - > > Martin > > > > Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: > > > -

It would, but many of these same parts of the US are under drought and have restrictions such as NO outdoor water use. I personally would like to see the effect of evaporative cooling on an area-wide scale on the local weather. I think they do this in the southwest US, or at least as air conditioning. One of the requirements for efficient operation is low humidity - somethign that doesn't exist in most of the needed areas. Marcel Birthelmer wrote: > More interesting (to me) than white tiles would be evaporative > cooling, but I don't think this is something that is really available > for residential applications. But I'm sure the effect would be even > more pronounced in summer than what lighter tiles could do. > Regards, > - Marcel > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Dr Skip <EraseMEdrskipspam_OUTTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

Yea, like Atlanta, daughter lives near the Chattahoochee River downstream from the water supply inlets. We were there in October, and the river level was as high as we had ever seen it. All politics, Florida and Alabama are downstream. ~) John Gardner wrote: {Quote hidden}> Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain > yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help > noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, > while their owners sit inside in front of the tube > listening to pleas from the authorities to limit > water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, > despite the recent weather. > > Jack > > On 2/25/08, Dr Skip <drskipspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: >> Not to hijack the thread, but this impinges on a peeve of mine - roofing >> color. >> If you look at older homes, in the US at least, there are dark color roofs >> in >> colder-winter states, with deciduous trees overhead, and white concrete roof >> tiles in the more tropical southern areas. These white tiles really help >> keep >> the house cool in the heat (been there) and the trees/black roof help heat >> in >> the winter more north (no leaves on trees) and the trees shade it and make >> color unimportant (maybe black even helps as a radiator?) in the summer. >> >> Now we have sprawls of developments all over the US with no trees, no white >> tiles anywhere, and black roof tiles. I would venture that most of the >> energy >> cost in a big swath across the US is Summer cooling. I know mine is by far. >> This is purely for aesthetic reasons if you ask anyone, no one wants to put >> white tiles on. The women I ask say "black won't show the dirt as much"... >> >> Think of the energy reduction! I'm in that middle swath, and I could save >> 2/3 >> of my electric bill, but you can't get the tiles and what with deed >> restrictions and all you are limited. My next house will be white tile >> capable! >> Even if I could do it here, and there are white-ish asphalt tiles, I know >> I'll >> make a lot enemies who will conclude I've somehow lowered the housing >> values. >> >> White tile roof with solar water heating on top as capacity needs dictate >> and >> for much of the US power usage would decline 75%!! >> >> Why can't we make that work?? >> >> >> Martin wrote: >>> Solar heating has been interesting me greatly lately. The cost per >>> equivalent watt is very very low compared to solar-electric. Especially >>> with a $400 natural gas bill. >>> - >>> Martin >>> >>> Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: >>> >> --

On Feb 25, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Dr Skip wrote: > roofing color. I'm in the process of getting a new roof. The Roofer people tell me that shingle color is relatively unimportant WRT heating due to the sun, compared with the layers UNDER the shingles. We'll see. I'm replacing cedar shake with asphalt, radiant barrier, plywood and re-doing the whole ventilation system. > deciduous trees overhead Maintenance issue. Fire hazard. Pest path. And trees only grow so high... > Summer cooling. Hmm. I wonder if the energy bill for cooling is overall higher for single-family homes or apartment complexes and offices? The latter would have relatively small roof area per occupancy, making the color awfully insignificant. I listen to the whole "turn your AC down" pleas with some amusement; I don't have any AC... BillW

I can believe it with the light colored asphalt which aren't much white, but there is a BIG difference with white concrete tile. My feet aren't the toughest, but in mid summer I can walk barefoot on a white concrete roof, but can't go 20 minutes in big nobbly hiking shoes on a black one. Feet feeling like they're baking in an oven is a very uncomfortable, unnatural feeling. I go for only medium-rare. William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > > I'm in the process of getting a new roof. The Roofer people > tell me that shingle color is relatively unimportant WRT heating > due to the sun, compared with the layers UNDER the shingles. > We'll see. I'm replacing cedar shake with asphalt, radiant barrier, > plywood and re-doing the whole ventilation system. >

