Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

Question For Bohica On PV Solar Pages: 12

JJM on Fri April 27, 2007 6:44 PM User is offline

Bohica,

Would you have your exceptionally well written "executive summary" on PV solar cells handy, illustrating how they're really not green at all, as well as the associated links for reference? That eye opening information was truly outstanding, and was something even I never realized. I appreciate your enlightening me!

I've been trying to find that post without success, so if you have all that information readily available, I would appreciate your posting it again. I'd like to have it available for reference (should be required reading for everybody). Nobody explained it better than you!

Thanks buddy!

Joe

NickD on Fri April 27, 2007 7:52 PM User is offline

It was recognized early in the 70's that silicon photovoltaic cells would never be economical or even close to competitive with grid electricity. Was proposed back then that an amorphous or a printed silicon cell be developed, check out this link.


NanoSolar Technology

Energy crisis was over, price of gas doubled, but everyone got use to paying 65-70 cents per gallon, and interest was lost. The NanoSolar technology promises to be competitive with grid electricity cost. Nuclear fusion really holds the key where one gallon of sea water can power your cars for years, just a question of doing it. But we have a congress bought and paid for by the oil companies, just like in the 70's where all these programs were killed by congress. Have to wait until the oil sources run dry or become super expensive to do stuff.

bohica2xo on Sat April 28, 2007 4:43 AM User is offline

Joe:

Did you mean this -

Ah, the circular "carbon" argument. The mainstay of the birkenstock crowd, they seem to think we are "making carbon".

The quantity of carbon on this planet remains unchanged - save for several tons of junk we have managed to fling beyond the gravitational field of this ball of mud in the past 40 years or so.

The "carbon" we are liberating from fossil fuels was biomass before it was fuel. Before that? we can only speculate, but it was still carbon. Turn it into high carbon steel, or cane sugar - it is still just carbon. Carbon dioxide from fuel I burned this morning is becoming biomass in a palm tree right now.

If you could pry the tree huggers off of the trees, and actually educate them it might provide positive change. Thanks to NOT exploiting our forest resources, we have accumulated thick forests with a high "fuel load" as the USFS describes it. Now when it burns an astronomical amount of carbon is liberated - without recovering a single watt of energy from it.

If the tree huggers wanted to DO something to actually help sequester carbon, they would promote the use of forest products. A wood stud stays in a wall for decades. Steel studs require coal to produce the steel, and zinc galvanizing for corrosion control. They should actively promote wood building products, and forest MANAGMENT. The biggest renewable resource in the country is held hostage by a bunch of extremists.


And, since we are on the subject of renewable resources (and whack-job "science") Let's touch on Photo Voltaics, or PV.

Solar cells are WORTHLESS. They have a negative output. It takes FIVE GIGAJOULES of energy to manufacture a square metre of silicon PV cells. Any PV cell made today is unlikely to last long enough to offset the initial cost in energy to make the damn thing. A loss, plain & simple. That figure by the way does NOT take into account the energy consumed once the cells leave the plant - to mount them, wire them (and make the copper wire), or transport them to the installation destination. ARCO Solar had fields of PV's decades ago in the desert. They abandoned them because they DO NOT WORK. It was not some giant scheme to deny you cheap power. ARCO would have gladly jumped into the electric biz to line their pockets if there was a profit to be had.

Most solar proponents have systems with batteries, but I won't bore you with how much energy it takes to make a battery.

Some places, like the people's republic of california have persued socialist schemes where they use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of a PV installation. Even with a 50% cost reduction, the PV system is a break even in about 20 years - if the equipment lasts that long. But it still burned more power than it will ever make, before the panels got put in a box.


Back to the topic of this thread.

I don't vent refrigerant, because that is the law. I do use keyboard dusters, and cold shot cans, just as the label describes. I think the local Fry's Electronics sells more 134a in a week than all of the auto parts stores in this county combined.
----------------


Here is the link to the original thread:

http://www.autoacforum.com/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=16087&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=2

The footnotes are a bit farther down from that post, right after graeme called me a liar...

Have fun

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Sat April 28, 2007 8:38 AM User is offline

My wife is amazed at the vastness of the US, especially when we go for long drives through forest lands and see nothing except trees, thinks our 55 mph speed limit is ridiculous, none of us can argue that.

The energy to produce these forests comes from the sun, no where else, how much energy to we get from the sun? Not very much, if we were to build a sphere with a 186 million mile diameter, we could capture most of it, but with our roughly at most, 8,000 diameter like a disk in space, we can only intercept about 1.89 X 10^-9 of it, but only a small portion of it at that as only a small portion of the curved earth surface is perpendicular to the rays of the sun at any given time. But the sun is still the major source of energy on earth, it grows our forest and our food we need for survival and provides us with heat. Man has learned to live with just the power of the sun for thousands of years, was just recently we started digging holes to use what other sources of energy the earth has. Solar power for over a known 10,000 years has powered the ships with wind power, they didn't have to fill the tank before taking off on a very long journey.

Also have to comment to my wife, mile after mile after mile of nothing that every square centimeter of this land we are passing is accounted for, somebody owns it, we just can't stop where we please and build a home like the pioneers did 100-150 years ago. Still thousands of example of homes with a field stone foundation, and all wood construction build from materials from the land and lots of hard work. They did survive quite a long time without electricity, in many areas, electrification is very recent, the Amish are buying many farms with the first move of unplugging them from the grid, they are surviving.

I showed my wife the abstract on our insignificant 105 by 130 foot piece of land our city values at $56,000.00 for property tax purposes, we only own the surface rights to this land, the government owns are the mineral rights to it. Same as our current energy supplies, somebody already owns it and can charge whatever they please for that energy, as somebody already owns all that land we see driving mile after mile. Land and it's mineral rights can be owned, isn't it about time someone figures out how to own the energy from the sun? Still our key source of energy. Fighting over land rights is as old as history.

Can argue the fact that there is 1-2 kw of sun energy on every square meter on the surface of the earth where the sun heats it. The entire purpose of this site is counter the effects of the sun, there is plenty of energy there. The photovoltaic characteristic of a silicon diode is well known from the very start of this device that was introduced in the early 60's commercially, but it never was a good converter of light into electrical energy, only a small fraction of that diode junction is used. In like manner, you can fill an AC system with air and get some cooling, the air is compressed that expels heat through a condenser, and permitted to expand in the evaporator to get some cooling, doesn't work worth a damn, but like the silicon diode, does work.

Nano technology will change all that, silicon crystals a mere nano thickness as the vast majority exposed to the energy of the sun, a lot more can be done. In every part of the earth, the temperature is constantly changing during the course of the day, that change is energy in motion. Just a question of doing it, but sure somebody will figure out how to control the energy from the sun and try to own it. But will be far more difficult than trying to protect a small pool of oil that is causing global havoc.

Building machines that compete with us for our needs of the environment is stupid, we have to learn how to live with nature and not fight it, there are better ways if we can get our heads out of the sand.

bohica2xo on Sat April 28, 2007 7:24 PM User is offline

Nick:

I am familar with the thin film cells. There is a company producing flexible solar panels - in fact I own a couple of them. Quite handy while camping.

The flexible cell has a lower output per square foot than the sliced silicon units. My 6 square foot unit produces about 20 watts in full sun. I actually have been interested in PV for decades, but it has never lived up to any of the wild claims of the tree huggers.

The NanoSolar outfit you posted is a prime example. The brag about 647,000 square feet of manufacturing space (approx 60,000 square metres). Job one should be to crank out 60k M^2 of solar cells, cover the roof - and cut the cord to the grid right? Yeah right.

The energy cost to produce the copper/indium sheet for the nanosolar operation will of course not be factored into the energy used to produce the cells, since it will be delivered from the vendor (on a diesel truck) ready to use. I am sure they will come up with some twisted figure for the energy overhead, and claim energy payback in 5 years or less...


B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Sat April 28, 2007 8:31 PM User is offline

I listened to a spokesperson from Nano while I was pouring CO2 into the air on a business trip, normally I can detect BS when I hear it, this guy seemed pretty sincere. Haven't seen the specifications yet, nor the price tag. But if you say it's more BS, have to believe you and feel sorry for his investors. He claimed most of his customers were in Germany, the cloth would be produced in CA and shipped there for final assembly, framed and a protective coating. Claimed it was competitive with the cost of grid electricity.

Cost bucks to produce any kind of plant, natural gas is the cheapest to put up, but the operating cost isn't too good, since the operating cost of solar should be free, that leaves a lot of bucks for the plant and maybe they are stretching the truth a tad or maybe they have quite the right formula, but the energy potential is definitely there with solar, back to the drawing board?

bohica2xo on Sun April 29, 2007 3:30 AM User is offline

Nick:

I remain skeptical of the big claims in the PV industry. Nanosolar has raised a LOT of capital, and has a vested interest in painting a rosy picture for shareholders. Twisted data goes hand-in-hand with venture capital & startups anymore...
I once visited a vendor's facility outside of Stuttgart, unannounced. Their brochure showed a factory of many thousands of square feet - basically a city block of buildings in an aerial view. I was surprised (and not supposed to!) to find out they rented about 2500 square feet in the complex. Now, go to Nanosolar's website & click on the picture of the "german facility".

Nanosolar is going the CIGS route. Copper/Indium/Gallium/Selenide - CIGS. This requires Indium, which is not cheap or plentiful. The best guess is 2gW worth of CIGS cells would eat up 10% of the annual world production of Indium. Since this element is used in other items, a big demand will have other consequences - and jack up the price to Nanosolar as well. Currently, 70% of the indium produced goes into flat screen monitors. The best polyimide film CIGS cell currently runs about 14% effeciency.

There are other advances in the PV world as well. Higher effeciencies are a big goal, and the wide spectrum Indium/Gallium Nitride cell shows great promise. Look Here for some more info on the IGN development. Low effeciency stuff like CIGS might be OK for large areas, but for something like a home in the city you would not have enough roof to make it worth the effort.

The other problem with PV is the temperature/output curve. Here in the southwest we have lots of sun - and heat. As the PV panel gets hot, the output current crashes. Laid flat in a snowbank a PV array can post some impressive numbers. Mounted on my roof @ 160f, you do not have the same output. I can't find much data on how well (or poorly) CIGS panels do at high ambient temps.


B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Sun April 29, 2007 9:53 AM User is offline

Hmmm, going back to the old trivalent, tetravalent, pentavalent list of elements that were studied extensively in the late 50's and early 60's. Chicago had the lead in this field years ago, was interesting work, can't recall the reason, but most of it moved to CA. I decided to stay in the midwest and had to move toward final product work in the semiconductor area. Energy cost to produce a semiconductor wasn't even considered back then, we were replaced a two buck vacuum tube with a 2 cent transistor. Wondered many times why I chose electronics, every year, the product cost had to come down where mechanical engineering, the price went up with inflation. Dealt mostly with ASIC's the last twenty years where the size of the transistor has decreased by of a factor of well over 50! That really knocked the price down, the price of a transistor today is insignificant compared to what it was in none-inflated dollars compared to the early 60's.

It's very difficult today to separate actual energy costs from politics, made the comment to my wife, I should have topped off the 108 gallon tank in our motorhome before the last electron when it was $1.89 per gallon, now it's back over three bucks a gallon. Always felt I was far technically superior to my kid brother, also an electronic engineer, but he is a lot smarter than me. Years ago, he switched from being a stock holder pleaser to a stock holder and has quite a bit of cash stashed away. He stays at home and spends about 4-6 hours a day studying the markets then does whatever makes him happy. Always got way over involved in engineering and never paid much attention to what was going on, will never learn, my job is in China today.

But looking no further than my front door, the cost of electricity has only gone up about 330% in the last 40 years, the price of heating fuel has gone up over 1700%! So is electrical generation a problem? No lessons were learned during the energy crisis, still have some dome homes and underground homes around here, go down six feet and the temperature remains at a constant 55*F but well below zero on the surface. My home is more conservative in the ratio of exterior wall surface to interior volume, closer to a square than to a rectangle, can't visualize living in a hole or inside a ball. But all these new story book homes built in the last twenty years threw logic out the window with extensions, dormers, protrusions, learned their heating bills are 2-3 times as much as mine with just a little bit more square footage inside. Their taxes are also at the same ratio probably explaining why it is estimated that over 2 million families will lose their homes this year due to foreclosures. Crazy designs, foyers and hallways larger than the living room, bathrooms twice the size of bedrooms, more of a show place than a home. But feel these homes are creating a demand for more natural gas increasing the price.

Recalling about 40 years ago, average heating bills were around $11.00 per month, electrical bills were almost that much, around 8-9 bucks per month. Ha, we were getting screwed on electrical where home generation would have been cheaper than the grid, but had more important things to think about, like bigger cars, boats, and airplanes. Today, my electrical bills average 40-50 bucks per month, but paying over an average of 220 bucks per month for heating. In my case, heating is the problem. Perhaps different down south where AC bills are astronomical. But someone is watching the BTU energy levels of both and they are pretty close on the billing.

I did purchase a on demand tankless hot water heater as I am constantly hearing my gas heater cycling on and off, even though no one is using hot water, but the darn thing is still in the box, always another project comes up. My son has a PVC piped gas heater with an electric fan on it with a check valve and an expansion tank so he is not heating the city water supply. Did fight a little with my city hall, about mounting this in the basement, but why can't I run that PVC pipe up a couple of feet so snow doesn't block it? My dryer vent is only a couple of feet above the ground, but no snow there, the heat of the dryer melts it. Always city problems.

Did look into geothermal heat pumps, out of the question in the city, only choice is to drill two wells one for intake, the other to expel the water back into the ground, but very illegal here, not enough space to bury PVC pipe like they are doing out in the country. Did start looking into conventional heat pumps, but with natural gas as a backup, wrote off to a number of companies to attempt to learn about the efficiencies, but received BS marketing literature, haven't got back to that yet. Still have a lot of 20*F days and figure if I did all the work myself and found the best prices, may have a good payback.

Other solution is just to get the hell out of here, read that Panama City is the best place to retire and they will send my SS check to that place, but the home prices are pretty steep down there and didn't learn anything about energy costs. Venezuela, where my wife is from is very attractive, AC and HVAC are entirely new to her, they don't need either cooling nor heating, but Chavez puts a very strong dent into that line of thinking.

Still feel we are probing around in the dark with energy, but energy cost is becoming a huge portion of the yearly income and 99% of what we hear is BS. At the same time, there is more energy in the universe than matter, so there has to be a better way, maybe something can be done about it in the back shed instead of a huge complex, food for thought.

graeme on Tue May 01, 2007 8:46 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: bohica2xo
Joe:







Here is the link to the original thread:



http://www.autoacforum.com/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=16087&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=2



The footnotes are a bit farther down from that post, right after graeme called me a liar...




Did I? Asked for some clue as to where your info came from......sent an email at the time to your reference......never got any reply.
My own source here, quotes that a solar panel installed on a roof in Australia will generate the energy needed to cover all aspects of its manufacture, development in 1-2 years depending on latitude. However, cost wise such a panel wont break even for 10-15 years with Australian pricing of coal based electricity and panels.

JJM on Tue May 01, 2007 6:25 PM User is offline

Yes Bohica, that is the one! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! EXCELLENT reserach!

The stuff about the trees is interesting too.

Speaking of tress, hasn't it been proven in recent years that photosynthesis occurs only in young, rapidly growing trees, and that older trees like those found in rainforests actually produce rather than consume CO2 - sort of a reverse photosynthesis? In other words, trees actually increase to pollution. Of course, this doesn't reconcile with the green agenda, so we really don't hear too much about it.

Joe

bohica2xo on Wed May 02, 2007 3:39 AM User is offline

Joe:

You are welcome.


Graeme:

You did in fact accuse me. Since your memory is so short:

"or did you just throw it in thinking no one would question it"

I doubt your e-mails went unanswered, you probably did not get the reply you wanted.

If there was a single nickel to be made in PV energy, the big energy companies would be all over it like stink on hippies. It is a loser. ARCO, a huge oil company spent millions out on the Carrizo Plain from 1983 to 1994, trying to make it work. They had 400,000 square feet of modules (100,000 1x4 units) augmented with mirrors & tracking equipment. The peak output was projected to be over 5 megawatts. It operated at a LOSS of 6 to 8 cents per KwH, until it closed. ARCO would have made a fortune selling the sun to us, if it was possible. The company that bought the salvage panels when the facility was dismantled, found that many panels were already near the end of their life - after 10 years of use. The solar concentrators (mirrors) took a heavy toll on the assemblies. It took concentrators, and tracking devices to reach 13 watts per square foot. Not commercially viable.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Wed May 02, 2007 6:07 AM User is offline

Solar energy worked quite well in that James Bond 007 movie, The Man With the Golden Gun. All you need is a special chip worth killing for, a means to store liquid nitrogen in an open pool for superconductors, and a sun tower that comes out of a rock when you push a button. So I guess it depends upon which source you use to determine the success of solar power.

It did have faults, however, if the body heat of a man fell into the exposed liquid nitrogen, the whole thing would explode like a oil refinery, huge gasoline flames and all. Wonder where all the gasoline came from?

ARCO sure rang a bell, a local company had a contract to build inverters for them and wanted me as both an investment and engineering partner, didn't sound very good to me, so bypassed it. Was a good decision as that company went bankrupt.

Forget to mention, for a proposed home system, was another expense for battery storage, plus another overall 43% loss of the already weak solar power for battery charging and conversion of DC to AC, just didn't seem like a viable system, but didn't stop them from trying.

Edited: Wed May 02, 2007 at 8:11 AM by NickD

JJM on Wed May 02, 2007 11:57 PM User is offline

Bohica,

Your knowledge of large scale industrial processes never ceases to amaze me... whether it's HVAC, power generation, or virtually any other large scale industrial processes, you seem to posses an acute understanding of them. If you don't mind me asking, what is your professional background or training in this area? An industrial engineer? Mechanical engineer? Or simply a highly learned enthusiast?

Never ceases to amaze me the group of outstanding folks that gravitates towards this forum!

Joe

graeme on Thu May 03, 2007 6:42 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: bohica2xo
Joe:



You are welcome.





Graeme:



You did in fact accuse me. Since your memory is so short:



"or did you just throw it in thinking no one would question it"



I doubt your e-mails went unanswered, you probably did not get the reply you wanted.



If there was a single nickel to be made in PV energy, the big energy companies would be all over it like stink on hippies. It is a loser. ARCO, a huge oil company spent millions out on the Carrizo Plain from 1983 to 1994, trying to make it work. They had 400,000 square feet of modules (100,000 1x4 units) augmented with mirrors & tracking equipment. The peak output was projected to be over 5 megawatts. It operated at a LOSS of 6 to 8 cents per KwH, until it closed. ARCO would have made a fortune selling the sun to us, if it was possible. The company that bought the salvage panels when the facility was dismantled, found that many panels were already near the end of their life - after 10 years of use. The solar concentrators (mirrors) took a heavy toll on the assemblies. It took concentrators, and tracking devices to reach 13 watts per square foot. Not commercially viable.
.
I dont see what relevance the above has got to do with your claims that a solar cell will never produce more energy than it took to manufacture etc...........all that it highlights is that it could not compete with coal? on a cost basis over a decade ago(what can?)..........Im still to see any evidence of your claims.
Personally I dont see solar cells as the way to go for large scale electricity generation either. Solar energy used directly to heat fluid and drive a turbine is a far more efficient and less costly process to generate electricity....large scale plants are already being developed in Australia on a trial basis.

NickD on Thu May 03, 2007 4:22 PM User is offline

Quote
Solar energy used directly to heat fluid and drive a turbine...

Kind of been doing that for a long time now, solar energy converts sea water into moisture, wind blows that over cool mountain ranges, it rains, fills valleys with water, dammed, drive a turbine to turn a generator. Understand it works quite well.

Another is moon energy affecting ocean tides, but that breakwater to trap the tides would affect the view, can't have that.

bohica2xo on Thu May 03, 2007 5:02 PM User is offline

Joe:

My CV is rather long... I did a 4 year apprentichip as a Tool & Die Maker when I was just a kid. My degree says Metallurgy, but that was just a start in the field of failure ananysis. I moved into Facilities Engineering / Facilities Managment... I own a lot of "hats". My last business card said "Director of New Product Development"

Probably one of the reasons the eco-mafia / smelly hippie crowd pisses me off so much. They can't even manage a system as large as the swimming pool in the back yard without help - yet they beileve they can troubleshoot & manage a system as large as a planet. I have spent plenty of time around large scale systems, fully realizing that any one of them was several orders of magnitude smaller than even one ocean on this planet.

The next time I am in NY, we should sit down with a cup of coffee.

B.


Nick:

Yes, nothing said big oil like the name ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Oil Company) back then. Everyone in the southwest was keenly aware of ARCO's efforts to harness the sun. Many people invested heavily too. Tag lines like "Electricity so abundant, there will be no need for a meter" Yeah right. I am glad to hear you did not get burned on that one. There is a place for PV, but it is not making grid power...

B.

Graeme:

Now that is just plain funny. I provided source for my statements. You are still whining like a third grader because the data will not fit your preconcieved notions. PV solar's number ONE cost of production is energy. ARCO was manufacturing the panels themselves, so they had a fair idea of the COP. After 10 years, they were seeing panels die. It did not take much calculation to see that the energy used for production would never come back to them.

Now for the funny part. The aussies are JUST NOW looking at Solar Thermal? BWAHAHAHAHA We have had functioning, grid connected, ECONOMICALLY VIABLE thermal solar for more than 20 years here in the southwest. There are multiple facilities that have more than 20 years online. Here is a link to one I have been driving by for decades: Kramer Junction Thermal Solar Plant

Thermal solar works. Half the homes in my neighborhood have solar pool heat. Yet you still want to beat the drum for PV? LOL.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Thu May 03, 2007 5:24 PM User is offline

Amazing about the relationship between heat and mechanical energy, one BTU, the amount of heat it takes to raise one pound of water 1*F is equivalent to lifting 778.1693 pounds one foot up. That sounds pretty good.

What doesn't sound good is lifting 778.1693 pounds 90 feet just to make a single cup of coffee. Think of how much energy we could save by drinking cold coffee! Yuk!

graeme on Sun May 06, 2007 10:17 PM User is offline

Quote
Yet you still want to beat the drum for PV? LOL.

Perhaps you didnt read my last post properly.......and what is with all this bully boy LOL stuff.....people that dont agree with you are tree loving smelly hippies etc.......yes, I understand it is acceptable to the moderator of this forum.....

TRB on Sun May 06, 2007 11:38 PM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: graeme
Quote
Yet you still want to beat the drum for PV? LOL.



Perhaps you didnt read my last post properly.......and what is with all this bully boy LOL stuff.....people that dont agree with you are tree loving smelly hippies etc.......yes, I understand it is acceptable to the moderator of this forum.....

For someone that complains so much about this forum. You seem to keep coming back. I don't read every post and will not edit every post to suit your or anyones needs. So if you want to discuss stuff with the others. Quit crying so much about the others and debate your points. I have let posts go on both sides so again deal with it!

But everyone please speak freely and keep the personal attacks to a minimum! Our forum is open to all and we don't want it end up like some of the other sites on the net.



-------------------------
When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Mon May 07, 2007 7:34 AM User is offline

Thirty years ago, our clinic had a small psychiatric department lost in a small wing of the main clinic building. Ten years ago they added a 80,000 square foot external building for this same department, doubt they did this for a tax deduction, more like a need.

At the same time, the internet was exploding, probably just a coincidence, but is giving an opportunity for the mentally disturbed people to have an outlet.

Yeah, I need treatment too, became a compulsive poster, but at least I admit I am nuts. Do not believe a mentally normal person would post something like that, perhaps treatment is in order.

graeme on Wed May 09, 2007 9:39 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: bohica2xo
Joe:

Now for the funny part. The aussies are JUST NOW looking at Solar Thermal? BWAHAHAHAHA We have had functioning, grid connected, ECONOMICALLY VIABLE thermal solar for more than 20 years here in the southwest. .
Yes we have a backward government too, takes its lead from.......
However, they haven't been able to sweep the thought of global warming under the carpet here, its just too hard to hide.......record low rains/bushfires/drought etc,failing crops/importing of common foods/ record no. of consecutive days over 20C through April/may......the list goes on.... The pollies are now getting the message loud and clear from the electorate that they want things to be ENVIRONMENTALLY viable, the electorate is just beginning to understand that you no matter how much money you have......it wont put food on the table if there is nowhere for that food to grow.
The economic viability of solar energy plants(lets not get funny with hydro schemes Nick-you need rain for that) has only ever been measured against the price of cheap fossil fuel electricity and we know the us government(and australian) is going to change that, coz red necks enacting their constitutional rights to bear arms would invade washingtion ......... with some equally smelly tree hugging hippies hostages roped up in the back of their pickups LOL.

NickD on Wed May 09, 2007 10:28 AM User is offline

If it's getting hot down there like it's getting cold up here, somebody must be screwing around with the tilt axis of the earth.

bohica2xo on Wed May 09, 2007 12:34 PM User is offline

Nah, we would not want the pickup to stink like that. we kin jus shoot the durn hippies - mebbe we kin burn 'em fer fuel? Waste to energy? Hmmm.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.