What are you trying to say , Bob ?
Printable View
What are you trying to say , Bob ?
I don't buy the Tesla being superior technology to the Volt for a few basic reasons. ONE, Car and Driver; Road and Track; and yes, even the sometimes off the chart TV show "Top Gear" have all tested the Tesla, and not ONE of them got the range Tesla claims. I humbly will have to say Tesla can say what they like, but if their car worked half as well as they claim, they wouldn't be able to build them fast enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
The truth is the electric car is barely feasible in harsher climates outside of the US south and the more temperate parts of Europe and the like. It is not efficient in how it keeps it's occupants warm/cold and since A/C, defrost or heater functions ALL are a drag on battery life. Tesla's little sports car likely would have almost NO range at all on a very cool day around these parts.
Furthermore, GM isn't stupid and isnt' filled with myopic engineers bent on keeping the Electric car down to help the petrochemical industry. On the contrary, the first car maker that truly makes a very good electric car that doesn't have electric car drawbacks for a price people can afford will find they cannot build them fast enough. The market is wanting a truly real car powered by electricity. Toyota's Prius and now the Volt and Nissan Leaf are the best efforts so far. The auto industry is so fierce right now, there is every incentive in the WORLD to create a truly useful electric car.
If I hear one more story of how stupid GM is over the EV 1 is, I will scream. The car didn't work. People who took them were practically begging GM to take the cars back once summer came. No A/C was the story and the cars were used in So Cal and Arizona. Think about driving one of those fish bowls in that heat with No A/C. Totally useless.....
GM lost their shirt on that deal, and GM doesn't do things like that to lose money. They wanted to work. The technology was not ready. They are a lot closer with the Volt.....but it truly isn't really an electric car in the traditional sense either. The technology doesn't not give the modern electric car the range it needs to be anything more than an urban toy. Well cars are far too expensive to only be one trick ponies, hence the slow sales and demand.
The Green's are not in power, but the idea that we all must be GREEN and the GREEN economy is driving a lot of policy on the surface. One only has to look at the billions that idiot running Ontario is going to spend on GREEN, and the reality is, it is in the form of large wind farms run by multinational's making a fortune off the naive idiot paying 5 to 10 times the going rate for power for them to produce. The loser is the consumer in Ontario who is also the taxpayer subsidizing the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Small scale house by house green efforts would make SO much more sense. Bagwan is going "off the grid" for power, and the government and the huge power producers are scared of it. They cant make money off Bagwan and anyone else who does this. Cant have people having independence or freedom....
It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard. Most of the opposition is either ill informed, or willingfully twisting things to their point of view for their political agenda. The few intelligent and skeptical people who participate in the process often are lost in the shuffle. All of these people have the right to question things, the right to protest and within reason, participate in the process (chaining oneself to a table in the EA hearing room screaming at the people to stop the plant isn't participating, but Greenpeace doesn't believe it). No, it isn't the opposition that makes these plants safe, it is common sense, and the the cool reality that most politicians when helping strike legislation to help regulate the nuclear industry are doing so with the best interests of society at heart. Naive assumption I am making there I am sure, but I do think on some level, no political party in this country would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to any industry that could wreak the havoc a nuclear accident can. However, as I said, the people running the plants are not suicidal and they are not stupid.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
The Green's are not in power, but the idea that we all must be GREEN and the GREEN economy is driving a lot of policy on the surface. One only has to look at the billions that idiot running Ontario is going to spend on GREEN, and the reality is, it is in the form of large wind farms run by multinational's making a fortune off the naive idiot paying 5 to 10 times the going rate for power for them to produce. The loser is the consumer in Ontario who is also the taxpayer subsidizing the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Small scale house by house green efforts would make SO much more sense. Bagwan is going "off the grid" for power, and the government and the huge power producers are scared of it. They cant make money off Bagwan and anyone else who does this. Cant have people having independence or freedom....
It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard. Most of the opposition is either ill informed, or willingfully twisting things to their point of view for their political agenda. The few intelligent and skeptical people who participate in the process often are lost in the shuffle. All of these people have the right to question things, the right to protest and within reason, participate in the process (chaining oneself to a table in the EA hearing room screaming at the people to stop the plant isn't participating, but Greenpeace doesn't believe it). No, it isn't the opposition that makes these plants safe, it is common sense, and the the cool reality that most politicians when helping strike legislation to help regulate the nuclear industry are doing so with the best interests of society at heart. Naive assumption I am making there I am sure, but I do think on some level, no political party in this country would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to any industry that could wreak the havoc a nuclear accident can. However, as I said, the people running the plants are not suicidal and they are not stupid.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
The greens don't even get a seat at the debate . Sad .
We had the turbines first .
Now , we have Microfit panels all over .
So , they've screwed with wind , pitting neighbour on neighbour , municipality against province , and the public for and against it .
And , now , I drive down to the local dairy and see about 15 solar set-ups on the way .
Not one is allowed to use the power , even if the grid goes down .
Those set-ups cost between $75 and $125 k , when 2.8kw can be had for about $20k , and I'll never pay again .
Twas and is still a no-brainer , even for me .
By the way , how much was that bridge , if you don't mind me askin ?
I think its naive in the extreme to believe that those reactors were designed by the local community and that safety standards will be strictly adhered to merely because the people who commission and work in the reactor live next to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Human nature is universal. There is a long list of industries, not just nuclear, that are happy to pollute and destroy the same region that those who own, manage and work in them are drawn, endangering lives of their own kin if it means that a quick buck can be made.
There are plenty of nuclear reactors in the former Warsaw Pact located very close to major cities which are built to standards that would not have been acceptable at any point in the West, yet they were commissioned by people who by Canadian standards live next door to them. According to your theory that wouldn't have happened.
A review of the root causes of why Chernobyl ended up being built with known design flaws that eventually lead to the disaster there might be useful. You might be interested to know that the local Ukrainian administration pushed for the reactor to be built against the advice of engineers sent from Moscow who recommended a fundamental redesign in order for it to be safe. The latter were overruled by the locals who were more interested in getting awards for bringing the project in on time and on budget. So much for the local community not willingly building a time bomb in their own back yard.
While I am a strong advocate of nuclear power I am under no illusions whatsoever that their design, construction and even location need to be scrutinised long and hard by independent bodies. In an open society the drive to have that degree of scrutinisation often comes from the anti-nuclear body and I'm all for it. If that means that nuclear reactors have a long lead time, might be cancelled due to re-reviews and generally end up very expensive because of all the safety features required by governing bodies then thats a price worth paying.
I am not worried about the safety of nuclear reactors in democratic open societies where there are strong social and political pressures to ensure safety. My concern is with opaque unaccountable societies such as China and Russia where there is also a strong element of corruption at work, which are also the countries that happen to be building the largest number of new reactors.
Exactly. The two cars are very different. The Tesla has three times the battery capacity than the Volt and is about a third lighter. Also the Tesla is purely electric whereas the Volt is a hybrid (despite the GM blurb) and therefore doesn't rely purely on its battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstgear
The Tesla also won't reach anywhere near 300 miles when driven at supercar speeds, just as supercars won't get anywhere near their official economy figures when driven as they are designed to be.
That said both are important in different ways, the Tesla as a technology innovator with new software to manage the batteries better (which is the biggest single problem electric car designers face when trying to improve economy) whilst the Volt brings a new angle to the hybrid market.
The people who use the farce name "green" taut batteries as "green", well that article makes getting the components for the "green" batteries far more destructive than all the carbon bs yet spewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise.
--------------------------------
http://thecontrail.com/profiles/blog...he-ozone-scare
Here is another turd on the greenie plate:
By Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons)
Political Analyst
23rd August 1999
As with Greenhouse Effect, the Ozone Hole scare has been a victim of political and corporate interests, media bias and pseudoscience. Again, the media has left many of us in the dark, recycling lies and half-truths while giving rise to unwarranted alarm.
