Cycles


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Cycles

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9
Author Message
Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1921
Credit: 53,749
RAC: 149
Netherlands
Message 1516473 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:43:39 UTC - in response to Message 1516471.

How much better on average/year?

Read this

A while ago, I was able to briefly interview Dave DeGraaff, SunPower’s general manager in the module products group about the progress being made with respect to growing panel efficiencies. SunPower knows a good deal about such matters, since they have some of the most efficient panels in the industry and keep pushing the envelope. Their E Series panels currently enjoy one of the highest conversion rates, at over 20.5%. Their new X Series panel currently stands at 21.5%, and it’s projected to increase to 23% by 2015. SunPower’s Efficiency Roadmap shows an overall absolute efficiency improvement of 6% over the eight-year period from 2007 to 2015 (from 17 to 23%). This is a big selling point for the company, since you can get 60% more energy from the same space.


6% increase over an 8 year period.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8779
Credit: 25,938,908
RAC: 17,227
United Kingdom
Message 1516475 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:54:22 UTC - in response to Message 1516473.

How much better on average/year?

Read this

A while ago, I was able to briefly interview Dave DeGraaff, SunPower’s general manager in the module products group about the progress being made with respect to growing panel efficiencies. SunPower knows a good deal about such matters, since they have some of the most efficient panels in the industry and keep pushing the envelope. Their E Series panels currently enjoy one of the highest conversion rates, at over 20.5%. Their new X Series panel currently stands at 21.5%, and it’s projected to increase to 23% by 2015. SunPower’s Efficiency Roadmap shows an overall absolute efficiency improvement of 6% over the eight-year period from 2007 to 2015 (from 17 to 23%). This is a big selling point for the company, since you can get 60% more energy from the same space.


6% increase over an 8 year period.

I don't want to know what somebody with a vested interested in selling a product wants you to think. I want to know how much per/year increase there has been over the previous years.

N.B. I first studied this subject in the early 70's.

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1921
Credit: 53,749
RAC: 149
Netherlands
Message 1516486 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 13:11:55 UTC - in response to Message 1516475.

I don't want to know what somebody with a vested interested in selling a product wants you to think. I want to know how much per/year increase there has been over the previous years.

N.B. I first studied this subject in the early 70's.

Well then do a Google search yourself if you are unwilling to believe the sources I posted.

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2645
Credit: 1,181,203
RAC: 83
United States
Message 1516496 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 13:36:16 UTC - in response to Message 1516486.

How is cost per watt tracking increases in efficiency ??

I dream of the day when they will cost no more than high quality roof shingles.

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1516526 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 14:59:06 UTC - in response to Message 1516367.
Last modified: 15 May 2014, 15:09:33 UTC

"Batter Up" wrote:
"CLYDE" wrote:
What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?


It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.


Oh, nevermind.


Some of us have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jul 23, 2013
Rep. Johnson urges House to act on climate change
Issues: Environment
I accept your apology.

N.B. I first studied this subject in the early 70's.
Do you have a link to your paper? I didn't think so.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13706
Credit: 31,721,668
RAC: 12,591
United States
Message 1516550 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 15:58:55 UTC - in response to Message 1516526.

"Batter Up" wrote:
"CLYDE" wrote:
What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?


It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.


Oh, nevermind.


Some of us have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jul 23, 2013
Rep. Johnson urges House to act on climate change
Issues: Environment
I accept your apology.


Doesn't change that you also use labels to discredit. Some of us understand that there's far more to the Universe than what we can see with our eyes or hear with our ears, which is why we have built tools for such purposes.

No apology has been offered.

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1516552 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 16:04:04 UTC - in response to Message 1516550.

"Batter Up" wrote:
"CLYDE" wrote:
What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?


It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.


Oh, nevermind.


Some of us have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jul 23, 2013
Rep. Johnson urges House to act on climate change
Issues: Environment
I accept your apology.


Doesn't change that you also use labels to discredit. Some of us understand that there's far more to the Universe than what we can see with our eyes or hear with our ears, which is why we have built tools for such purposes.

No apology has been offered.

But you do agree with me that the good congressman believes humans are the cause of global warming as I stated.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13706
Credit: 31,721,668
RAC: 12,591
United States
Message 1516567 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 16:26:36 UTC - in response to Message 1516552.

Doesn't change that you also use labels to discredit. Some of us understand that there's far more to the Universe than what we can see with our eyes or hear with our ears, which is why we have built tools for such purposes.

No apology has been offered.

But you do agree with me that the good congressman believes humans are the cause of global warming as I stated.


Yes. A "correct" label doesn't mean it can't used to discredit an entire group. Am I correct that you were utilizing this Congressman's obvious lack of understanding of plate tectonics as a way to imply that all "changers" share the same basic misunderstandings of science?

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1516568 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 16:29:14 UTC - in response to Message 1516567.
Last modified: 15 May 2014, 16:33:00 UTC

Yes. A "correct" label doesn't mean it can't used to discredit an entire group. Am I correct that you were utilizing this Congressman's obvious lack of understanding of plate tectonics as a way to imply that all "changers" share the same basic misunderstandings of science?

I stated a fact, how others feel about facts and the associations they make I have no control over. I could have said he is a Democratic, ether way it shows a political ideology not a factual ideology.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13706
Credit: 31,721,668
RAC: 12,591
United States
Message 1516574 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 16:36:14 UTC - in response to Message 1516568.

Yes. A "correct" label doesn't mean it can't used to discredit an entire group. Am I correct that you were utilizing this Congressman's obvious lack of understanding of plate tectonics as a way to imply that all "changers" share the same basic misunderstandings of science?

I stated a fact, how others feel about facts and the associations they make I have no control over. I could have said he is a Democratic, ether way it shows a political ideology not a factual ideology.


You didn't answer the question though. You may not be able to control other people's associations, but you can make implied statements in an attempt to discredit. And that was my question; were you trying to imply something negative from your stated fact? Or will you continue to squirrel around the implication?

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1516603 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 17:23:10 UTC - in response to Message 1516574.
Last modified: 15 May 2014, 17:29:10 UTC

Or will you continue to squirrel around the implication?

"Squirrel around"? That's just nuts.

I just pointed out one example of someone in power who is totally clueless. There is not one legislator who wrote a peer reviewed paper, let alone can read one, on climate change. They all just believe along party lines. This is not the way science works.

I didn't know the congressman was a "changer" for a fact until I looked it up; I did know he was a Democrat so I felt safe with my assumption.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13706
Credit: 31,721,668
RAC: 12,591
United States
Message 1516672 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 19:09:16 UTC - in response to Message 1516603.

Or will you continue to squirrel around the implication?

"Squirrel around"? That's just nuts.


Ha! :-D

I just pointed out one example of someone in power who is totally clueless. There is not one legislator who wrote a peer reviewed paper, let alone can read one, on climate change. They all just believe along party lines. This is not the way science works.


Considering it's two different fields, I don't see why you'd expect a Congressperson to have written a peer reviewed paper, let alone know how science works. I get the point you're trying to make, but I'm saying that science papers are written by scientists and politicking is handled by politicians. It is up to those elected officials in office to listen to what the majority finding of experts in a given field has found so they can try to do what is best for their constituents.

Politicians toeing the party line has been the case since the first government system began. You point out "one example of someone in power who is totally clueless", however, have you pointed out how most in the GOP used to be onboard with human-induced climate change, but now their party line insists there's no room for "changers" in their party and have begun taking action to replace the entire GOP with Tea Party-leaning representatives? They even have their own derogatory name for those that don't toe their line: RINO. Anyone else who isn't in the Tea Party isn't a true Republican! Distrust of scientists is now on par with distrust of government. I understand the latter but the former has me perplexed.

Jim1348
Send message
Joined: 13 Dec 01
Posts: 154
Credit: 176,493
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1516685 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 19:33:55 UTC

We actually had a Congressman a few years ago (in the 90's) who had a PhD in physics from MIT, and knew a thing or two about the subject. He was on the conservative side of the spectrum, but that was before the Republicans had become screwballs, and he had some reasonable arguments about how the environmental legislation (protection of endangered species, etc.) was not considering cost/benefit tradeoffs. I think that as a bright person with academic training, he would now be appalled by what he sees in his party.

But the best line about the Republicans in science is the one that Al Gore gave about W.'s science adviser, who as I recall was Al's prep-school classmate or something like that. It it priceless, and you should see his film for that alone. (No wonder the right-wing commentators all oppose it.)
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,552
RAC: 707
United States
Message 1517041 - Posted: 16 May 2014, 16:46:16 UTC - in response to Message 1516360.

Sometimes I feel like this gent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

The congressman is obviously a "changer".

One more thing about so called "super storm" Sandy. Wile it did do massive damage to NYC and the North Jersey Shore fifty miles to the south the Atlantic City area had little damage.


Little damage? Google is your friend.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1517081 - Posted: 16 May 2014, 17:52:03 UTC
Last modified: 16 May 2014, 18:03:49 UTC



Little damage? Google is your friend.

I don't need the spurious Wide World of the Web to tell me facts. Only the north end of the board walk was destroyed because that is where the inlet is. The storm surge build up was massive in inlets. As there was little wind there was little damage farther south. Now why don't you Google how long the casino's were closed. I'm sure as familiar as you are with AC you know the casinos are on the south end of the boardwalk.

____________

Message 1517169 - Posted: 16 May 2014, 20:13:39 UTC

Batter Up said:

I don't need the spurious Wide World of the Web to tell me facts.


'Source'?

Motor Cylces Good.

No Land Falling 'Cane fO Florida since 2005. And 'they' 'said' otherwise fO '05 on. Scared Everyone. Guess FL is having a 'Cycle' of No 'Canes.

' '
____________


bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,552
RAC: 707
United States
Message 1518533 - Posted: 20 May 2014, 1:41:18 UTC - in response to Message 1517081.



Little damage? Google is your friend.

I don't need the spurious Wide World of the Web to tell me facts. Only the north end of the board walk was destroyed because that is where the inlet is. The storm surge build up was massive in inlets. As there was little wind there was little damage farther south. Now why don't you Google how long the casino's were closed. I'm sure as familiar as you are with AC you know the casinos are on the south end of the boardwalk.


You first said "Atlantic City area", not southern AC.


The AC pier post Sandy.

How about 12 photos of Atlantic City area storm damage from Hurricane Sandy?

While there was comparatively little damage to AC (vs NYC, Hoboken, etc), again that's not what you said.

Oh and I did not need to google that the AC casinos were closed for a few days, though if you're looking for good information, this seems reasonably well researched.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9

Message boards : Politics : Cycles

Copyright © 2014 University of California