Jan Steinman wrote:
>> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ... it seems unfair to blame anyone for lack of prescience.
>>
>
>
> I guess you didn't see the little invisible smiley face after my statement.
>
I has mislaid my inviso lenses, and was apparently not the only one. :-)
One of the hazards of typing without any means of inflection.
>
>> When some nut discovers a way to spray sand with some cheap concoction, let
>> bake in the sun for a while, stick electrodes in it and generate essentially
>> unlimited, almost free power, will today's Malthusian
>> equivalents have been fools for not seeing the next thing that long delays
>> the inevitable reckoning?
>>
>
> "Essentially unlimited?" Hardly. Unless this "nut" manages to top today's
> average efficiency of about 10%, we're still using nearly as much energy that
> could be harvested if we covered all of the US with
> solar cells: http://tinyurl.com/57n7oc
>
Oh dear, is there or isn't there an invisible smiley face?
Just to be sure, I'll give some more of the imaginary specs. Conversion
efficiency depends on the quality and composition of the sand (including
depth and translucency) and on the temperature. Poor sand, 20C = 47%.
Excellent sand, 45C = 82.5%
A. Specious Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|