No doubt, many readers will be familiar with the theory of CFCs obliterating the ozone layer. However, as we will see later, this theory rapidly crumbles when we separate science from political deception. The ozone depletion theory originated from Mario Molina in December 1973 despite that Molina knew nothing about the stratosphere or stratospheric chemistry; his expertise was in chemical lasers[1]. Molina came to Sherwood Rowland, another scientist with no expertise in stratospheric chemistry and they worked together producing what scientists commonly know as Rowland and Molina's Theory[2]. The theory assumed CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks[3]. They assumed ultraviolet radiation breaks up CFCs in the stratosphere whereby freeing a chlorine atom. The theory goes on to assume this chlorine reacts with ozone producing diatomic oxygen and a highly reactive compound, chlorine monoxide. Molina predicted the chlorine monoxide would break up, thus setting up a catalytic chain reaction destroying between 20 and 40 percent of the ozone layer[4]. The chemical reactions as hypothesised by Molina can be seen below for the common refrigerant CFC-12.
CCl2F2 + ultraviolet radiation ----> Cl + CClF2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Unfortunately, many environmentalists conveniently omit scientific evidence that does not fit their perceived vision of environmental cataclysm. Firstly, the chance of many CFCs finding their way up to the stratosphere is very remote considering CFCs, depending on which compound is being measured, are four to eight times heavier than air[5]. Secondly, it is only natural for ozone levels to oscillate in the stratosphere; they are simply a function of the solar sunspot cycle[6]. Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s[7]. However, the Ozone Trends Panel's starting date was chosen at 1969 when ozone levels were at a peak[8]. This deceptive graphical plot hides the fact that back in 1962 there was also an "ozone hole."[9] It is also a curiosity that the ozone hole forms over Antarctica, when in fact most CFCs are emitted from the Northern Hemisphere.
Norwegian scientists Søren Larsen and Thormod Henriksen have analysed the Arctic ozone layer back to the year 1935 and conclude:[10]
"The data from long-term ozone measurements reveal periods of several years with a negative trend [decrease] and other periods with a positive trend [increase]. The combined results up to 1989 give no evidence for a long-term negative trend of the Arctic ozone layer...."[11]
http://www.sunsmart.com.au/about_us/...ts_at_a_glanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Skin cancers account for about 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year in Australia. Each year, Australians are 4 times more likely to develop a common skin cancer than any other form of cancer
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/sk...ntent/fact-2#5
Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common cancers diagnosed in Australia, with approximately 430,000 new cases estimated to have been diagnosed in 2008
Those rates according to the ABS Book of Statistics have been steadily on the rise on a per 100,000 basis since 1965.
I note that Jeremy Beck is a Political Analyst and as such, has probably been commissioned to write this piece by a lobby group.
I also note this "Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s". Really? When did the first satellites go up? The truth is that there were zero satellites above the atmosphere montoring anything until at least 1957, and specifically the Nimbus satellites were the first to go up in 1964.
Halogens do destroy ozone. You can prove it in a lab. The article you've linked to is so worthless as to be laughable.
Yes, they have stuffed rats with sugar till it was linked to cancer also, such laboratory results are as worthless as you the article is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The Chicken-Little types have been exposed as the self-righteous scam artists they are.
One can only hope the general populace finds this information as today's educators are part of the Chicken-Little society.
There is no proof, just opinions based on egos.
Yes, they have stuffed rats with sugar till it was linked to cancer also, such laboratory results are as worthless as you the article is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The Chicken-Little types have been exposed as the self-righteous scam artists they are.
One can only hope the general populace finds this information as today's educators are part of the Chicken-Little society.
There is no proof, just opinions based on egos.
-----------
As for the skin cancer; autism is increasing at a rate never seen before, that must be caused by too much sunlight also.
Care to provide a link to this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
From Time magazine:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
One in a hundred American children has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). That stunning new statistic was released on Monday by the Federal Government, officially revising the 2007 federal estimate of 1 in 150 children. The new number puts U.S. prevalence on par with reported rates in England, Japan, Sweden and Canada. It is based on two separate and very different government-funded research studies: a telephone survey of 78,037 parents by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and a rigorous national surveillance study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In an unusual show of attention and concern, top officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health and the CDC held a press conference on Oct. 2 in which they attempted to explain the new numbers, allay concerns and assure the public that substantial government resources are being devoted to understanding autism
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...#ixzz1JwQfQT6o
Of course if you do not like the source you ignore it.
I don't doubt either the claim that Autism is on the rise, or the source.
I do doubt this claim:
Autism related to "too much sunlight"? That's patently absurd and a non-sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
There is a great deal of evidence that causally links increased UV to incidence of skin-cancer though.
Priceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
We as well as Canada probably have enough rivers to sustain electric power. So battery technology will take us from the fossil fuels to the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Hilarious!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Why is it then that autism rates are higher the further you go from the equator then, in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia and is practically non-existent in the sunniest countries? Also explain why autism is highest in the offspring of those who spend the least time outdoors, specifically those who work in technical fields such as computing and lowest in those who expose themselves to the most sunlight like manual workers and farmers?
You thought that was a serious statement-- well liberals often miss the boat--bada BOOm !Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
It made as much sense as the rest of the 'scientific' stuff you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
You're clearly in the wrong trade Bob, you've got a natural talent for comedy.
Much in the same way as Geoffrey Howe did I suppose...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
"The people who use the farce name "green" taut batteries as "green", well that article makes getting the components for the "green" batteries far more destructive than all the carbon bs yet spewed.
Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise."
There will be trade-offs for sustainability , Bob .
New , more efficient means of extraction will come with more money in . It's how it works .
It's fine to slag lithium as an element in sustainability for it's effect on the local environment , but do we not need to actually compare it to the other methods we now employ .
I've seen big coal pits , and some are on fire , underground .
I've seen the oil patch , and it's not pretty either .
I've seen pics of strip mines where they get the raw material for reactors .
Even a silicon mine for panels isn't a pretty sight , I've read .
The battery is in the centre of this whole affair .
The one who gets it right first will be king .
All of our power comes from the sun .
I'm hoping that , when it comes time to replace my lead acid bank , lithium , or some other breakthrough , will make it both cheaper and more long lasting .
No it shows that your thought processes may be processed in the vicinity of a different pair of cheeks than most people, except possibly the politically connected persons of the supposed science arena.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Of course if times are tough they could always work as rodeo clowns.
Coal is low priced, oil is low priced. Profit is high. There is no other systems which offer similar profit margins; therefore the money is not there unless extorted from the tax-payers by draconian governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
You are in Canada; therefore you should know the foolishness of relyig on batteries in any cold climate. If a separate system is needed of heating the passengers, then the battery is a farce.
I often go to farm shows and admire the old 18v systems that were used where power lines were not available, a few still use them, or at least did a decade or so ago, as they have them and a windmill (not the ugily huge ones) to charge the batteries, but they are as dependent on a permanent power source as all the new one being pushed by hardware stores.
ON a side note, when I drive in the country and see the old wind-mills unused I often think if the ones who own that property ever complain about the price of electricity they should shut their pie-holes and use that item sitting outside unused.
I have a cousin who repaired, replaced, the blades. Not cheap but cheaper than the new ones.
How good of you Bob to reply with yet another insult, and how predictable. Remind me how I insulted you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
What's the cost of an oil spill , a rather pertinent question on the anniversary of the BP disaster ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
What's the cost of a coal mine fire ?
Do you take that into account , too ?
You're right about the cold weather being an obstacle for battery cars .
The batteries , themselves would need heating in many cases , and heat is not cheap , in terms of battery life .
At present , it'd be tough to do between the start of December and the end of March .
Tough , even with a good parka , but doable .
I'm not sure I understood your second paragraph .
How are the turbines being sold at local hardware stores dependent on a permanent power source ?
On that side note , I recently read an article in Home Power magazine that talked about all those old wind pumpers , and whether they are worth the trouble to re-vamp or re-purpose .
The gearing mechanism , while made to last , and really robust , is what goes first , because it's up there in the weather .
That's what usually kills them .
But , after many years up , it's not the only issue .
Once it has stopped spinning , and been furled , to take it "out of the wind" , you'll notice , eventually , the blades fall off .
They are held on by bolts not dissimilar to those holding all the joints in the structure , itself .
So , you can cut those "pie-holes" some slack , as , often , it's un-wise to even climb the thing , let alone expect it to still be able withstand the added drag replacing the blades or replacing the whole head would create .
Your cousin must have been working with pumpers that still had a little galvanizing left on them .
I do see a few new ones going up here and there in my travels locally , many to feed small ponds for both the esthetic and for livestock watering .
It's one of the "old ways" that I'm glad to see coming back .
The items that need a power source are the battery powered tools now common and being hyped by hard-ware stores. Oddly, but not really, to make the truly useful they would be sold with a converter so when the battery goes dead all one would have to do is plug into an outlet, but no one has ever offered that yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
More people have been killed by airbags in the past twenty years than have been killed by oil well problems, and the numbers between coal mines and air-bags are probably closer than anyone would admit.
Ban airbags.
It's not just the batteries themselves that have that issue. Even in the UK car inside of the car needs to be heated for at least 4 months of the year, with petrol/diesel engines we don't think about that because the heat comes for 'free', but with all electric that isn't the case of course. I do wonder in milage ranges for electric cars they ever factor this in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
The really weird thing about heaters generally is that usually heat is a waste product, but with a heater that is its raison d'être.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The question for any private transport is how to carry your energy supply with you, and that is why a petrol/diesel engine is so effective. Lots of power in a relatively compact package with a carryable energy supply.
If we were to swtich en masse to driving electric cars, then what would be wrong with installing overhead wires everywhere and making cars run with pantographs like trolley buses or trams?
I think I remember seeing something similar to that in the Super Mario Bros. movie.
Presumably the cost? Just look at how many railway lines in the UK still remain unelectrified, when there are relatively few railways about the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
A more sensible suggestion I've seen is fitting magnetic induction lines under the road surface of major roads so that if you are on a main road your car will be charging up as you go along, it can then use this power when you turn off onto unelectrified roads. Still, the infrastructure costs would be massive and you still have to have an alternative power source if you are travelling off-grid for longer than your charge holds.
I think you will find an electric motor will generate its fair share of heat which can be circulated around the cockpit....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I have both kinds of drill , Bob , as both have limitations .Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
11 people died in the initial explosion on the BP rig , and they are still cleaning it up .
Chemical dispersants may be worse than the oil , itself , on the marine environment .
What's the cost of that clean-up ?
What's the cost to the tourism economy when the beach was covered in tar balls and stunk like a refinery ?
What's the cost of the global shading that occurs mid-atlantic , due to the carbon particles emitted by plants on the eastern seaboard , that has seen the north of Africa without rain for the last twenty or so years ?
I do understand your cynical tone , Bob .
We have good reason to believe that we have had a serious effect on this planet , and that there will be a turning point , both economically and environmentally , when oil and coal are no longer viable .
A friend of mine recently visited Shanghai .
It had an ugly grey sky , but he saw some light in it all , if you'll pardon the pun .
On every roof was an array of solar tubes , heating water for domestic and heating use .
We went for an hour long ride on a bullet train to get to his destination , still within Shanghai , and said he never saw a roof without them .
That's progress , albeit still with a grey skyline , driven by money .
How much do you pay to heat your water ?
I paid $1,500 for my solar tubes .
That's why I mentioned my parka , Mark .Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
In winter here , where we can get -40C which is also -40F , batteries would need indoor storage , and really good insulation to be viable .
That part is doable , for sure .
Back when oil was running more freely , GM and big oil bought out most of the urban rail systems across the US . Diesel bus became the norm .Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
great post - another good reason to relocate to Costa RicaQuote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I take it you don't have a parka .Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
It'd be really easy in Santa Fe , lil cowpoke .
"That big ol' sun never loses it's poop in them parts ." my buddy , Mick used to say .
You should be able to find panels at less than a buck a watt .
That's cheaper than a three legged mule .
That is a fact but not it was more of paying off politicians to shut them down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Some one was convicted and if I remember correctly, his punishment was about equal to a parking fine.
And , it really isn't until now that we start to realize how much damage that it has done .Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
That's a lot of diesel , Bob .
