Just wondering..

[Bob Axtell]

Next week I am driving to Phoenix to see a PV setup that uses cells made
from silica, so
my friend says. I guess he means "glass" with a thin film of silicon to
generate the electricity.
Something new, said to cost less than 50%  of normal new cells. They
generate less power,
but costs and usage of silicon is low.

--Bob A


Howard Winter wrote:

> David,
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:41:04 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:
>
>  
>>>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?
>>>      
>> Government subsidies.
>>    
>
> Not on this side of the pond!  I am seriously envious of James' economic situation with his solar array - not only would I have to pay full whack for it and it's more
> expensive here anyway, about £3.50 to £4 per watt (say US$7 to $8) just for the bare panels, but anything I generate is not netted from what I buy in, I'd get paid
> for what I'd exported once a quarter, at a rate that's less than I pay for what I use.
>
> Actually there *are* subsidies available, but the rules for them are so stringent that hardly anyone gets them, they aren't substantial (nowhere near the rate that
> James got), and you have to employ a certified installer to get them.  Which costs much more than doing it yourself, so the net effect is that it's more expensive to
> get the subisdy than to pay full price for the parts and DIY!  I believe I'd pay about £4,500 after subsidy per kWhp.  And it has to be approved according to Building
> Regulations (which costs a couple of £hundred) and you have to get Planning Permission.  You may not get the permission, but have to pay for the application for it
> anyway!
>
> My investigations and experiments reveal that at the moment, the financial situation in the UK means that it's not worth having PV panels that export power.  It's
> possibly OK if you use all you generate, but that's marginal and very dependant on the price of electricity (although it has just gone up again - I'm now paying up to
> 24p (US$0.48) per kWh).
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
>
>
>
>  

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-2]

On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 18:41 +0000, Howard Winter wrote:
> Herbert,
>
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:14:30 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >...
> > Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.
>
> Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...

Umm, ya, that's the definition of non-renewable, which is what I'm
speaking of.
 
> > To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all feasible is
> > hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even come close to our
> > energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is here to stay.
>
> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if there was a
> massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places could never
> use the traditional
> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate

Umm, ya, that's basically what I said.

I suppose the point of my post was missed.

The point I was making is the only renewable energy source that at least
had the potential of serving our needs unsupported was hydro.
Unfortunately for most of the planet it doesn't supply anywhere near
enough.

Therefore, renewable energy, in it's current forms is insufficient. All
the hope and dreams of people out there can not currently be fulfilled.
We have to use non-renewable sources of energy, there is currently no
way around it, despite what some might want the public to believe.

Personally, given the fact that we must rely on non-renewable energy
sources, I'm a large supporter of nuclear. Yes, it produces some very
nasty stuff, but why people have so much more of a problem with such a
tiny amount of really nasty stuff, vs. the billions of tons of poisons
pumped into our lands, water and air by the other sources, never mind
the insane unrest it creates in the world trying to lock in our sources
of oil, just doesn't make sense to me. I haven't even started with the
CO2 issue it creates as well.

By current estimates the sources of nuclear material would easily cover
the planet's current and future energy needs for FAR longer then
estimates of fossil fuel reserves. It's NOT the final solution, but it's
far better then what we currently use IMHO.

The fact that my country still uses COAL for electricity production is
just embarrassing to me.

TTYL
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>>> When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years
>>> that keeps
>>> cropping up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then
>>> we *must*
>>> get our energy from what is coming from the Sun now -
>>> otherwise we
>>> *will* run out of fuel, whatever it is.

> Well, there's geothermal (lets cool the planetary core;
> I'm sure that
> won't have any detrimental environmental effects!)

If you could it would, in time.
Present schemes don't and can't.
They are mere pinpricks on what has come up already.
They may cause local effects but the planert's core ignores
them.

> And there is  fusion...

When we get He3 fusion and lunar Helium imports "all will be
well" [tm] for 'quite a long while' [tm].
Until then we have to find stopgap measures.


        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Jinx-4]

> > Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...

Marillion, Yes, Deep Purple, Genesis et al will get in the ground
eventually and make black gold in the long term ;-)

> The fact that my country still uses COAL for electricity production
> is just embarrassing to me.

I heard this on the radio this morning

"Soot found to contribute 50 percent of warming once blamed
only on CO2 within brown clouds and transoceanic haze"

http://www.scientificblogging.com/leebert/airborne_soot_causing_50_percent_o
f_warming_once_blamed_on_co2

I notice the date posted as 15th Sept 07, - the local newsroom
has just stumbled on it !!

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> > To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all
>> > feasible is
>> > hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even
>> > come close to our
>> > energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is
>> > here to stay.

>> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if
>> there was a
>> massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places
>> could never
>> use the traditional
>> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate

FYI, China plans to start work this year and next on hydro
stations with about 50,000 megaWatt of capacity.

And, FWIW, the extent to which hydro "dries up" is a known
factor in the planning process. Just as is wind variability,
solar insolation variability and the observed fact that the
sun doesn't produce useful levels of sunshine for more than
half the time.

A factor to note is the effect of "climate change", however
caused,  on all short term solar input based systems (which
not surprisingly includes hydro, wind and solar). Here is
one NZ look at the expected effects of climate change  on
hydro inflows. They are even taking account of IPCC worst
case scenarios "just in case".

        http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/32185/seasonal-inflow.pdf





        Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:20:27AM -0400, Apptech wrote:
> > The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind,
> > and
> > hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to
> > nuclear. The fact
> > of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own
> > ways.

> Indeed.  But nuclear has ionising radiation which, as well as causing
> cancers, can alter reproductive outcomes.

That's a given Russell. The question is what's the real risk.
I'm about to jump in my car and go to work. I'm much more likely to be
killed in a car accident than getting cancer from a nuclear power plant.

The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
imperceptable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2385551.stm

Accidents happen. We all know that. The question lays in the frequency and
severity of these accidents. Tens of thousands die each year in cars, yet
we drive them each and everyday. No one dies from nuclear power, but yet 60
years later, it's still the boogieman.

Sigh.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

Restoring some snippery to make the query/answer
intelligible

>>> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to
>>> electricity, it takes
>>> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.

>>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me
>> ask: How can this possibly be true?

> Government subsidies.

We already had a round of detailed answers to this.
We seem to be going around the loop again.

So, no, it's not true by any normal standards.
While PV panels are not, as yet, competitive with grid
electricity in most areas, they are both net energy positive
over a typical lifetime and cost competitive in their own
right.

Rough and quick:

$5/Watt bare panel.
20 year life.
4 kWh/day insolation mean.
12% delivered efficiency.

Returned energy in 20 years for a 100 Watt panel is

100/1000 kW x 4 kWh/day x 365 days x 20 years =~ 3000 kWh
Panel cost = 100 x 5 = $500.
Energy value varies but at Howard's horrendous $US0.48/kWh
that's
    0.48*3000 = $US1440.
Add installation, cabling and more and it's closer to break
even than is nice.

But the selling price is, the invisible  hand assures us,
significantly above the energy cost of production.

By all means add your own assumptions.

Note that "government subsidies", as also discussed here
recently, can include, as well as pork and more, payments
for the advantages conveyed to the body corporate of having
individuals enter the power generation market. While one
James rooftop of PV panels is no big deal in the scheme of
things, a state full of such can make a significant
difference in power generation reckonings. Some see that
anything they can make from others at no true cost to
themselves as a legitimate gain but any payment by the state
for legitimate gain as personal theft of their property. For
such there are no legitimate savings which the government
can pay for so such payments are necessarily theft. A
philosophy free accountant, should such exist, may be more
easily convinced by such arguments .



        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind,
> and
> hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to
> nuclear. The fact
> of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own
> ways.

Indeed.
But nuclear has ionising radiation which, as well as causing
cancers, can alter reproductive outcomes. It's not unique in
this capability but it's a much less acceptable effect than
many others. Thalidomide is a celebrated example of drug
induced mutations but its mode of operation is not strictly
comparable to ionising radiation induced mutation. [FWIW
Thalidomide is still an extremely useful drug in some areas
and is still in use in carefully controlled circumstances.]


        Russell


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

Even without the government subsidies, solar panels produce more income via
electricity than their cost within about 15 to 18 years. Their cost must
include more than just the cost of electricity (e.g. labor, materials,
transport) although those can also be thought of as energy costs, they are
not only electrical energy costs.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
David VanHorn
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:41
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this
possibly be true?

Government subsidies.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Byron Jeff wrote:
>
> That's a given Russell. The question is what's the real risk.
> I'm about to jump in my car and go to work. I'm much more likely to be
> killed in a car accident than getting cancer from a nuclear power plant.
>
>  
That's correct. Let's analyse that. Probably because you are more
inclined to BE in the car when
it crashes, maybe, and unlikely to be in a radioactive leak from a
nuclear reactor?

> The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
> Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
> Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
> generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
> imperceptable:
>
>  
I don't recall hearing about it in that way. But anyways, I'll take
another crack at it.

Nuclear power works by heating steam to superheated levels, and spinning
turbines with the steam.
The steam part has been around since before Telsa was a boy. The only
thing new is that the steam
is heated by nuclear energy instead of wood or coal.

The difference between wood or coal and nuclear heat is the complexity.
Maybe  humans can  keep
doing things right, and there will be no accident, but the odds are that
sooner or later, there will be
a screwup. It happens with humans...we are simply big screw-ups.

Now we look at statistics. If we create a plethora of nuclear plants all
over the US in addition to the
ones we have already, it stands to reason that an accident will occur
eventually. If we have a LOT of
plants, we will increase our chances of having MORE or BIGGER accidents.

If a coal-fired plant has an accident, it catches fire and burns up,
that's all. If a nuclear plant has an accident,
something more serious will happen, because nuclear power is serious
business.

Let's look at the terrorist threat for a minute.  'course,  the Dems say
there IS no terrorist threat, never was.
I believe that the security is so lax at most nuclear plants that a few
old ladies with brooms could do enough
damage to put 'em off line.

Now, I will grant you that France seems to be doing pretty well with
their systems. Frankly, I am astonished,
but perhaps they don't "kiss and tell" like we do here.

All I am saying is that some money oughta be tossed toward heating the
steam with the sun instead of coal, gas,
wood, nuclear material, or whatever else pops up. But don't worry, there
won't be. The crackpots still hold
sway.

--Bob A

> Accidents happen. We all know that. The question lays in the frequency and
> severity of these accidents. Tens of thousands die each year in cars, yet
> we drive them each and everyday. No one dies from nuclear power, but yet 60
> years later, it's still the boogieman.
>
>  

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

But we like to ignore the smaller hazards that happen every day, and
pay attention to the big scary one that may or may not happen.

Grab a copy of the emergency response guidebook, and look at what's on
trucks around you every day.  Look at how many are fuels and chemicals
used in energy production.   Then look at the firefighting procedures
and emergency response guidelines, and evacuation areas.

The ones for nuclear material are surprisingly small, and in the end,
rather innocuous, even for fissile uranium or high level waste.

I've seen a gasoline tanker run a red light.  I've seen nerve gas on a
truck on a major highway around indianapolis.  I've seen a truck drive
for miles with tires on fire, no idea what was happening till I pulled
him over.  Watch the trains late at night, going through your town.
Write down the numbers on the placards and run them.  (been there,
done that, the interesting stuff runs at night)  All those risks
quietly rolling around your neighborhood.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Vitaliy-2]

Apptech wrote:

>>> > To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all
>>> > feasible is
>>> > hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even
>>> > come close to our
>>> > energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is
>>> > here to stay.
>
>>> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if
>>> there was a
>>> massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places
>>> could never
>>> use the traditional
>>> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate
>
> FYI, China plans to start work this year and next on hydro
> stations with about 50,000 megaWatt of capacity.

Yes, but at what cost? How many thousands of square kilometers will be
flooded, and how many millions of people displaced?

"Some places" includes most of the US. All the good spots are already dammed
up.

Vitaliy

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

David VanHorn wrote:

> But we like to ignore the smaller hazards that happen every day, and
> pay attention to the big scary one that may or may not happen.
>
> Grab a copy of the emergency response guidebook, and look at what's on
> trucks around you every day.  Look at how many are fuels and chemicals
> used in energy production.   Then look at the firefighting procedures
> and emergency response guidelines, and evacuation areas.
>
> The ones for nuclear material are surprisingly small, and in the end,
> rather innocuous, even for fissile uranium or high level waste.
>
> I've seen a gasoline tanker run a red light.  I've seen nerve gas on a
> truck on a major highway around indianapolis.  I've seen a truck drive
> for miles with tires on fire, no idea what was happening till I pulled
> him over.  Watch the trains late at night, going through your town.
> Write down the numbers on the placards and run them.  (been there,
> done that, the interesting stuff runs at night)  All those risks
> quietly rolling around your neighborhood.
>  

That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear accident? I guess I
wasn't paying attention...

--Bob
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:10:53AM -0400, Apptech wrote:

> >>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear
> >> accident? I guess I
> >>  wasn't paying attention...
>
> > Point being that we are running risks all the time, and
> > having
> > accidents at a level that would make headline news if they
> > were
> > "nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker
> > or such,
> > somehow it's no big deal.
>

[Snip to get to the point.]

> Nuclear has the nasty ionising radiation effect which I
> mentioned yesterday and which was noted as a given but not
> addressed.

The radiation is addressed in the engineering of the plant. Nuclear plants
are designed to keep radiation contained even in the event of catastrophic
accidents (earthquakes, plane crashes) and have multiple failsafes in place
to prevent radiation releases.

The point is that you get to a point where you've done all that you can
reasonably do to be safe, and then you live with the residual risk.

My point is that the risk of nuclear accident has been shown so far to be
exceedingly small. In the entire history of US commercial nuclear power
generation, there has not been even a single death that I'm aware of that
has been directly related to radiation exposure.

> It's pervasive enough that it can sneak up on you
> in impossibly small doses such that eg the (largely
> childhood) cancer clusters at Sellafield can't possibly have
> been caused by radiation / nucleotides / ... so are
> stunningly and stupidly rejected by science as 'just
> something that happened" when it is obvious to ALL others
> that the methodology and measurement has holes in it and
> that death and mutation stalks the land invisibly - albeit
> at a very very very small scale. As long as science is going
> to be used as a club to prove white black and black white
> then you are not going to sell yer nuclear cocktails to the
> great unwashed. And even if it's not you will probably have
> a hard time doing so :-).

And that's my frustration. It's all perception. People would rather pump
millions of tons of CO2 and have documented coal mining deaths than to
switch to something that has been proven so far to have minimal
environmental impact and can power our human endeavors cheaply for years to
come. It's just like folks with irrational fears of flying. Sure plane
crashes happen. But the number of deaths per passenger mile flying is so
small as compared to the others, it's not even funny. But folks who
wouldn't step foot on a plane happily jump right in their cars and zip all
over the place.

But money may finally be the deciding factor. When gas gets to $8 USD and
stays there, folks will reconsider alternatives including nuclear.


> While one is working on levelling the playing field one may
> wish to deal with eg DU used in weaponry but sourced from
> nuclear waste so that it contains subtly different trace
> level radio isotope mixes. Quite why people decided to cost
> and corner cut to get rid of their waste profitably this way
> who can tell?

If you use thorium as your base fuel, you don't get usable plutonium for
weapons.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear accident? I guess I
>  wasn't paying attention...

Point being that we are running risks all the time, and having
accidents at a level that would make headline news if they were
"nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker or such,
somehow it's no big deal.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear
>> accident? I guess I
>>  wasn't paying attention...

> Point being that we are running risks all the time, and
> having
> accidents at a level that would make headline news if they
> were
> "nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker
> or such,
> somehow it's no big deal.

A factor is that the "just a gas tanker" accidents have
relatively well defined outcomes. Those who die in fireballs
or being crushed etc are able to be counted with some
certainty. The injured may be categorised statistically by
means which are good enough for demographics and never good
enough for the victims. The more abstruse outcomes such as
poisonings, mutations, xxx due to release of yyy into the
environment are usually small enough to be comfortable with.
Every now and then you get a Bhopal or Thalidomide to shake
you. But usually not.

There would be every right for accidents at the gas tanker
level to be headline news if they occurred. It's all too
pervasive once it does get out.

Nuclear has the nasty ionising radiation effect which I
mentioned yesterday and which was noted as a given but not
addressed. It's pervasive enough that it can sneak up on you
in impossibly small doses such that eg the (largely
childhood) cancer clusters at Sellafield can't possibly have
been caused by radiation / nucleotides / ... so are
stunningly and stupidly rejected by science as 'just
something that happened" when it is obvious to ALL others
that the methodology and measurement has holes in it and
that death and mutation stalks the land invisibly - albeit
at a very very very small scale. As long as science is going
to be used as a club to prove white black and black white
then you are not going to sell yer nuclear cocktails to the
great unwashed. And even if it's not you will probably have
a hard time doing so :-).

While one is working on levelling the playing field one may
wish to deal with eg DU used in weaponry but sourced from
nuclear waste so that it contains subtly different trace
level radio isotope mixes. Quite why people decided to cost
and corner cut to get rid of their waste profitably this way
who can tell?

Must be time to go to sleep ... :-)


        Russell



 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

David VanHorn wrote:
>>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear accident? I guess I
>>  wasn't paying attention...
>>    
>
> Point being that we are running risks all the time, and having
> accidents at a level that would make headline news if they were
> "nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker or such,
> somehow it's no big deal.
>  
Did somebody get a copy of my diatribe against nuclear? can you forward
it? for some reason,
it did not show up for me...

--Bob
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Byron Jeff wrote:
>
> [Snip to get to the point.]
>
>
>  
> But money may finally be the deciding factor. When gas gets to $8 USD and
> stays there, folks will reconsider alternatives including nuclear.
>
>  
Yes. Maybe one of the alternatives will be solar...

--Bob
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

>  Yes. Maybe one of the alternatives will be solar...

Although rare, consider the effects of a significant hailstorm
(baseball sized hail over 10's of square miles at 100MPH, punching
holes in buildings), or tornado, or lightning strikes on that rather
large and rather delicate solar plant.

When you have a large scale structure like that, rare weather events
for any given acre add up.

I'm not against solar, but it's still pretty impractical.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

David VanHorn wrote:

>>  Yes. Maybe one of the alternatives will be solar...
>>    
>
> Although rare, consider the effects of a significant hailstorm
> (baseball sized hail over 10's of square miles at 100MPH, punching
> holes in buildings), or tornado, or lightning strikes on that rather
> large and rather delicate solar plant.
>
> When you have a large scale structure like that, rare weather events
> for any given acre add up.
>
> I'm not against solar, but it's still pretty impractical.
>  

That is one reason to use So Arizona, little hail, no tornadoes or snow,
little rain. But somebody will have to
blow the sand off of the concentrators...I've been here 6 years, have
never seen really bad weather yet.

There ARE a few electrical storms. Awesome to hear the rumble of thunder
bounce off the nearby mountains.

--Bob A
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist