Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Too bad (Score 1) 190

by radl33t (#47935639) Attached to: Wave Power Fails To Live Up To Promise
Solar thermal is awesome, but limited and it is not or likely to be a viable solution for cooling. You get a COPc of 0.6 to 0.8 out of a sorption chiller powered by 160F hot water. That is 5 to 10 times less than than the SEER 13+ AC running on your 30A breaker; aka your 3kW cooling demand becomes 15+kW when accounting for the inefficient sorption cycle. Also that absorption chiller is expensive and has no where near the reliability of a sealed electric compressor.

There is no utility for 60,000 BTU/hr of 160F water in residential housing.
insulation and efficient, climate appropriate glazing would obviate the need for most of those collectors, and all of them without significant (~weekly) thermal storage
PV + AC/HP = more efficient
PV + AC/HP = cheaper
PV = more flexible and useful
PV = grid connected Even if you aren't compensated for putting power back on the grid at least that power can be used! You fail to mention how much of that solar thermal energy would simply be wasted (shoulder seasons, summer overheating) because you have no use for it. Without a gigantic seasonal (and expensive) thermal storage you would probably throw away the majority of your collected energy, which would significantly diminish operating efficiency.

A last note on Stirling technology. While capable of extremely impressive feats with a dT of 600C, it's useless without high temperatures, aka large concentrating systems. There can not compete with PV in cost or efficiency at non-concentrating solar thermal temperatures.

Comment: Re:No, that's not what it says (Score 1) 260

by radl33t (#47858683) Attached to: Tesla Plans To Power Its Gigafactory With Renewables Alone
LCOE solar is cheaper than coal and non-fracked natural gasin Reno, NV. It will also be cheaper than natural gas when that is fairly regulated. besides, the different can always be made up with peaking natural gas plants, just as we do now since you know, and this may be a shocker to you, 1) demand curve changes by a factor of 2 and 2) capacity factor on base load fossil fuel plants is less than 100%.

Comment: Re:What about Confidence (Score 1) 243

by radl33t (#47736883) Attached to: It's Dumb To Tell Kids They're Smart
that is what leaders do; they loudly attract support usually in incredibly primitive [yet effective] ways. being a leader has nothing to do with being intelligent; we aren't going to follow the meekly supported brilliant plan of a introverted super nerd unless advanced by his belligerent screaming champion. And there isn't anything wrong with that. It takes all types.

Comment: Re:Hackers? (Score 1) 47

by radl33t (#47684129) Attached to: Project Aims To Build a Fully Open SoC and Dev Board
the real point here is that your brain is so hard-wired by age that you cannot embrace the change or dynamism that drive human progress. it is time to wander off into the woods. alternatively accept that your opinions and thinking are outmoded and allow yourself to be reduced to some menial skill set until such time you can wander off into the woods.

Comment: Re:No real surprise (Score 1) 710

by radl33t (#47456451) Attached to: People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)

On a related note, one is an energy pig if they can't offset their electrical with a solar array the size of their living footprint. For comparison, my home is small ~60 m^2, but with that area I would produce 300-400% net excess or 1.5 - 2 US avg household.

Comment: Re:No real surprise (Score 1) 710

by radl33t (#47456307) Attached to: People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use
"they" ? distinguishing strongly overlapping normal distributions by the difference in a rudimentary statistical variable is a very convenient framework to support your opinion, no? I wouldn't assign any political labels to myself, but others might call me a socialist and I don't understand anything about what you label as the basis of my ideology.

One of the things I do to reduce energy consumption relative to U.S. per capita consumption is to use a 7 day programmable thermostat, basically for night time/unoccupied reset. Setting aside the fact that it was free from the utility because they have an economic incentive to reduce peak demand, it had an economic payback of approximately 35 days. That gave an effective ROI of ~500%. Attic insulation about ROI ~60% is another example. I only plan to be in my home for 8 years, but consequently, I will reduce emissions from coal and natural gas, and have $4500 extra in a non taxed retirement account. Add this to other energy related choices with financial incentive (e.g. most) and you recover $100k's of savings by retirement. How am I a ‘dupe’ and what does it have to do with a socialist outlook?

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.