In those days , hydro-electric power made the future bright , but oil still secured themselves a future in the background .
It's over $1.40/litre here right now . It's approaching $100.00 to fill the mini-van .
The Mennonites around me get 20miles/quarter bale of hay and a cup of oats . There's no heater , but if you take a half a dozen bricks , warmed on the woodstove before you leave , and lay them on the floor of the wagon , they'll keep your feet warm under the blanket over your lap .
As it happens , we can learn a few things from those folks .
I got all my solar equipment from a fellow in that community .
In Minn. hydro has always been a minor player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
My home town had a dam until two years ago, that had once powered a mill. All the major duct work was/ is still there. Now it has been turned into a glorified rapids, and the flood gate that was used has been closed so if we get a flood as big as 1965 all the water will be forced through one channel and if large ice chunks are present they will hit the bridge.
The same town has two power plants, one was steam powered but some dim-wit decided that diesel engines were better so all the steam engines were replaced with diesel and then they decided a natural gas powered turbine was better yet so the closed, but not yet dismantled the diesel site and built to turbine powered units, which they found out were too expensive so now they have to buy power.
There is no one capable of running the diesel plant as the city is run by the usual cluster-f type people so hiring people to run the diesel plant is not even being considered.
This same town once had three railroads and until the seventies one could by a ticket, on the day the last operating one ran, that would drop one off in the middle of Minneapolis, a block from the Greyhound station, but few used it. As with too may railroads in the U.S. in the eighties, closing lines was considered more profitable than improving line.
We also had a daily Greyhound bus service that died from lack of use.
3M which has one of the largest plants in my home town, built a bridge and rail-yard to use the railroad plus a new very large grain elevator was built for the farm CO-OP but the railroad made many promises that were the usual hot-air.
The city I am in right now writing this, had a hydro dam, that was closed, I think, after the '65 floods damaged it. No one wanted to spend the money, but suprisingly about ten years ago, as electricity prices were going up, some truly bright people decided it was worth the effort to rebuild it and did.
It is not a very large unit but it helps.
Unfortunately a very large much need coal plant that was to be built on the North Dakota-Minn. border was killed by people whose only connection to the area was hatred for the coal that would have reduced their cost for electricity. They did/do not give a damn that the lack of power up there is driving prices up in an area where the cost of living already is high due to remoteness, but then the liberals who helped kill it do not have the balls to go live up there where -30 F is the norm in the winter.
I own a mill , Bob .
Built in 1872 , it was a woolen mill , one of three mills in close proximity .
The other two are at the dam , and mine is the first downstream , once fed by a 36" penstock from the grist mill on my side .
When levels dropped , and my mill couldn't be supplied , they stoked up a coal fired steam boiler, which amply supplied the mill's looms and such .
They supplied the area's pioneers with tweed blankets .
And , not long after the turn of that century , they were made redundant , as cheaper goods came in with new roads and rails .
I'm told there's a 52" turbine down in the bottom , buried soundly in the silt .
Some might wonder why I wouldn't bring it back into service , but there's a bigger problem with which to deal before it could ever be possible .
The river is not the same .
It's fed , originally , by a huge swamp , which , in times past would release it's water slowly , making for a full millpond for a long way into the summer .
Today , with so many acres clear , the water runs much faster into the river .
Even more devastating than the loss of trees , is the speed at which our land is being tile drained , in an effort to grab any last inch of space to plant crops . That makes the water disappear faster every year , and dumps huge amounts of "effluent" into the river .
I do have plans to cover the roof in solar , though .
"...only connection to the area was hatred for the coal that would have reduced their cost for electricity."
The haters wanted clean air , Bob .
They understood that fossil cost .
"I used to be such a fool , runnin' around on fossil fuel , 'til I could see what I was doin' , was runnin' down that road to ruin .
Damn this traffic jam . How I hates to be late . Hurts my motor to go so slow . Time I get home , my supper be cold . " -James Taylor .
I do remember some clever folk in the US that are working on paint on lasers and some other working on paint on PV Solar. One of the applications was on roadways so that they could get solar power from roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark