Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Solar (PVC) Energy impossible?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2011 :  18:40:52  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The following essay was written by Porter Stansberry, an investment guru who peddles stock investment advice on the Internet. If there are any engineers here that may have commentary on Mr. Stansberry's understanding of the physics of energy conversion, I would welcome their critique and I will be happy to pass it on to him.

His top stock pick advice frequently is in the energy sectors - companies in the oil, gas, coal and hydrocarbon fuel business.



Why every solar energy plant has a natural gas generator inside…


I have received all kinds of funny notes… sent to me regarding my solar comments. Folks with Ph.D.s and engineering backgrounds, who should really know better, have sent some of the best. But most of the notes were simply ignorant comments from folks who desperately want to believe in the political "promise" of solar energy – that in the future, energy will be nearly free… if only trolls like me would get out of the way. Other folks were merely curious. They just wanted to know more about why I'm so skeptical. Or they wanted me to clarify what I meant – on the differences between local, passive solar energy and grid power.

This is as clear as I can be: Solar power, as a source of energy for the power grid, will simply never work. And by "work," I mean it will never even be even remotely economic. The reason why it will never work has nothing to do with technical hurdles or innovations that have yet to be made. The reason it will never work is because of the laws of nature, in particular, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Several readers have sent me quotes from various sources saying the laws of thermodynamics only relate to objects cooling, electron equilibrium, etc. Likewise, politicians, who know nothing of physics, have come to believe solar energy is akin to Santa Claus – a sort of electrical "freebie" that solves all our problems. Just wait until the voters realize they've been had again…

Alas… the laws of thermodynamics apply to solar power, just as they do to everything else in the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in particular, has many useful applications, including information technology (Shannon's Law), which is where I learned it. The critical point to understand about the Second Law is that the usefulness of energy (its ability to do work) decreases over time and space. Thus, by the time sunlight reaches the surface of the Earth, it has lost much of its useful energy.

The total amount of energy in sunlight doesn't change – that's the First Law of Thermodynamics – but the amount of useful energy dissipates over time and space. That's why some passive solar power applications, such as heating your pool or perhaps powering minor appliances during the peak heat of the day, can be relatively efficient. I say "relatively" because, in many places, the energy required to aggregate the sunlight and convert it into electricity will render the total costs of such systems uneconomic compared to grid power, which is generated with other fuel sources (coal, uranium, natural gas) that are far denser in useful energy.

Currently, tremendous efforts are being made with various types of technologies to harness the energy in sunlight. Major investments are being made – on the back of demands and with financing from governments – to use photovoltaic semiconductor (PV) technology to convert sunlight into electricity for the power grid. I believe this is a tremendous waste of capital. It certainly would NOT occur without the intervention of governments – which are notoriously bad at capital allocation – because it is horrendously inefficient.

PV processes use photonic energy in sunlight (not heat) to "lift" electrons and create electricity. The thermodynamic limitations of this approach mean that many of the electrons fall back into the hole from whence they were lifted. This makes the panels very inefficient. Theoretically, something called the Landsberg Efficiency stipulates that under perfect conditions and with perfect materials, semiconductors could convert 95% of the sun's power into electricity. This is the academic justification for the investments into PV solar power.

The catch is, in the real world, the materials needed to reach such efficiencies are rare and expensive. The other more important catch is that the main impediment to PV efficiency is… heat. Yes, that's right. As PV solar cells are exposed to ambient temperatures above room temperature, their efficiency plummets. And seeing as how most of the places best suited for solar power panels (like the roofs of buildings in warm climates) also have high ambient temperatures, I believe it's unlikely that this approach will ever prove worthwhile. I'm convinced PV solar panels will never be economic. (I'll explain more about the theoretical aspects of my cynicism in a moment.)

Currently, the best PV solar cells only convert about 15% of the energy they're exposed to into electricity. This makes solar power the most expensive of all energy sources – so using solar energy to power the grid is a functional impossibility.

The other approach to harvesting solar energy is based on using mirrors to focus the sun's rays from a broad area on some type of heated medium. This approach is called concentrated solar power (CSP). The medium can be water or gas … or even molten salt, which is more efficient thermodynamically.

CSP works like any other kind of power plant – and thus the standard thermodynamic limitations are in effect. The amount of useful work created is dictated by the amount of heat generated. Think of nuclear power plants. They sometimes melt down because their cores are so hot. There's a lot of useful potential energy being created there. While that makes them dangerous… it also makes them extremely efficient. Nuclear power is, by far, the most economic way to produce electricity. That's because uranium is the most abundant dense form of energy on Earth.

Here's a simple, common sense way to think about nuclear power versus solar power. Who, historically, has been the best judge of power sources? The world's big navies. Governments might screw around with wind power or solar power… But you can bet the U.S. Navy won't – not for its most important ships. Navies switched from wind to coal… from coal to oil… and finally from oil to nuclear. You can bet they will never switch to solar. Not ever. Why not?

Very simply: Sunlight is a diffuse energy source. Attempts to aggregate into more useful forms of energy (capable of doing more work) require additional energy – lots of it. If you don't believe me, just take a close look at the world's biggest operating solar power plants. They are CSP plants. Inside every CSP plant in the world, you'll find… a lot of natural gas. In fact, these plants require natural gas pipelines to operate. No, I'm not kidding.

I believe without the natural gas burners inside CSP plants, these plants wouldn't work at all. California state regulations allow natural gas to produce 25% of all the energy at "solar" plants. What's not measured is the percentage of useful work the natural gas is providing. And my bet is, almost all of it.

The diagram below shows a schematic of the operations at Nevada One, a huge, 64-megawatt CSP power plant built in the late 2000s in the Nevada desert. Note the crucial "additional heat" box immediately in front of the turbine generator. Guess what "additional heat" means? You guessed it. Natural gas.


(Fail at capture of diagram image)




Now… you'll recall from my earlier writings and from above in this note, that I'm particularly concerned about the government's massive investment in PV solar technology. My concern is that it will never work. PV isn't a heat engine. I don't believe it will ever generate much useful energy in the real world. The Second Law of Thermodynamics renders it practically irrelevant as a source of on-grid electricity. Quite simply… technology can't do much to improve a weak fuel. That's a fact of nature.

What solar plants actually do is hide huge energy inputs in the form of materials. Take a CSP project like Solar Two, which claims to produce a peak of 10 megawatts (MW) of electricity from 130 acres of mirrors. (Actual output is much lower, only about 1.6 megawatts.) Scientist Petr Beckmann calculated that solar plants like these were not capable of producing enough energy to build another solar plant of comparable size. To put the limitations of thermodynamics in stark relief… to produce as much power as a 1,000MW nuclear plant, Solar Two would require 127 square miles of mirrors.

The physics (and thus the economics) of PV plants are even worse. Florida Power and Light recently opened its Desoto PV plant – billed as the largest solar photovoltaic plant in the country. It is rated at 25MW peak production. But the company actually estimates the plant will create 42,000 megawatt-hours over the course of a year… or 4.79MW per hour on average. That's roughly a 19% operating capacity factor.

Worse, there's no way to store this power, which means it's only available for a few hours each afternoon. Assuming perfect operating conditions, that's enough power (for that part of the day) to serve about 3,000 homes. And for this small amount of electricity, Florida Power invested $150 million – or $50,000 per customer. Do the amortization and merely paying for the capital cost of the plant (not the costs of its operation, which are substantial) will cost each rate-payer $322 per month… For electricity they can only use part of the day.

On the wholesale electrical markets, nuclear power costs about $1.65 per kWh. Solar power is selling for around $14-$20 per kWh, depending on the location. That's roughly 10-12 times as much. Why?

Because when you study the physics closely, you will find that the sun isn't providing any of the useful power. All of that must still be delivered by other, more dense sources of energy. What you're buying is solar panels that are being metaphorically stuck on top of natural gas generators, nuclear power plants, and coal-fired power plants. This is merely to appease the idiocy of our political leaders, who are in turn, responding to the absurd dreams of the public, which knows nothing about the hard realities of energy.

Chris Lee, writing in Physical Review, about the limiting impact of electron behavior in PV solar cells said…

Fighting this is exactly like fighting the laws of thermodynamics, the rules of which read something like: you can't win (you never get out more than you put in), you can't draw (you don't even get out what you put in), and you are not allowed to lose with style (when you come close to getting out what you put in, the device is invariably impractical).


The truth is, some scientists (and their backers in government) aren't fighting something like the laws of thermodynamics… they're fighting THE laws of thermodynamics. Doing that my friends is simply stupid – the laws of thermodynamics are undefeated. And they always will be.

Regards,

Porter Stansberry
Baltimore, Maryland
September 23, 2011


Anybody agree....or disagree?

Edited by - bngbuck on 12/28/2011 01:38:48

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2011 :  02:41:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
From the way I'm reading Porter Stansbury, his choice words and expression show that his grasp on physics and particularity the TLoT seems tenuous at best. Having said that, he seems to know his economics. From a strictly economical standpoint, he is right. The ecological standpoint is something he seems to ignore. So basically, he's right for the wrong reasons.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2011 :  10:55:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mabuse.....

From a strictly economical standpoint, he is right
So it is your opinion that his unequivocal statement....
"Solar power, as a source of energy for the power grid, will simply never work. And by "work," I mean it will never even be even remotely economic."
..... is true not only at today's state of the art energy technology; but will forever be true in the future - irrespective of what developments emerge in utilization of solar energy?

As I have said may times before, I am not a credentialed or licensed engineer. My academic credits in most of the hard sciences are largely derived from the University of Google/Wiki and the library of a poor swollen Kindle that I am sure will burst if I download one more Amazon technology popularization into it.

But Stansberry, the oil peddler, says things like
Worse, there's no way to store this power, which means it's only available for a few hours each afternoon. Assuming perfect operating conditions, that's enough power (for that part of the day) to serve about 3,000 homes. And for this small amount of electricity, Florida Power invested $150 million – or $50,000 per customer. Do the amortization and merely paying for the capital cost of the plant (not the costs of its operation, which are substantial) will cost each rate-payer $322 per month… For electricity they can only use part of the day.
From what I read, the science of energy storage is in its infancy. The enormous commitments that every major automaker in the world is making to electric vehicles is testament to the huge R&D investment dollars that are pouring into battery, fuel cell, capacitor, nanoscale capacitor systems, thermal (TES), kinetic and SMES (superconducting magnetic energy storage) - and many more I have barely heard of.

As in any period of history, when the need is intense and the supporting technology platform has developed to a point where startling innovation becomes possible, breakthroughs almost always occur. This is true of the energy storage paradigm today. There will be solutions to the mass energy storage problem. And soon!

Stansberry states:
"Florida Power and Light recently opened its Desoto PV plant – billed as the largest solar photovoltaic plant in the country. It is rated at 25MW peak production"-
But that is photovoltaic. Stansberry conveniently ignores CSP.

Wiki reports
Commercial CSP plants were first developed in the 1980s, and the 354 MW SEGS CSP installation is the largest solar power plant in the world and is located in the Mojave Desert of California.

Other large CSP plants include the Solnova Solar Power Station (150 MW) and the Andasol solar power station (100 MW), both in Spain.
There are, of course, many more world-wide.

In my completely layman's poorly informed opinion, I think that Stansberry is just another special-interest con man toady to Big Oil trying to persuade wannabe Warren Buffets to invest their weekly paychecks in the stocks of fossil fuel giants like BPI, Chevron, and the like. He is using the current weaknesses of PVC technology to demonstrate that the entire concept of viable solar power as a partial replacement for fossil fuels is bogus.
Go to Top of Page

tw101356
Skeptic Friend

USA
333 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2011 :  11:17:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send tw101356 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Here's a very different perspective. It's an animated map showing the years when this group estimates the cost of solar power from rooftop panels on homes will drop below the cost of grid power in various cities:

http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/mapping-solar-grid-parity

Then there's this statement:

"Worse, there's no way to store this power, which means it's only available for a few hours each afternoon."

That's false. Check out Northfield Mountain:

http://www.firstlightpower.com/northfield/

It's a hydroelectric power storage facility. When there is more power being produced in local plants (several of them nuke plants) than is being used, the excess power pumps water up into lake. When they need power at peak times, they open gates and generate power from the turbines. The area surrounding the lake is a public recreation area.

There's other ways to store power for later use, such as breaking down water to hydrogen and oxygen, storing the gases, and then running the gases through fuel cells when electricity is needed. Or sell the hydrogen for fuel cell cars and the oxygen as industrial oxygen.


"Who, historically, has been the best judge of power sources? The world's big navies."

That would be "best judge of mobile power sources which can fit into a ship of XX tons displacement with the longest possible time between refuelings". Of course the US Navy is also very interested in power sources for their bases, such as photovoltaic power:

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=64091

Maybe the US Navy is the best judge for land-based power sources as well.

- TW
Edited by - tw101356 on 12/28/2011 11:18:14
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2011 :  11:51:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Mabuse.....

From a strictly economical standpoint, he is right
So it is your opinion that his unequivocal statement....
"Solar power, as a source of energy for the power grid, will simply never work. And by "work," I mean it will never even be even remotely economic."
..... is true not only at today's state of the art energy technology; but will forever be true in the future - irrespective of what developments emerge in utilization of solar energy?

Ok, poor choice of wording on my part.
It should read "he is mostly right".
I forgot to add the implied caveat "barring some new and unexpected discovery in the future".

The fact is that under optimal conditions, the sun radiates energy at the surface at about 1KW/m². Out of that, most of it is heat radiation and not visible light. Thus far we haven't invented photovoltaic panels that can utilise more than ~10% most of it upper-frequency range of that radiation. And when you count utilisation of sunlight somewhere around 20% over the entire year, you're down to effectively getting out 20W/m² continuous power. Of course, we have still to make major break-throughs in materials which could boost performance. Either by increasing the efficiency of the material, or by producing panels cheaper. This could tip the scales, eventually, especially for small communities without access to the major power grid. But I doubt it will work as a large scale grid supplier. Build more Hoover-dams around Niagara Falls, there's plenty of hydro-electric potential there.

We use more power when we are awake and the sun is up (I haven't researched how much the difference is, but it should be something at least). Having hydro-dams, wind mills, and nuclear plants to take care of base energy production and supplement day-time increases from solar powered devices. This is something Stansberry forgot to mention, besides mixing the cards of PV-devices and CSP, and other heat-engine devices.


(Edited spelling)

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/28/2011 11:52:50
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2011 :  12:07:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by tw101356

It's a hydroelectric power storage facility. When there is more power being produced in local plants (several of them nuke plants) than is being used, the excess power pumps water up into lake. When they need power at peak times, they open gates and generate power from the turbines. The area surrounding the lake is a public recreation area.
There's a place in Sweden with a similar set-up.



There's other ways to store power for later use, such as breaking down water to hydrogen and oxygen, storing the gases, and then running the gases through fuel cells when electricity is needed. Or sell the hydrogen for fuel cell cars and the oxygen as industrial oxygen.
The energy-efficiency in this is very poor. Even the theoretical maximum efficiency of the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is around 70-80%. In practicality perhaps closer to 30-40%.
I don't see this as a realistic solution.

For local production and storage, I propose a lithium-ion battery. Development is ongoing and new designs keep pushing the limits of storage density as well as increase in peak power limits for both charging and discharging.

(edit more spelling)

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/28/2011 12:10:43
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2011 :  16:19:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This topic really makes my blood boil. So much, I have intentionally never started a thread on it. Some of the comments he makes are out right wrong. I have been following the topic since before the internet existed. There is so much misunderstanding about the topic of energy by common non-technical users of energy (electricity) it's pathetic. As an investment guru Porter Stansberry is right on, even if for the wrong reasons. Why? His advice is way more likely make you money than loose it, at this time. That is his job. So who cares if he's right or wrong. From an investment point of view he's right.

I am not deluded to thinking anything I post here is going to knock the planet into a more sustainable, less destructive direction. Mankind is on a scorched earth policy when it comes the exploitation of it's resources resources that this 'guru' claims to know about better than "Folks with Ph.D.s and engineering backgrounds" as he puts it.

He wrote

I believe without the natural gas burners inside CSP plants, these plants wouldn't work at all.
"at all"??? Wrong.

California state regulations allow natural gas to produce 25% of all the energy at "solar" plants. What's not measured is the percentage of useful work the natural gas is providing. And my bet is, almost all of it.

That's bullshit. Give me a break.

Solar thermal and PV are viable sources of electric power today. The reason CSP have gas boilers is to maintain minimal operations when the free solar thermal source is insufficient to maintain needed output. When solar energy is sufficient they produce electricity with no other energy input. It seems he just ignores that fact.

I lived 18 years on my sailboat. The first ten I was either plugged into the grid at a dock or ran my 40 hp diesel engine every day or two to run my refrigeration and all other electric needs. In the last 8 years I got ALL my refrigeration and electricity from PV panels. He thinks I should have not bought my panels and used coal, oil and nuclear power instead or maybe my batteries were charging themselves and my food stayed cold by magic. This write up is his way of propping up demand for the products of the industries he touts. He is not just biased in his views, he's out right wrong on this.

On this very Island, PV panels return a greater guaranteed percentage in direct dollar reduction of the monthly electric bill than any stock he could recommend. Electric rates here are about $.50 KWH. Way higher than what is charged in the states and elsewhere because it is all oil sourced. I have seen and spoken to one homeowner who told she spent $15,000 up front. In 4 to 6 months she got back 50% in Virgin Island and Federal rebates but she had to put her money up fromt first. After the rebates she spent $7,500. I asked how much it lowered her electric bill, she said her average electric bill was $600 a month and it dropped it by $300 a month, in her best estimation. Even without the rebates her 15k investment produces (about) $3,600. What stock generates that kind of return? I don't know but either she or he is lying to me. She had it for 6 months at the time. Even if she was overstating the return how much can she be off?

I believe the last thing your electric company wants is you and your neighbors putting up PV panels on your roofs. I would suggest Porter Stansberry get more up to date on his information and opinion. He's a few years behind. Here's why I think so. Going back to last century his opinion was correct. The only place PV electric was cost effective was at places where no grid power is available. If it's the the only choice than the cost doesn't matter but where the grid was available and with the equipment at that time it WAS a financial looser. Since the introduction of grid tie invertors the energy produced by PV panels can directly reduce you grid bought power. At locations where the grid is at hand there is no need for batteries. Batteries are about 30% of the costs of an off the grid system that needed replacing every 3 years. For Lead acid deep cycle batteries 3 years or 1000 cycles, are the cost effective break even point. By reducing the total costs by 30% and eliminating the recurrence of that charge every 3 years a major cost reduction of PV electricity was achieved.

In more recent years the introduction of "micro-inverters", IMO another game changer arrived. It has only been in the last year that micro-inverters have started coming with 20 year warranty, like PV panels have.
Micro-inverters have several advantages over conventional central inverters. The main advantage is that, even small amounts of shading, debris or snow lines in any one solar panel, or a panel failure, does not disproportionately reduce the output of an entire array. Each micro-inverter obtains optimum power by performing maximum power point tracking for its connected panel.
This advantage is not had with a single grid tie inverter for a whole array.

The best bang for your buck is to invest in a solar hot water system. For it's cost it give the greatest return. Greater than what PV electric returns.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Edited by - sailingsoul on 12/28/2011 16:37:55
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/29/2011 :  09:01:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by sailingsoul

The best bang for your buck is to invest in a solar hot water system. For it's cost it give the greatest return. Greater than what PV electric returns.

It's important to define where your energy goes before thinking about how to solve energy production. Electricity is a highly refined energy source, and it's totally insane to use it for heat, as was done in the '70s in Sweden: using electrical resistor radiators to warm the house. But back then, Swedish electricity was dirt cheap: $0.01 (US) for 1KWh. Today it's ~$0.15(US) including taxes.

Solar panels for heating water is surprisingly efficient, for water if you plan to use it to heat the house, or a hot bath. If you have access to really cold water somewhere close, then a heat engine and a generator might even provide more electricity than a PV-panel. But don't take my word for it, an real energy-specialising engineer should do some calculations on that.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2012 :  12:27:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This thread asks the question "Solar (PVC) Energy impossible?"
When compared financially to all other European countries, Germany is doing very well. Their financial success comes from consistently making better financial and economic choices on a national basis. What does Germany think about the viability of solar electric? Based on 2011 Germany has voted with a big "yes, it's the smart investment".
by bngbuck,,,
Anybody agree....or disagree?


I believe it can be said Germany disagrees with Stansberry also and they're putting their money on it.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Randy
SFN Regular

USA
1990 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2012 :  14:54:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Randy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Speak of the devil....I do commercial electrical work and as of a couple weeks ago am now out at the new Webberville Solar Farm, just outside of Austin, Texas, where I'll be checking voltages and trouble shooting the system the next few weeks.

It's quite impressive to see spanning near 400 acres. It's a 30 megawatt system with 127,000 3x6 solar panels. Will produce energy for 5,000 homes.

I even helped wire up the demo switch and light bulb. Glad it worked when needed since there were about a dozen TV cameras recording the ceremony.

"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."

"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2012 :  12:05:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Randy


I even helped wire up the demo switch and light bulb. Glad it worked when needed since there were about a dozen TV cameras recording the ceremony.


Apparently the smart money (wall street investors) would have had that light switch and bulb connected to the grid and no one would have been the wiser.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

anneparker786
New Member

USA
1 Post

Posted - 01/15/2012 :  21:56:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send anneparker786 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Solar panel is a good way to save energy bills and reduce pollution spreading cause of unwanted gases and energy sources. We all should encourage people using solar panel Colorado to save energy sources.

solar panels maryland
Edited by - anneparker786 on 01/15/2012 21:56:52
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2012 :  22:08:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by anneparker786

Solar panel is a good way to save energy bills and reduce pollution spreading cause of unwanted gases and energy sources. We all should encourage people using solar panel Colorado to save energy sources.


R u a spammer?
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 01/16/2012 :  14:42:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
At least she's on topic.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000