Sunday, November 9, 2008
Below is a simple analysis of solar energy that I hope even the most stubborn and ignorant Liberal can understand. I will follow up this post with one on wind energy.
According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than what is actually recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
The largest nuclear power plant in the is the Palo Verde plant near Phoenix, AZ.
Although the entire Palo Verde facility occupies 4,000 acres, the reactor buildings, cooling towers, cooling ponds, and support facilities only cover approximately 500 acres. Palo Verde produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors that run 24/7 and only shut down for maintenance and periodic refueling.Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% efficiency (remember, this is a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require a little less than the same 4,000 acres, ~3,300. This sounds like a great deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology.” So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered by solar arrays, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel and vehicle traffic, and support facilities. So lets conservatively say that to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. That’s a lot of acreage for a plant that would only be able to produce electricity for 8-10 hours on a good sunny summer day. What then to do at night when the sun isn’t shining or in the winter months where the available hours falls significantly? What are the options for areas of the country that don’t have the available number of sunny days Albuquerque has? What options are available for the vast majority of the country that doesn't have land for solar farms? What are the environmental impacts to wildlife and plant species of tens of thousands of acres being hidden from the sun under vast arrays of solar panels? Due to the area required, the inefficiency, and limited availability of solar energy, solar energy can never be more than a supplement to more traditional and reliable sources of energy.
Monday, August 11, 2008
It has been widely acknowledged that
The few, but growing in number, opposition groups that have been formed are routinely pilloried by Leftists throughout European media, government, and academia as racist, xenophobic, extreme right wing, etc. and have even come under physical attack from some of the more extreme "anti-hate" groups that make up the Left. This difficulty in organizing is caused in part by the average European citizen’s understandable resistance to public demonizing. It has led to various anti-jihad blogs examining alternative means of combating Islamization. One method will be discussed here. However, several facts need to be addressed before laying the groundwork for such a discussion.
As we have witnessed, Muslims are prone to extreme reaction from the slightest perceived insult. Whether this outrage is a normal response in the Muslim world or one that has been manufactured over time by the more radical elements of Islamic culture as a tool to be used against enemies remains unknown. What is known is that Islamic clerics often fan the flames and passions of Muslims to make political points, win concessions, create an environment of fear or as a warning of what is possible. Islamic clerics have an extraordinary level of influence on the average Muslim and it is common for them to direct suicide bombings or attacks against enemies both religious and secular.
Islam is patient. We in the West have come to expect immediate gratification and find it difficult, as a culture, to make long term plans. This should be obvious enough to preclude further discussion. Islam, however, regards itself as a collective body with collective goals rather than as individuals with personal aims and desires. This cultural difference allows them to see a future where Islam is the dominant religion and political system and work toward that end even though they as individuals won't be present to see the goal achieved. Thus Islam has set its sights on the West. They know it will take decades or perhaps longer to achieve but they remain confident of success. We in the West don't pay much attention to the slow laying of foundations for our conquest. We are becoming like the proverbial frog in the pot of water that gets boiled as the temperature is slowly raised.
With knowledge of their intent along with the Muslim propensity for mindless outrage and violence, they and their plan can be defeated.
Defeating the Muslims will require making them burst into destructive demonstrations of violence and anger. If they are provoked frequently, Muslims will expose their own anger and violence, thus giving the West a better chance to acknowledge the danger in our midst.
How then to provoke them? Referring back to the power held by clerics and the influence they wield it becomes clear that provoking Muslims into action will require elimination of their leadership. This isn't something that we can rely on our governments to accomplish and thus will have to be carried out by patriots or mercenaries.
By what mechanism can this goal be accomplished? It is proposed here that a bounty be established for named Muslim leaders and that such a bounty be paid to whoever carries out the task of cutting off a given head of the Muslim hydra.
A list of targets will be posted and given an initial ranking. There will be several types of players: 'backers' who only contribute to the bounty, 'gamblers' who bet on the odds of a target's elimination, and 'operators'; those that elect to carry out a mission and collect the bounty. The rules of the hunt are still under development and open to suggestions from readers.
Disclaimer: This is purely hypothetical and the author in no way condones the murder of even the most heinous individuals no matter how much they may deserve to be removed from this existence.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. The Sierra Club's membership voted on April 25, 1998 to remain committed to environmental rights and protection for all within our borders, without discrimination based on immigration status. With this vote, our members have shown they understand that restricting immigration into the U.S. will not solve the planet's environmental problems. There is broad agreement within the Sierra Club to address the global environmental dilemmas exacerbated by population growth by supporting voluntary family planning programs and access to basic rights for women and girls around the world."
Sierra Club Member Services
85 Second St, 2nd Fl
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 977-5653 (M-F, 9-5 PST)
So rather than taking obvious steps to preserve the environment in the US by opposing illegal and even legal immigration, and the concomitant environmental impact an increased population causes, they take a ridiculous and useless global position on "family planning", i.e. abortion and the pill. This smug, high minded position is nothing more than cover for their cowardice in the face of the forces of political correctness.
So as illegals litter our deserts with tons of garbage, drive the need for a physical barrier to keep them out (opposed by the environmentalists), and consume limited, precious resources the environmentalists do nothing.
And far from broad agreement this actually nearly caused a schism within the SC because some more conservative members and animal rights activists DID in fact want immigration control to be part of the SC position. They however lost to the PC wing of the organization who feared losing some of their more progressive members. So, the environment took a backseat to politics.
The environmentalists never miss an opportunity to warn us of the dangers of global warming but they remain silent on what would be one of the easiest ways to stop the increase of, or even reduce our emissions: population stability. If they truly cared about global warming then why don't they address the population connection? What is the point of pushing us to reduce our "carbon footprints" if we increase the number of footprints year after year? Our population now stands around the 300 Million mark and is projected to increase to 1 Billion by the end of this century if current immigration trends continue. To keep the same carbon footprint we'd all have to cut our energy consumption by 2/3. How would that impact your life?
I've written to several other large and powerful environmental organizations and will report on their positions when they respond. I suspect that they will have positions similar to the Sierra Club in their morally ambiguous, cowardly, and utter uselessness.