On MovieTome: Top Ten: Most Bizarre Twilight Merch
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 25 of 26:
Next »
« Previous
RE: You made a couple of errors..
Actually, i agree with you on this matter. I can understand that the stirling engine is an effecient thing. But there one little thing people forget to mention about using solar heat in the dessert, and that would be sand.

Sand storms could easily block the mirrors and completely shutdown such a setup. Not to mention sand is a fast erroding factor, IE it would eventually erode a way at the mirrors.

Personally speaking i would prefer to see Nuclear power plants get to the stage where they are using (correct me if i'm wrong) cold fushion? Supposely it is a nuclear technology where only the reactor chamber remains radioactive not the material being used to fuel it.

What that breaks down to is a nuclear power plant without nuclear waste just reactors that are radio active. Which in turn you could simply have a robot go in and do the dirty work of repairs to a reactor to keep it running longer.

That would be more energy efficent, it still wouldn't be any safer then currently nuclear plants because you could still have a meltdown, but it removes the huge problem factor of waste materials

""Both your facts and your math are a bit off.

Hover dam produces upwards of 2080 Megawatts.. see. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html

Dividing that by 25Kw per unit yeilds the need for 83,200 25Kw units..

83200*$50K per unit == 4.16 Billion dollars.""
Posted by: ajapierce   Posted on: 11/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Stirling energy systems link is wrong  reid.thompson@... | 11/24/04
welcome to the world of stupid zdnet linkage  Valis Keogh | 11/24/04
Fabulous  Kamikaze_Ohka | 11/24/04
Re: Fabulous  plungermonkey@... | 11/24/04
Preposterous !  Prognosticator | 11/24/04
actually  doh123 | 11/24/04
$150K each times 11 acres?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/24/04
Yeah, cheaper until  Jack-Booted EULA | 11/24/04
yeah, safer too - lol  JasonL31 | 11/25/04
RE: $150K each times 11 acres? Huh???  thetruth_z | 11/25/04
Cost/benefit ratio? Does it cost more than it's worth?  HypnoToad | 11/24/04
for $50k  JasonL31 | 11/25/04
Why are you so lazy?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/26/04
Well, jump right in and build it then.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/04
It should be a priority. But his actions speak louder.  HypnoToad | 11/24/04
Did you use electricity to write this?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/26/04
Why did you bring up Bush?  CobraA1 | 11/27/04
RE: $150K each times 11 acres? Huh???  thetruth_z | 11/25/04
Indeed! Your math sux.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/04
bad math equivalent to Hoover dam cost $200million in this technology  hipparchus2000 | 11/25/04
in case you'er wondering that makes it 4% of the cost of a nuclear plant  hipparchus2000 | 11/25/04
You made a couple of errors..  thetruth_z | 11/25/04
hoover dam output and figures  hipparchus2000 | 11/25/04
Perhaps, but . . .  CobraA1 | 11/27/04
RE: You made a couple of errors..  ajapierce | 11/27/04
Enerygy of our own  Pinkerton | 11/27/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads