Post: #51

One of these could power the house for about 3 hours, I've read. It would take years to recoup the money you put into buying and installing the product, plus the solar panels. It's really inefficient and makes sense why they need so much tax money to work.

I'm still waiting for a company to start thinking seriously about nuclear power

Post: #52

Wonder whatever happened to rectenna solar cells - their efficiency was supposed to be nearly 90%.

Post: #53

(05-03-2015 10:19 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Wonder whatever happened to rectenna solar cells - their efficiency was supposed to be nearly 90%.

All they have to beat is about 50% efficiency.

Post: #54

(05-03-2015 09:48 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  One of these could power the house for about 3 hours, I've read. It would take years to recoup the money you put into buying and installing the product, plus the solar panels. It's really inefficient and makes sense why they need so much tax money to work.

I'm still waiting for a company to start thinking seriously about nuclear power

Stop it. You are making too much sense!

Post: #55

(05-03-2015 09:48 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  One of these could power the house for about 3 hours, I've read. It would take years to recoup the money you put into buying and installing the product, plus the solar panels. It's really inefficient and makes sense why they need so much tax money to work.

I'm still waiting for a company to start thinking seriously about nuclear power

There's nothing funnier than to reveal the hypocrisy of environmentalists by asking why they don't support nuclear power.

"Nuclear is dangerous!" They chime together, like lemmings.

"But don't you support clean energy?" I always ask. "Can't we just build the nuclear plants underground to mitigate any possibility of damage from meltdowns?"

"Nuclear waste underground is bad!!"

I ask further, "It is? Who is harmed by it?"

Haven't gotten an answer to this question yet. Without fail the environmentalists run off, angry, telling me not to think so simplistically.


The energy problems in today's world are 100% political... a concentrated push towards nuclear would lower the cost of energy down to almost zero. Obviously many powerful people do not want this to happen.

France switched to nuclear back in the 1950's... the country is a basket case, yet they can afford a corrupt entitlement system and welfare state because electricity is almost free in France (although there are limits to how much nuclear can provide, and France is finding those limits soon - only the French are capable of messing that up).

This battery is promised as the clean solution... bullshit. Elon said he'd need 2 Billion of these things to power the world... all of these battery chemicals and no side effects?

Post: #56

(05-03-2015 09:48 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  One of these could power the house for about 3 hours, I've read. It would take years to recoup the money you put into buying and installing the product, plus the solar panels. It's really inefficient and makes sense why they need so much tax money to work.

I'm still waiting for a company to start thinking seriously about nuclear power

People had the same complaints about the earliest electric vehicles.

The earliest mobile phones...laptops...etc etc etc.

It's a good start.

Post: #57

(05-04-2015 12:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 09:48 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  One of these could power the house for about 3 hours, I've read. It would take years to recoup the money you put into buying and installing the product, plus the solar panels. It's really inefficient and makes sense why they need so much tax money to work.

I'm still waiting for a company to start thinking seriously about nuclear power

There's nothing funnier than to reveal the hypocrisy of environmentalists by asking why they don't support nuclear power.

"Nuclear is dangerous!" They chime together, like lemmings.

"But don't you support clean energy?" I always ask. "Can't we just build the nuclear plants underground to mitigate any possibility of damage from meltdowns?"

"Nuclear waste underground is bad!!"

I ask further, "It is? Who is harmed by it?"

Haven't gotten an answer to this question yet. Without fail the environmentalists run off, angry, telling me not to think so simplistically.


The energy problems in today's world are 100% political... a concentrated push towards nuclear would lower the cost of energy down to almost zero. Obviously many powerful people do not want this to happen.

France switched to nuclear back in the 1950's... the country is a basket case, yet they can afford a corrupt entitlement system and welfare state because electricity is almost free in France (although there are limits to how much nuclear can provide, and France is finding those limits soon - only the French are capable of messing that up).

This battery is promised as the clean solution... bullshit. Elon said he'd need 2 Billion of these things to power the world... all of these battery chemicals and no side effects?

Unfortunately Nuclear is probably a non-starter due to political reasons.

Interestingly enough we have Jewish Feminists to blame for that.

It was the Women Strike for Peace founded by two feminists, one a major second waver who was active in many other areas of the time named Bella Abzug.

From the Women Strike for Peace wiki page:

Quote:These women were moved to drastic action by the Soviet resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests, after a three-year moratorium and by the United States’ declaration that it would hold its own tests in retaliation . The group consisted mainly of married-with-children middle-class white women. Its early tactics—including marches and street demonstrations of a sort very uncommon in the U.S. at that time—in many ways prefigured those of the anti-Vietnam War movement and of Second-wave feminism. The roots of the organization lay in the traditional female culture- the role women played as full-time wives and mothers and its rhetoric in those years drew heavily on traditional images of motherhood. In particular, in protesting atmospheric nuclear testing, they emphasized that Strontium-90 from nuclear fallout was being found in mother's milk and commercially sold cow's milk, presenting their opposition to testing as a motherhood issue,[4] what Katha Pollitt has called "a maternity-based logic for organizing against nuclear testing."[6] As middle-class mothers, they were less vulnerable to the redbaiting that had held in check much radical activity in the United States since the McCarthy Era.[4] The image projected by WSP of respectable middle-class, middle-aged ladies wearing white gloves and flowered hats, picketing the White House and protesting to the Kremlin to save their children and the planet, helped to legitimize a radical critique of the Cold War and U.S militarism.

Here is some info about one of the co-founders, Bella Savitsky Abzug who was also known as "Battling Bella":

Quote:was an American lawyer, U.S. Representative, social activist and a leader of the Women's Movement. In 1971, Abzug joined other leading feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan to found the National Women's Political Caucus. She declared, "This woman's place is in the House—the House of Representatives," in her successful 1970 campaign. She was later appointed to chair the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year and to plan the 1977 National Women's Conference by President Gerald Ford and led President Jimmy Carter's commission on women.

[...]

Bella Savitsky was born on July 24, 1920, in New York City.[1] Both of her parents were Russian Jewish immigrants.[2] Her mother, Esther,[1] was a homemaker and her father, Emanuel[1] ran the Live and Let Live Meat Market.

[...]

Early on, she took on civil rights cases in the South. She appealed the case of Willie McGee, a black man convicted in 1945 of raping a white woman in Laurel, Mississippi and sentenced to death by an all-white jury who deliberated for only two-and-a-half minutes. Abzug lost the appeal and the man was executed.[4] Abzug was an outspoken advocate of liberal causes, including the failed Equal Rights Amendment, and opposition to the Vietnam War.[1] Years before she was elected to the House of Representatives, she was a co-founder[1] of Women Strike for Peace.[5] Her political stands placed her on the master list of Nixon political opponents. She has been nicknamed "Battling Bella".[6][7]

[...]

She was one of the first members of Congress to support gay rights, introducing the first federal gay rights bill, known as the Equality Act of 1974, with fellow Democratic New York City Representative, Ed Koch, a future mayor of New York City.[9]

[...]

Abzug was a supporter of the Zionist movement. As a young woman she was a member of the socialist-Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair.[11] In 1975 she led the fight against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (revoked in 1991 by resolution 46/86), which "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". She supported various international peace movements, which in Israel was led by Shulamit Aloni and others.

“ I've been described as a tough and noisy woman, a prizefighter, a man-hater, you name it. They call me Battling Bella. ”

—Bella Abzug, in her 1971 Congress journal, quoted by Braden in Women Politicians and the Media

[...]

In the last decade of her life, in the early 1990s, with colleague Mim Kelber, she co-founded the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO),[15] a global women's advocacy organization working towards a just world that promotes and protects human rights, gender equality and the integrity of the environment. As WEDO president, Abzug became an influential leader at the United Nations and at UN world conferences, working to empower women around the globe. Among its early successes was the World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet,[16] held in Miami in 1991, where 1,500 women from 83 countries produced the Women's Action Agenda 21.[17] Extending its perspective into the next century, this is a blueprint for incorporating women's concerns into development and environmental decision-making at all levels.

Following through on her belief that women's direct participation is absolutely necessary for social change, Bella developed the Women's Caucus, which used new methods to get women involved in every phase of planning and development for UN conferences. The Women's Caucus analyzed documents, proposed gender-sensitive policies and language, and lobbied to advance the Women's Agenda for the 21st Century at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Bella and WEDO went on to play a leading role at the UN. They worked through the Women's Caucus to highlight issues of greatest concern to women in both ongoing policy-making and at major UN conferences, including the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. The Women's Caucus has become an institution at the UN, modeling new ways to proceed and empowering others.

I guess that is enough for now. However, if you go and look at a number of the other women involved in the anti-nuclear energy environmental protest groups then you will find that almost all of them are also involved in one way or another with second wave feminism, Marxism, and a number of them are Jews.

I remember researching it awhile back and one of the women, forget her name at the moment, who got a lot of nuclear reactors shut down and future research into reactors shut down was also a big time feminist, Marxist, and Jew.

Imagine what our future would look like if some of these uppity bitches had just stayed in their place? We might have free energy today or something close to it.

Post: #58

I came to this thread to read about technological advances. Instead everyone pisses vinegar over tax dollars.

And blame Jews.

In Holland we didn't have much Jews left after WWII, yet there was a massive leftwing movement against nuclear power in the 70's and 80's. Nowadays it almost unheard of to speak about (new) nuclear power.

Holland still has one of two nuclear plants open.

Post: #59

(05-04-2015 01:40 AM)Spike Wrote:  I came to this thread to read about technological advances. Instead everyone pisses vinegar over tax dollars.

And blame Jews.

In Holland we didn't have much Jews left after WWII, yet there was a massive leftwing movement against nuclear power in the 70's and 80's. Nowadays it almost unheard of to speak about (new) nuclear power.

Holland still has one of two nuclear plants open.

I didn't see anyone else other than me mention anything about jews, so I will take the blame on that.

I wasn't blaming the Jewish people but simply pointing out that it was Russian Jewish people with ties to socialism and Zionism that were a big part behind getting the anti-nuclear movement going in the US. I think this is especially interesting considering it happened during the cold war. Especially considering that political and academic feminist movements in the west have been tightly organized by a large number of Jewish activists. Though, I don't really think there is much to any connection to Israel or Jews as a people. It has more to do with Marxism and the heavy Jewish influence there I think.

Yeah, I am still not really sure what this technology is about? I only watched part of the video but this doesn't seem to me to really help get America off fossil fuels. It is going to cost a lot of oil or natural gas to run the plants that build these and that is not to mention mining the materials and refining them.

Post: #60

(05-04-2015 12:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  There's nothing funnier than to reveal the hypocrisy of environmentalists by asking why they don't support nuclear power.

"Nuclear is dangerous!" They chime together, like lemmings.

"But don't you support clean energy?" I always ask. "Can't we just build the nuclear plants underground to mitigate any possibility of damage from meltdowns?"

"Nuclear waste underground is bad!!"

I ask further, "It is? Who is harmed by it?"

Haven't gotten an answer to this question yet. Without fail the environmentalists run off, angry, telling me not to think so simplistically.


The energy problems in today's world are 100% political... a concentrated push towards nuclear would lower the cost of energy down to almost zero. Obviously many powerful people do not want this to happen.

France switched to nuclear back in the 1950's... the country is a basket case, yet they can afford a corrupt entitlement system and welfare state because electricity is almost free in France (although there are limits to how much nuclear can provide, and France is finding those limits soon - only the French are capable of messing that up).

This battery is promised as the clean solution... bullshit. Elon said he'd need 2 Billion of these things to power the world... all of these battery chemicals and no side effects?

Cost of energy Zero? With nuclear energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_N...ower_Plant

It´s not just building the immensely expensive powerplant. It´s also dismantling it and taking care of the radioactive nuclear waste after the plant is obsolete, which costs billions. When you take these costs into consideration, nuclear energy does not seem as cheap as you´d think.

And by the way. Uranium and Plutonium are not infinite. There is going to be a time, in maybe 50 or 100 years, when the stuff either gets incredibly expensive or we run out of it.

Energy is a complex issue and nuclear power is not the panacea that some make it out to be.

Post: #61

(05-04-2015 04:08 AM)Troll King Wrote:  Yeah, I am still not really sure what this technology is about? I only watched part of the video but this doesn't seem to me to really help get America off fossil fuels. It is going to cost a lot of oil or natural gas to run the plants that build these and that is not to mention mining the materials and refining them.

It's a battery system for storing electricity, that's it. It's smaller and a little more efficient than existing systems.

All of the morons in the video squealing with delight are dumb enough to think this means complete power independence for some reason.

And the dude giggling his way through the presentation like a school girl funds his companies with tax money.

That seems to be the gist of both the technology and this thread.

There's nothing new here. It MIGHT have been cool if they announced that you could run your house off of your Tesla car - since it already has 10X the storage capacity of this system - or announced a breakthrough in solar power generation. Instead, this is around $600 of batteries being sold for $3500.

I wouldn't doubt it if this was all a ploy to inflate the projected revenue of their new 18650 battery "Giga-Factory".

Post: #62

A thorium reactor might resolve waste issue and limited supply of uranium and plutonium. I doubt it will come stateside anytime soon, it would probably have to be shown safe in another country first.

Post: #63

If nuclear waste is still radioactive it means it is still good enough to be re-processed into usable fuel. An expensive proposition, but a "recyclable" one at that.
For all of the pointless green trash we spend on, using tax dollars to subsidize workers reprocessing cold war era nuclear waste (which FYI came from nukes) would take care of the waste problem.

Thorium liquid salt reactors are the real solution to our energy problems. Again all of this is completely leveled by politics. Nothing will get done until the billionaire nitwits of this country get a haircut because of their brazen stupidity. America will be a none issue by the time that comes.

Post: #64

(05-04-2015 04:47 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  There's nothing funnier than to reveal the hypocrisy of environmentalists by asking why they don't support nuclear power.

"Nuclear is dangerous!" They chime together, like lemmings.

"But don't you support clean energy?" I always ask. "Can't we just build the nuclear plants underground to mitigate any possibility of damage from meltdowns?"

"Nuclear waste underground is bad!!"

I ask further, "It is? Who is harmed by it?"

Haven't gotten an answer to this question yet. Without fail the environmentalists run off, angry, telling me not to think so simplistically.


The energy problems in today's world are 100% political... a concentrated push towards nuclear would lower the cost of energy down to almost zero. Obviously many powerful people do not want this to happen.

France switched to nuclear back in the 1950's... the country is a basket case, yet they can afford a corrupt entitlement system and welfare state because electricity is almost free in France (although there are limits to how much nuclear can provide, and France is finding those limits soon - only the French are capable of messing that up).

This battery is promised as the clean solution... bullshit. Elon said he'd need 2 Billion of these things to power the world... all of these battery chemicals and no side effects?

Cost of energy Zero? With nuclear energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_N...ower_Plant

It´s not just building the immensely expensive powerplant. It´s also dismantling it and taking care of the radioactive nuclear waste after the plant is obsolete, which costs billions. When you take these costs into consideration, nuclear energy does not seem as cheap as you´d think.

Long term these costs are trivial compared to just about any other form of energy.

Quote:And by the way. Uranium and Plutonium are not infinite. There is going to be a time, in maybe 50 or 100 years, when the stuff either gets incredibly expensive or we run out of it.

They've been saying the same things about oil for nearly 100 years now.

Post: #65

Bill Gate's investment in nuclear renewable energy

Just gonna leave this here for you guys that don't think nuclear is also a solution to the clean energy issue.

There is no need for fossil fuels when it comes to energy generation. Solar is just part of the solution. Tidal, wind, solar, and nuclear are all great, then burn the garbage that we use, kill landfills as a whole with bio mass.

Post: #66

(05-04-2015 06:18 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Instead, this is around $600 of batteries being sold for $3500.

Unfortunately you are right this is not a new product or innovation. It is taking ugly batteries and putting a pretty plastic case around them and selling them for 5 times the price.

Post: #67

(05-04-2015 06:50 AM)kbell Wrote:  A thorium reactor might resolve waste issue and limited supply of uranium and plutonium. I doubt it will come stateside anytime soon, it would probably have to be shown safe in another country first.

I don't support the use of thorium. What happens with a meltdown? Ragnarok I assume...maybe just an invasion of frost giants in a worst case scenario? No thanks.

Next you're going to tell me they've got Krypton reactors. Super idea...splitting the element thats named after a planet that was itself destroyed by meddling scientists.

Post: #68

(05-04-2015 06:22 PM)username Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 06:18 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Instead, this is around $600 of batteries being sold for $3500.

Unfortunately you are right this is not a new product or innovation. It is taking ugly batteries and putting a pretty plastic case around them and selling them for 5 times the price.

Really?? There's no new technology in the batteries at all? How do you know this, if you don't mind me asking?

Post: #69

Nerds like Elon Musk want to go to Mars for the same reason nerds flock to MMOs like World of Warcraft. They know they are losers on this world, so they seek an alternate world where they will come out on top of the status hierarchy, where they, and not athletes and actors, are the A-list. But SpaceX is pretty benign - if you can accomplish productive missions at a fraction of the price, hats off to you.

Tesla, on the other hand, is bullshit. Privately owned cars and cities do not mix well, and everywhere it's been tried, it's been found wanting and left death, injury, dirty air, obesity, wasted land (parking lots...) and poverty in its wake. Hucksters like Tesla want us to double down on this model for another lifetime, with the automotive equivalent of low tar cigarettes. Traffic jams are traffic jams whether they're comprised of Teslas or gas powered Toyotas. Moving a two ton vehicle occupying several hundred square feet (car + safe distance) to move 1.1 people on average, and then letting it sit idle for 95% of the day in a spot big enough to house someone is just horrendously inefficient, and hostile to creating real cities. If Tesla used its cachet to make electric bikes popular, it would be different, but it isn't. The real story is about how gadget fetishists like Musk have hoodwinked environmentalists into thinking that wasting yet more energy can somehow be made green.

Personally, I'm not an environmentalist, so much as someone who objects to obesity, dirty air, ugly infrastructure and forcing people to spend thousands of dollars a year on a car because the city is too sprawled to get around by foot, bike, train or bus. Aside from maybe the dirty air (if the electricity powering cars is from coal, air quality will remain poor), electric cars are a non-solution for very real problems.

Post: #70

(05-04-2015 10:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Personally, I'm not an environmentalist, so much as someone who objects to obesity, dirty air, ugly infrastructure and forcing people to spend thousands of dollars a year on a car because the city is too sprawled to get around by foot, bike, train or bus. Aside from maybe the dirty air (if the electricity powering cars is from coal, air quality will remain poor), electric cars are a non-solution for very real problems.

This.

American needs a decent railway system BADLY. And don't tell me Amtrak. Fuck Amtrak. In France, you can hop on a train in Marseille and be in Paris in under 3 hours - that is nearly 500 miles. Boston to New York (which is less than half that distance)? 4+ hours. On a Greyhound bus. And the driver is gonna give you some attitude to boot. A vast and viable public transport would be great for the US. I just don't see it happening, unfortunately.

Post: #71

(05-04-2015 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 06:22 PM)username Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 06:18 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Instead, this is around $600 of batteries being sold for $3500.

Unfortunately you are right this is not a new product or innovation. It is taking ugly batteries and putting a pretty plastic case around them and selling them for 5 times the price.

Really?? There's no new technology in the batteries at all? How do you know this, if you don't mind me asking?

They are standard 18650 Panasonic batteries made (or will be made) in Tesla's new factory. The type of battery used is in the specs on their website. These are the same batteries used in most laptops, the Tesla cars and higher end flashlights.

Here's a laptop battery cracked open - see the batteries? This is what they mean by "6 cell battery".

Post: #72

(05-03-2015 06:07 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 06:00 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  To be fair, I would rather have my tax money spent subsidizing technology that could revolutionize the world as opposed to having it spent an johnny mccrack that doesnt want to work a pizza job.

"I don't mind" is not a valid point as others may mind. If a product was truly necessary or revolutionary, people would pay for it voluntarily.

That works in an ideal sense, but without some government intervention in technology and infrastructure we'd all still be burning whale oil and travelling in giant balloons. Nuclear power, guns that aren't flintlocks, airplanes, trains, public transport, maybe even cars and roads wouldn't exist.

Post: #73

(05-05-2015 10:16 AM)Hades Wrote:  That works in an ideal sense, but without some government intervention in technology and infrastructure we'd all still be burning whale oil and travelling in giant balloons. Nuclear power, guns that aren't flintlocks, airplanes, trains, public transport, maybe even cars and roads wouldn't exist.

I agree public transport wouldn't exist without government intervention, but saying the others wouldn't exist is like saying shoes or bread wouldn't exist without government intervention.

Post: #74

Despite the rebates for the powerwall and the compelling advantage of having backup power
It's better to wait until the third generation comes out(along with enhanced performance and lower prices)

No sense in buying a 1980's first generation VCR when you can wait for the DVD player
that will most certainly come....

Post: #75

I would hope it's using newer battery technology for that price, $3500 can buy a shit ton of Trojan deep cycles. Enough to run your house for a month probably.

Trojan 30XHS, 12 volt, 130 AH = $165 each

21 batteries X 130 amp hours = is 2730 AH total. That's a lot of power.