It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it until water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas unless politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? cc On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John Gardner wrote: Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, while their owners sit inside in front of the tube listening to pleas from the authorities to limit water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, despite the recent weather. Jack On 2/25/08, Dr Skip <@spam@drskipKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Not to hijack the thread, but this impinges on a peeve of mine - > roofing > color. > If you look at older homes, in the US at least, there are dark > color roofs > in > colder-winter states, with deciduous trees overhead, and white > concrete roof > tiles in the more tropical southern areas. These white tiles really > help > keep > the house cool in the heat (been there) and the trees/black roof > help heat > in > the winter more north (no leaves on trees) and the trees shade it > and make > color unimportant (maybe black even helps as a radiator?) in the > summer. > > Now we have sprawls of developments all over the US with no trees, > no white > tiles anywhere, and black roof tiles. I would venture that most of the > energy > cost in a big swath across the US is Summer cooling. I know mine is > by far. > This is purely for aesthetic reasons if you ask anyone, no one > wants to put > white tiles on. The women I ask say "black won't show the dirt as > much"... > > Think of the energy reduction! I'm in that middle swath, and I > could save > 2/3 > of my electric bill, but you can't get the tiles and what with deed > restrictions and all you are limited. My next house will be white tile > capable! > Even if I could do it here, and there are white-ish asphalt tiles, > I know > I'll > make a lot enemies who will conclude I've somehow lowered the housing > values. > > White tile roof with solar water heating on top as capacity needs > dictate > and > for much of the US power usage would decline 75%!! > > Why can't we make that work?? > > > Martin wrote: >> Solar heating has been interesting me greatly lately. The cost per >> equivalent watt is very very low compared to solar-electric. >> Especially >> with a $400 natural gas bill. >> - >> Martin >> >> Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: >> > -

I'm not sure if I think it matters much for a traditional home. I remember in the house I grew up in, an 1850s house with a full size attic and black roof. The attic got hot on hot days and cold on cold days. It didn't affect the rest of the house much, seeing as though the attic floor was insulated. - Martin Dr Skip wrote: {Quote hidden}> I can believe it with the light colored asphalt which aren't much white, but > there is a BIG difference with white concrete tile. My feet aren't the > toughest, but in mid summer I can walk barefoot on a white concrete roof, but > can't go 20 minutes in big nobbly hiking shoes on a black one. Feet feeling > like they're baking in an oven is a very uncomfortable, unnatural feeling. I go > for only medium-rare. > > > William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > >> I'm in the process of getting a new roof. The Roofer people >> tell me that shingle color is relatively unimportant WRT heating >> due to the sun, compared with the layers UNDER the shingles. >> We'll see. I'm replacing cedar shake with asphalt, radiant barrier, >> plywood and re-doing the whole ventilation system. >> >>

There's the rub - everyone has a different definition of "most effectively". >It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it until >water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas unless >politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? >cc > > >On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John Gardner wrote: > >Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain >yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help >noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, >while their owners sit inside in front of the tube >listening to pleas from the authorities to limit >water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, >despite the recent weather. > -- --- Chris Smolinski Black Cat Systems http://www.blackcatsystems.com

Cedric said: > It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it until > water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas unless > politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? > cc Yup. Problem here is the rate structure makes no sense, with one user paying X, another 100X, for the same amount of water. I guess it makes sense if you're in the X group... Jack On 2/25/08, sergio masci <KILLspamsmplxKILLspamallotrope.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > > > > deciduous trees overhead > > > > Maintenance issue. Fire hazard. Pest path. And trees only grow > > so high... > > Good grief, how tall is your house :-) > > Regards > Sergio > -

Talking of roofing materials, they like "ice guard" a roll membrane self adhesive that seals nails that are driven through it. The issue is, the roof deck and bottom of the shingles bond very well, and when it comes tome to re-roof in 20 years or so, the roof deck (plywood) is going to be replaced also. :( Might be able to put a bond breaker like 6 mil polyethylene sheet under the shingles. William "Chops" Westfield wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Feb 25, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Dr Skip wrote: > >> roofing color. > > I'm in the process of getting a new roof. The Roofer people > tell me that shingle color is relatively unimportant WRT heating > due to the sun, compared with the layers UNDER the shingles. > We'll see. I'm replacing cedar shake with asphalt, radiant barrier, > plywood and re-doing the whole ventilation system. > > >> deciduous trees overhead > > Maintenance issue. Fire hazard. Pest path. And trees only grow > so high... > >> Summer cooling. > > Hmm. I wonder if the energy bill for cooling is overall higher for > single-family homes or apartment complexes and offices? The latter > would have relatively small roof area per occupancy, making the color > awfully insignificant. I listen to the whole "turn your AC down" pleas > with some amusement; I don't have any AC... > > BillW >

My solution takes care of ---> 'There's the rub - everyone has a different definition of "most effectively".' cc {Quote hidden}> > On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Chris Smolinski wrote: > > There's the rub - everyone has a different definition of "most > effectively". > >> It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it until >> water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas unless >> politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? >> cc >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John Gardner wrote: >> >> Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain >> yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help >> noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, >> while their owners sit inside in front of the tube >> listening to pleas from the authorities to limit >> water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, >> despite the recent weather. >> > > -- > > --- > Chris Smolinski > Black Cat Systems > http://www.blackcatsystems.com > > --

What's wrong with "you can use whatever you collect"? That way you're free from both government & corporate interference. Tony {Quote hidden}> It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it > until water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas > unless politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? > cc > > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John Gardner wrote: > > Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain yesterday (So > much for sense) one can't help noticing all the lawn > sprinklers going full blast, while their owners sit inside in > front of the tube listening to pleas from the authorities to > limit water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, despite > the recent weather. > > Jack

Put a metal roof on. You can get darkish ones that still have a good IR reflectance and emmitance. As a bonus your not going to have to do anything to it until after your dead short of a tornado removing it for you. Carl Denk wrote: {Quote hidden}> Talking of roofing materials, they like "ice guard" a roll membrane self > adhesive that seals nails that are driven through it. The issue is, the > roof deck and bottom of the shingles bond very well, and when it comes > tome to re-roof in 20 years or so, the roof deck (plywood) is going to > be replaced also. :( Might be able to put a bond breaker like 6 mil > polyethylene sheet under the shingles. > > William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > >> On Feb 25, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Dr Skip wrote: >> >> >>> roofing color. >>> >> I'm in the process of getting a new roof. The Roofer people >> tell me that shingle color is relatively unimportant WRT heating >> due to the sun, compared with the layers UNDER the shingles. >> We'll see. I'm replacing cedar shake with asphalt, radiant barrier, >> plywood and re-doing the whole ventilation system. >> >> >> >>> deciduous trees overhead >>> >> Maintenance issue. Fire hazard. Pest path. And trees only grow >> so high... >> >> >>> Summer cooling. >>> >> Hmm. I wonder if the energy bill for cooling is overall higher for >> single-family homes or apartment complexes and offices? The latter >> would have relatively small roof area per occupancy, making the color >> awfully insignificant. I listen to the whole "turn your AC down" pleas >> with some amusement; I don't have any AC... >> >> BillW >> >>

Not really, since you want to raise water prices until your definition is met. {Quote hidden}>My solution takes care of ---> 'There's the rub - everyone has a >different definition of "most effectively".' >cc > >> >> On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Chris Smolinski wrote: >> >> There's the rub - everyone has a different definition of "most >> effectively". >> >>> It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it until >>> water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas unless >>> politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? >>> cc >>> >>> >>> On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John Gardner wrote: >>> >>> Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain >>> yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help >>> noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, >>> while their owners sit inside in front of the tube >>> listening to pleas from the authorities to limit >>> water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, >>> despite the recent weather. >>> >> >> -- >> -- --- Chris Smolinski Black Cat Systems http://www.blackcatsystems.com

----- Original Message ----- : : > roofing color. : : I'm in the process of getting a new roof. The Roofer people : tell me that shingle color is relatively unimportant WRT heating : due to the sun, compared with the layers UNDER the shingles. : We'll see. I'm replacing cedar shake with asphalt, radiant barrier, : plywood and re-doing the whole ventilation system. I suspect that the IR absorption depends more on the chemical compision of the shingles rather than the colour of them. IIR carbon containing materials typically absorb more than more than others. Concrete or clay tiles may not absorb as much - you would have to look it up. What will help you though is a good ventilation system for your attic as well as insulation in your roof. : : : > deciduous trees overhead : : Maintenance issue. Fire hazard. Pest path. And trees only grow : so high... It is amazing how much cooling effect that you can get from a 100 year old maple. Not only because of the shade, but also due to the huge amount of water that is evaporated each day. It is very important to protect our urban forests for this and a variety of other reasons. Gordon Williams

'Yes, really ' ..... since I have no definition. I am content if the highest bidder gets to supply his or her definition. And then the next highest bidder supplies his/her definition. Recursively If you love democracy, you will love this solution. If you love command and control, you will find this approach detestable. ( note that logic says " if A ---> B , B does not necessarily imply A. ) cc {Quote hidden}> On Feb 26, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Chris Smolinski wrote: > > Not really, since you want to raise water prices until your > definition is met. > >> My solution takes care of ---> 'There's the rub - everyone has a >> different definition of "most effectively".' >> cc >> >>> >>> On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Chris Smolinski wrote: >>> >>> There's the rub - everyone has a different definition of "most >>> effectively". >>> >>>> It is so simple. Raise the price of water and keep raising it >>>> until >>>> water is being used most effectively. Why issue pleas unless >>>> politicians think that is cool and shows they care. ? >>>> cc >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John Gardner wrote: >>>> >>>> Makes too much sense - Out walking in the rain >>>> yesterday (So much for sense) one can't help >>>> noticing all the lawn sprinklers going full blast, >>>> while their owners sit inside in front of the tube >>>> listening to pleas from the authorities to limit >>>> water use - We're in a drought here in SoCal, >>>> despite the recent weather. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> > > > -- > > --- > Chris Smolinski > Black Cat Systems > http://www.blackcatsystems.com > > --

(long, but bear with me) This is an actual Engineering lecture in Thermodyamics. I can testify to it because I was there. It was an undergraduate lecture and under the EE catalog I was required to take thermodynamics. The professor at Fresno State (more formally California State University, Fresno) our professor for this class was also an HVAC consultant. This was termed "Professor Bevel's Chicken Shit Lecture" and was part of many semester classes at Fresno State. One of his clients was Foster Farms Chickens (a big retail label in California). Anyway, seems like Foster Farms had a problem with their chickens. When the temperature in the chicken coops got to hot the chicken shit used to generate ammonia gas. That wasn't so bad, but the ammonia gas used to etch the cornias of the chickens and then they would go blind and not find the food to eat and not gain weight. This was not so good for the chickens and especially not good for Foster Farms. As a reference to the problem (one of many, I'm sure) is: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PS031 It's amazing what you can find on the internet, but I digress..... The professor was called in as a paid consultant. Well, he found that putting a sprinkler system on top of the chicken coops would wet down the tops of the roof of the chicken houses and then the water would evaporate, cool down the chicken house, the temperature would not be high enough for the chicken shit to generate excessive ammonia gas, the cornias of the chickens eyes wouldn't get etched, they wouldn't go blind, they could find their food and gain weight. This made the chickens very happy. It also made Foster Farms very happy as well. So the professor billed Foster Farms (he tried billing the chickens, but they wouldn't pay). And everybody was happy. Well, that's not the real part of the story. That was just the setup. After a couple of years, the folks at Foster Farms noticed that they didn't have to use as much water as they did originally to keep the chicken coops cool. So they called him up and asked him why. Well, turns out the water in the Fresno area (in fact most of the southern San Joaquin valley is pretty alkaline, which was sprayed on the roofs of the chicken coops (remember the chicken coops. They hold the chickens inside). The alkali of the water turned the roofs of the chicken coops white, which the white reflected more heat, and hence, they didn't have to use as much water with the white roofs. Now, here's the kicker. My instructor then billed Foster Farms *AGAIN* I learned alot about engineering from that class. Maybe not too much about thermodynamics, but a whole lot of engineering......... Cheers, Rich S. {Quote hidden}> > It would, but many of these same parts of the US are under drought and have > restrictions such as NO outdoor water use. I personally would like to see the > effect of evaporative cooling on an area-wide scale on the local weather. > > I think they do this in the southwest US, or at least as air conditioning. One > of the requirements for efficient operation is low humidity - somethign that > doesn't exist in most of the needed areas. > > > Marcel Birthelmer wrote: > > More interesting (to me) than white tiles would be evaporative > > cooling, but I don't think this is something that is really available > > for residential applications. But I'm sure the effect would be even > > more pronounced in summer than what lighter tiles could do. > > Regards, > > - Marcel > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Dr Skip <RemoveMEdrskipTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: > --

{Quote hidden}> > On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Rich Satterlee wrote: > > (long, but bear with me) > > This is an actual Engineering lecture in Thermodyamics. I can > testify to it > because I was there. It was an undergraduate lecture and under the EE > catalog I was required to take thermodynamics. > > The professor at Fresno State (more formally California State > University, > Fresno) our professor for this class was also an HVAC consultant. > This was > termed "Professor Bevel's Chicken Shit Lecture" and was part of many > semester classes at Fresno State. > > One of his clients was Foster Farms Chickens (a big retail label in > California). > > Anyway, seems like Foster Farms had a problem with their chickens. > > When the temperature in the chicken coops got to hot the chicken > shit used > to generate ammonia gas. That wasn't so bad, but the ammonia gas > used to > etch the cornias of the chickens and then they would go blind and > not find > the food to eat and not gain weight. This was not so good for the > chickens > and especially not good for Foster Farms. > > As a reference to the problem (one of many, I'm sure) is: > http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PS031 > > It's amazing what you can find on the internet, but I digress..... > > The professor was called in as a paid consultant. Well, he found that > putting a sprinkler system on top of the chicken coops would wet > down the > tops of the roof of the chicken houses and then the water would > evaporate, > cool down the chicken house, the temperature would not be high > enough for > the chicken shit to generate excessive ammonia gas, the cornias of the > chickens eyes wouldn't get etched, they wouldn't go blind, they > could find > their food and gain weight. This made the chickens very happy. It > also > made Foster Farms very happy as well. So the professor billed > Foster Farms > (he tried billing the chickens, but they wouldn't pay). > And everybody was happy. > > Well, that's not the real part of the story. That was just the setup. > > After a couple of years, the folks at Foster Farms noticed that > they didn't > have to use as much water as they did originally to keep the > chicken coops > cool. So they called him up and asked him why. Well, turns out the > water in the Fresno area (in fact most of the southern San Joaquin > valley > is pretty alkaline, which was sprayed on the roofs of the chicken > coops > (remember the chicken coops. They hold the chickens inside). The > alkali > of the water turned the roofs of the chicken coops white, which the > white > reflected more heat, and hence, they didn't have to use as much > water with > the white roofs. > > Now, here's the kicker. > > My instructor then billed Foster Farms *AGAIN* > > I learned alot about engineering from that class. Maybe not too much > about thermodynamics, but a whole lot of engineering......... > > Cheers, > > Rich S. Sounds like you learned a lot about chicken beaks or bills or billing or something. cc >

James, On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:25:23 -0800, James Newton wrote: > I already did it. What about "all you zombies"? > > http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm As you know, I'm dead jealous of your setup! :-) Having another look at it, I have some questions: You don't mention the Wattage rating of the array (usually espressed as Wp). Doing the maths on the Rebate, it looks like 2.6kWp - is that about right? That would make it about $8 per watt at full price. Do you know the area of the array? (Square feet will do, I can convert to metres :-) Looking at the figures, that comes to an average of 5.25kWh per day per kWp installed - that seems low for SoCal - I'd expect that sort of figure here. Your arrays is a bit "flat" for best efficiency, and I reckon they are facing about 140 degrees (if Garmin are to be believed) so not ideal either. Do you know what the theoretical maximum insolation is around there? I'd estimate that you're losing about 20% from that because of the aiming, but that's just a guess. What I'm trying to do is get a feel for the derating from the ideal in a practical setup. Experiments I've done here suggest that I could get nowhere near 80% of maximum. My "South" facing roof is actually about 125 degrees, so good in the morning, but useless after about 14:00. I just had a look at my experimental panels on the roof or my shed which is at 90 degrees to the house, so better angled, at about 215 degrees. Theoretically the panels are 4 x 15W, so 60Wp. With the Sun around 20 degrees off line and about 30 degrees off pitch, I'm seeing no more than about 10W at best! When the Sun goes behind a cloud, it drops to zero. I don't know if it's that the panels aren't up to spec. (although they shouldn't be - they were full price) or just optimistically rated. Either way, it doesn't bode well for a system like yours working here, sadly. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

Sorry to take so long to respond, I've been a bit behind. I also don't know the answers to your questions off the top of my head. I do plan to go read the meter and update the web page so I will add measuring the size of the panels, jotting down the part numbers, and see if I can find the ratings for them somewhere. Part of the loss in any power system is transmission and conversion, so I'm sure I don't actually manage to sell all the electricity the panels generate. Some goes up in heat from the converter box and the wires between. Less from the wires I'd imagine, but the box does get quite warm. In a cloudy area, mirrors can be used (carefully) to increase the concentration of sunlight while not exceeding the ratings on the panels. -- James. {Original Message removed}

> I just had a look at my experimental panels on the roof or > my shed which is > at 90 degrees to the house, so better angled, at about 215 > degrees. > Theoretically the > panels are 4 x 15W, so 60Wp. With the Sun around 20 > degrees off line and > about 30 degrees off pitch, I'm seeing no more than about > 10W at best! When > the Sun > goes behind a cloud, it drops to zero. I don't know if > it's that the panels > aren't up to spec. (although they shouldn't be - they were > full price) or > just optimistically > rated. Either way, it doesn't bode well for a system like > yours working > here, sadly. Howard's question extracted from James response. Are you measuring optimum power or power into a battery. Maximum power point varies with insolation (sunlevel) and is often not optimum for a battery load. As a rough rule of thumb maximum power occurs when Vloaded ~= 75%-80% of Voc at a given insolation level. For best output people use MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracking) - a fascinating subject in its own right. Simplistically you can just dither the panel load and observe the slope of the voltage / current curve and drive it in the direction required to maximise load current. There are about 3 zillion patents related to 'improvements' to that basic technique. Russell

>> In a cloudy area, mirrors can be used (carefully) to >> increase the >> concentration of sunlight while not exceeding the ratings >> on the panels. > I'm under the impression the limiting factor is > temperature rather than > anything else, IE you could put 4x the sunlight onto your > cells with > mirrors if you water cool them back below around 60C. > (which wont use > that much energy really) "Concentrator" cells are commonly run at many suns. Cooling is a major issue. A coating that stands the energy flux also helps. Standard panel output drops quite noticeably with temperature. I found that I could get 10% plus more output from a real world panel by running a thin film of cooling water over the top surface while operating. Properly designed I decided the flow rate could be quite acceptable if water was not scarce. Also by "washing a panel to cool it down and then watching the output you clearly see the change. And it's in all good spec sheets but not noticed by many people. Note that performance specs are given at 25C or 20C and never at 50C :-). Substantial rear fin / air cooling of a panel may help substantially. A variable mirror arrangement could improve panel output very substantially at off peak sun periods - either cloud cover or end of days. With no cooling I could get polycrystalline small panels to 150% to 200% output with 1 or 2 low cost mirrors each equal to the panel area. Gain is as much about getting the light spread evenly as about level. A PV cell's on resistance drops dramatically under illumination. Shadow a single cell and the whole panels output drops to a small percentage of total. eg a tree branch shadow across the edge of a panel reduce output to say 5%-10% of expected. Forward diodes across each cell help prevent this. Similarly, when adding mirrors, if the illumination does not cover all cells then the gains will be much lower than expected or even almost nonexistent. In fact, if you add heat you may reduce total output. My tests show that pointing a panel at a blue sky on a sunny day but without sun input is vastly superior to pointing at even bright sunlit items. I haven't tried this, but concentrator mirroring a bright sky with a large low grade mirror may be useful as the sky extends semi-infinitely as opposed to the sun which is of finite size. While panels which do not day track usually have minimal losses and even lack of season tracking is not too too bad, mirrors will probably require tracking for direct sun concentration. Energy needs for this need not be overly large by arrangements can get cumbersome. For very small panels a controlled mirror concentrator should be able to be implemented at low cost. Russell McMahon

Russell, On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:10:19 +1300, Apptech wrote: I'd said: {Quote hidden}>> I just had a look at my experimental panels on the roof or > > my shed which is > > at 90 degrees to the house, so better angled, at about 215 > > degrees. > > Theoretically the > > panels are 4 x 15W, so 60Wp. With the Sun around 20 > > degrees off line and > > about 30 degrees off pitch, I'm seeing no more than about > > 10W at best! When > > the Sun > > goes behind a cloud, it drops to zero. >... > > Are you measuring optimum power or power into a battery. I've been measuring input to the batteries - anything else really doesn't matter! :-) > Maximum power point varies with insolation (sunlevel) and is > often not optimum for a battery load. > As a rough rule of thumb maximum power occurs when Vloaded > ~= 75%-80% of Voc at a given insolation level. For best > output people use MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracking) - a > fascinating subject in its own right. Yes, I have an MPPT controller, and I'm measuring what goes from that into the battery. I was surprised to find that it doesn't give a constant output, but wanders up and down over a few seconds, anything from zero to the maximum at the time, probably with an average of avout 50% of maximum (but that's just a feeling from watching it). This is with a decently clear Sun-view. When the insolation is low-ish, it actually cuts out and in every few seconds (you can hear a relay) so I assume it's storing the energy in a capacitor and then letting it go in a burst. Before I had the MPPT controller I tried it "naked", straight from panels to batteries, and with a cheap PWM controller, and in both cases the performance was rather a lot worse than it is now. Interestingly, the PWM controller didn't seem to contribute to efficiency at all, just provided reverse-voltage prevention and overcharge cutout. Since the panels are theoretically 60W (so a max. of 2.5A @24V) and I was connecting to 165Ah batteries, the overcharge problem wasn't a worry, and the panels have their own reverse-prevention diodes, so that controller was effectively useless. > Simplistically you can > just dither the panel load and observe the slope of the > voltage / current curve and drive it in the direction > required to maximise load current. There are about 3 zillion > patents related to 'improvements' to that basic technique. Indeed! I don't know which technique this one uses, but it's a MPPT500 from BZ Products in the USA. I can't help thinking that the solution is just to get lots of area of panels up, but that's also the problem - the cost is still frightening. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

Apptech wrote: >> I still think mirrors are a good thing to try; especially >> in a colder, >> cloudier, climate. They are cheap, the mounts can be >> bodged together from >> available junk and they not only increase output during >> the day, they also >> extend the day over a larger range of solar angles. >> > > Mirrors are good and can be cost effective *BUT* you have to > ensure that you don't damage your panels at peak sun > periods. You probably want to monitor panel temperature and > remove, reduce or control 'mirror-turbo' when temperature > reaches a maximum value. > > > > Russell > Assuming you have the temperature in check how many suns can a "generic" panel take? 10 suns (with a goodly amount of water cooling) would be rather nice in terms of making cheap solar (I like the idea of a parabolic mirror dish on the roof ;->)