If only there were a university locally with a focus on positive impact from product design...

https://news.rice.edu/news/2021/students...ill-blades
[/quote]

That's nice to know. Thanks for posting that. Wouldn't get rid of the waste, but might reduce how dirty it is a bit. Transport of new blades and turbines to the school would still be polluting, as with all blades, plus turbines need oil and changing oil filters regularly to run (What? You didn't know wind turbines used Oil? Silly rabbit.) The article you quoted discusses chopping the blades up afterwards to make it easier to transport, which is a good idea, but the waste is still there. Insulation, other uses are theorized but not yet known and cost/practicality would also need to be addressed, but good to at least try to do something about the significant man-made pollution and environmental problems from Wind energy. Wonder if they think they'll dig up all the ones already buried by others or just forget them? Another question for another time, perhaps. I'd guess they'd still need to bury the ground up waste in a University landfill somewhere on campus, but that's what I was asking Ham about.

So...that doesn't address the Solar Waste toxins and the millions of Bird Killings, what have you got for those, Mark?

Here's something I found on Solar Waste:

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy

Quote:Tons of solar panels installed in the early 2000s are reaching the end of their lifecycles, posing a serious problem for the industry to contend with. Current solar panel disposal practices are far from being environmentally friendly.

Questions remain about whether their production and waste creates more pollutants than the fossil fuels they aim to replace.

Manufacturing solar panels often requires the use of several noxious chemicals. To add to that, solar panels have an operating lifespan of around 20 to 30 years. Since they were first introduced in the 2000s, literal tons of solar panels are reaching the end of their lifespan. Because it's not easy to properly dispose of the toxic metals inside the solar cells — and there's an overall lack of oversight — it is often cheaper to discard them in landfills or send them to developing countries. As solar panels sit in dumps, the toxic metals they contain can leech out into the environment and possibly pose a public health hazard if they get into the groundwater supply.

My point here, fellas, is not that we can't use some of these alternatives, but they also remind us that most "alternatives" are intermittent and thus unreliable, can't provide anywhere near the enormous power needs to replace even 6-7% of traditional fuels used, pose their own significant environmental problems and costs, and when compared to good, clean natural gas (which seems to be a recent no-no for some odd reason (cough, power-monging, cough, control)) or oil, in many cases are not worth the effort, cost or trouble. Again, I'd be very interested in Nuclear, though, and that would seem more apt to send a futuristic and powerful message of how to overcome the issues...It'd be cool to see a smaller new Nuclear plant on campus and quite a point of pride for our U and a selling point for our engineering program.
[/quote]

I wasn't trying to correct you or say you were wrong. I agree with a lot of your points. And, the university would certainly not be in the business of recycling fan blades or another materials. However, I also believe that there is the opportunity to solve a lot of those problems as well. May take time, but it's another opportunity for the university to bring in significant incremental funding and excel globally.

The U.S. has a far larger disposal/recycling problem than old wind farm blades - old boat hulls.
There are roughly 12 million boats in the U.S..
Most are fiberglass.
The lifespan is estimated to be 50 years.
That's a whole bunch more EOL fiberglass to find a place for than wind farm blades.
Why isn't there outcry against the ownership of boats?
(Because the petrochemical industry isn't challenged.)

Recycling old boat hulls

BTW, there are recyclable blades in use.

(02-13-2023 03:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 10:43 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  If only there were a university locally with a focus on positive impact from product design...

https://news.rice.edu/news/2021/students...ill-blades

That's nice to know. Thanks for posting that. Wouldn't get rid of the waste, but might reduce how dirty it is a bit. Transport of new blades and turbines to the school would still be polluting, as with all blades, plus turbines need oil and changing oil filters regularly to run (What? You didn't know wind turbines used Oil? Silly rabbit.) The article you quoted discusses chopping the blades up afterwards to make it easier to transport, which is a good idea, but the waste is still there. Insulation, other uses are theorized but not yet known and cost/practicality would also need to be addressed, but good to at least try to do something about the significant man-made pollution and environmental problems from Wind energy. Wonder if they think they'll dig up all the ones already buried by others or just forget them? Another question for another time, perhaps. I'd guess they'd still need to bury the ground up waste in a University landfill somewhere on campus, but that's what I was asking Ham about.

So...that doesn't address the Solar Waste toxins and the millions of Bird Killings, what have you got for those, Mark?

Here's something I found on Solar Waste:

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy

Quote:Tons of solar panels installed in the early 2000s are reaching the end of their lifecycles, posing a serious problem for the industry to contend with. Current solar panel disposal practices are far from being environmentally friendly.

Questions remain about whether their production and waste creates more pollutants than the fossil fuels they aim to replace.

Manufacturing solar panels often requires the use of several noxious chemicals. To add to that, solar panels have an operating lifespan of around 20 to 30 years. Since they were first introduced in the 2000s, literal tons of solar panels are reaching the end of their lifespan. Because it's not easy to properly dispose of the toxic metals inside the solar cells — and there's an overall lack of oversight — it is often cheaper to discard them in landfills or send them to developing countries. As solar panels sit in dumps, the toxic metals they contain can leech out into the environment and possibly pose a public health hazard if they get into the groundwater supply.

My point here, fellas, is not that we can't use some of these alternatives, but they also remind us that most "alternatives" are intermittent and thus unreliable, can't provide anywhere near the enormous power needs to replace even 6-7% of traditional fuels used, pose their own significant environmental problems and costs, and when compared to good, clean natural gas (which seems to be a recent no-no for some odd reason (cough, power-monging, cough, control)) or oil, in many cases are not worth the effort, cost or trouble. Again, I'd be very interested in Nuclear, though, and that would seem more apt to send a futuristic and powerful message of how to overcome the issues...It'd be cool to see a smaller new Nuclear plant on campus and quite a point of pride for our U and a selling point for our engineering program.

(02-13-2023 03:53 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I wasn't trying to correct you or say you were wrong. I agree with a lot of your points. And, the university would certainly not be in the business of recycling fan blades or another materials. However, I also believe that there is the opportunity to solve a lot of those problems as well. May take time, but it's another opportunity for the university to bring in significant incremental funding and excel globally.

And I also welcome the discussion. I, too am hopeful that some or all of these problems can be mitigated and/or solved. My point was to provide much-needed balance to the seemingly prevalent (and it seems at least somewhat wrong) idea that wind and solar have little or no environmental consequences, when it is clear from the facts that they in fact have many of the same issues people attribute to Oil and Gas. The long-term effects and consequences of trying to turn wind and solar waste into for example building products or insulation are not well-studied or known. They could be another time-bomb along the lines of asbestos a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral. The six types of which are composed of long and thin fibrous crystals, each fibre being composed of many microscopic "fibrils" that can be released into the atmosphere by abrasion and other processes. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various dangerous lung conditions, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, so it is now notorious as a serious health and safety hazard. (Recall that initially it was once touted as a miracle insulator and wonder of building materials and for much of the 20th century it was very commonly used across the world as a building material, until its adverse effects on human health were more widely acknowledged in the 1970s, and we now unfortunately know kills people by causing cancer and other respiratory problems.)

Actually, while a small nuclear plant might not ultimately prove practical or cost effective for university application, I believe a clean-burning and time-tested Natural Gas powered plant might. Has anyone thought of building a relatively small Natural Gas turbine next to the Stadium to solve the power issues without needing to address the issues of the gulley, et cetera that have been brought up earlier in the thread? And for the record, there are cars that have been converted to run on Grease collected from grease traps of restaurants and such, anyone looked into a small grease-burning plant that could run a turbine to provide the needed energy? I mean, the campus would smell like Hooters, but that would be appropriate for the Owls, and we could even get a few hostesses in the stands to complete the picture...

(02-13-2023 11:04 PM)Grungy Wrote:  The U.S. has a far larger disposal/recycling problem than old wind farm blades - old boat hulls.
There are roughly 12 million boats in the U.S..
Most are fiberglass.
The lifespan is estimated to be 50 years.
That's a whole bunch more EOL fiberglass to find a place for than wind farm blades.
Why isn't there outcry against the ownership of boats?
(Because the petrochemical industry isn't challenged.)

Recycling old boat hulls

BTW, there are recyclable blades in use.

Don't tell Owl#s! (he's Old Navy)

Anyways, I agree, there are lots of recycling issues out there, not just blades. I'm actually more concerned about the Bird Carnage myself, which is just tragically horrible to me, and it appears not too many who tout wind energy (or solar, where many birds fry) seem concerned, but it seems many of those same folks often howl at birds covered in oil from a spill, so it seems quite inconsistent (for the record, I still tend to avoid Exxon gas stations as much as possible, and that's really on the drunk captain who caused that spill more than anyone.)

Many petrochemical/oil cos are participating in the so-called "green" industries nowadays...so the water (or oil or sun or air) is murkier as far as blame and avoidance, more-so than the average person really seems to understand. As far as the HRS goes, this discussion, which I appreciate, does kinda show that there is no free lunch, and pretty much everything we do to get any energy at all has both positive and negative environmental costs associated with it, if we are willing tom honestly examine their total life-cycles instead of ignoring them. I for sure believe economic cost, especially providing energy for poor people, should be a strong consideration.

Just because we can maybe come up with an expensive recycling or repurposing plan for some of these materials (and provide substantial government subsidies, thus arbitrarily picking winners and losers instead of letting the markets and individuals decide and choose for themselves without artificial mandates made by un-elected officials who oftentimes are just shills for and recycled managers from the industries they allegedly regulate, whether solar, wind, oil or gas) doesn't mean we should. And remember, all these extra government regulations and administration bodies cost poor people the most, and they are the ones who can least afford it and are hurt most by it (well, and all the birds that are killed get hurt, too.).

It's estimated that up to a million birds are killed each year by wind turbines, but that is far exceeded by collisions with communications towers (6.5 million); power lines, (25 million); windows (up to 1 billion); and cats (1.3 to 4.0 billion) and those lost due to habitat loss, pollution and climate change.

How do the cats fare in all those collisions?

I definitely see a lot less birds in general than I did a few decades ago. But you still see some cool and slightly unusual species every winter in Houston. And it seems to change every year, as for as the dominant bird. I'm not sure exactly what breed it is, but I've seen a lot of little starling-type birds this winter that have a tiny bit of yellow on them. I think it might be a yellow breasted warbler? Although the ones I'm seeing don't have quite that much yellow as the picture below.

I'm also amazed how many different types of birds (including Owls) that you see on the Rice campus!

(02-13-2023 04:03 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 03:53 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 03:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Considering the significant negative environmental and humane costs of wind and solar, I'd opt not to use them at all, but then, I like animals and not everyone does...Considering the scientific knowlegde available on campus, I'd vote for Nuclear power as the most practical and cleanest, and perhaps we could even sell a few extra watts...

If only there were a university locally with a focus on positive impact from product design...

https://news.rice.edu/news/2021/students...ill-blades

That's nice to know. Thanks for posting that. Wouldn't get rid of the waste, but might reduce how dirty it is a bit. Transport of new blades and turbines to the school would still be polluting, as with all blades, plus turbines need oil and changing oil filters regularly to run (What? You didn't know wind turbines used Oil? Silly rabbit.) The article you quoted discusses chopping the blades up afterwards to make it easier to transport, which is a good idea, but the waste is still there. Insulation, other uses are theorized but not yet known and cost/practicality would also need to be addressed, but good to at least try to do something about the significant man-made pollution and environmental problems from Wind energy. Wonder if they think they'll dig up all the ones already buried by others or just forget them? Another question for another time, perhaps. I'd guess they'd still need to bury the ground up waste in a University landfill somewhere on campus, but that's what I was asking Ham about.

So...that doesn't address the Solar Waste toxins and the millions of Bird Killings, what have you got for those, Mark?

Here's something I found on Solar Waste:

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy

Quote:Tons of solar panels installed in the early 2000s are reaching the end of their lifecycles, posing a serious problem for the industry to contend with. Current solar panel disposal practices are far from being environmentally friendly.

Questions remain about whether their production and waste creates more pollutants than the fossil fuels they aim to replace.

Manufacturing solar panels often requires the use of several noxious chemicals. To add to that, solar panels have an operating lifespan of around 20 to 30 years. Since they were first introduced in the 2000s, literal tons of solar panels are reaching the end of their lifespan. Because it's not easy to properly dispose of the toxic metals inside the solar cells — and there's an overall lack of oversight — it is often cheaper to discard them in landfills or send them to developing countries. As solar panels sit in dumps, the toxic metals they contain can leech out into the environment and possibly pose a public health hazard if they get into the groundwater supply.

My point here, fellas, is not that we can't use some of these alternatives, but they also remind us that most "alternatives" are intermittent and thus unreliable, can't provide anywhere near the enormous power needs to replace even 6-7% of traditional fuels used, pose their own significant environmental problems and costs, and when compared to good, clean natural gas (which seems to be a recent no-no for some odd reason (cough, power-monging, cough, control)) or oil, in many cases are not worth the effort, cost or trouble. Again, I'd be very interested in Nuclear, though, and that would seem more apt to send a futuristic and powerful message of how to overcome the issues...It'd be cool to see a smaller new Nuclear plant on campus and quite a point of pride for our U and a selling point for our engineering program.

Respectfully, Good... Your response is part of the reason why athletics at Rice are struggling. I spoke about CONNECTING ATHLETICS TO THE RESEARCH ASPECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY and you ignore that and act as if Athletics should simply go purchase existing technology. Like what has put us here in the first place, you seem hell bent on looking for obstacles as a reason to do nothing.... or at least to not do what might work.

Research is all about finding dozens of ways that don't work... and although current solar panels and wind turbines can be an issue, there is no reason to think that we would HAVE to use current technology.

The reality is that our stadium is a microcosm of the entire electric grid world. As it is a distance from the University, there is a relatively large expense associated with getting power from the existing grid TO the stadium.... like many places in the world. Also like many places in the world, the power demands of the stadium outstrip the current supply (which is zero in some places). It is the PERFECT potential incubator for alternative enegy generation and storage, especially in that it sits idle in the wind and in full sun for hours each day and weeks each month. With more and more people wanting to live independently and protect themselves from issues with the grid (either temporary or permanent) not to mention many places where there IS no grid... this research has PLENTY of applications, regardless of your political slant.

We were previously working on a paint that collected solar power.... and we paint large portions of the stadium. That is what gave me the original idea... but I don't pretend to be as up to date (or smart) as the numerous engineering students on campus who can come up with much better ideas than I can.

And generation is only part of the question. Another question would be storage. Current battery tech involves rare earth minerals.... but NASA uses mechanical technology... we probably had something to do with that... so there are opportunities with alternative chemistries for standard batteries as well as alternative tech.

And whether you agree or not, guess what sort of technology is currently in vogue for research grants with not only the government, but private industry?

But remember... My goal here isn't really to address the power needs at the stadium. If that were the goal you write a check. The GOAL is to integrate the stadium into the activities of the University... as that makes HRS and the activities there part of our academic pirsuits.... and brings global attention to the University... and athletics.

(02-14-2023 11:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 04:03 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 03:53 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 03:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Considering the significant negative environmental and humane costs of wind and solar, I'd opt not to use them at all, but then, I like animals and not everyone does...Considering the scientific knowlegde available on campus, I'd vote for Nuclear power as the most practical and cleanest, and perhaps we could even sell a few extra watts...

If only there were a university locally with a focus on positive impact from product design...

https://news.rice.edu/news/2021/students...ill-blades

That's nice to know. Thanks for posting that. Wouldn't get rid of the waste, but might reduce how dirty it is a bit. Transport of new blades and turbines to the school would still be polluting, as with all blades, plus turbines need oil and changing oil filters regularly to run (What? You didn't know wind turbines used Oil? Silly rabbit.) The article you quoted discusses chopping the blades up afterwards to make it easier to transport, which is a good idea, but the waste is still there. Insulation, other uses are theorized but not yet known and cost/practicality would also need to be addressed, but good to at least try to do something about the significant man-made pollution and environmental problems from Wind energy. Wonder if they think they'll dig up all the ones already buried by others or just forget them? Another question for another time, perhaps. I'd guess they'd still need to bury the ground up waste in a University landfill somewhere on campus, but that's what I was asking Ham about.

So...that doesn't address the Solar Waste toxins and the millions of Bird Killings, what have you got for those, Mark?

Here's something I found on Solar Waste:

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy

Quote:Tons of solar panels installed in the early 2000s are reaching the end of their lifecycles, posing a serious problem for the industry to contend with. Current solar panel disposal practices are far from being environmentally friendly.

Questions remain about whether their production and waste creates more pollutants than the fossil fuels they aim to replace.

Manufacturing solar panels often requires the use of several noxious chemicals. To add to that, solar panels have an operating lifespan of around 20 to 30 years. Since they were first introduced in the 2000s, literal tons of solar panels are reaching the end of their lifespan. Because it's not easy to properly dispose of the toxic metals inside the solar cells — and there's an overall lack of oversight — it is often cheaper to discard them in landfills or send them to developing countries. As solar panels sit in dumps, the toxic metals they contain can leech out into the environment and possibly pose a public health hazard if they get into the groundwater supply.

My point here, fellas, is not that we can't use some of these alternatives, but they also remind us that most "alternatives" are intermittent and thus unreliable, can't provide anywhere near the enormous power needs to replace even 6-7% of traditional fuels used, pose their own significant environmental problems and costs, and when compared to good, clean natural gas (which seems to be a recent no-no for some odd reason (cough, power-monging, cough, control)) or oil, in many cases are not worth the effort, cost or trouble. Again, I'd be very interested in Nuclear, though, and that would seem more apt to send a futuristic and powerful message of how to overcome the issues...It'd be cool to see a smaller new Nuclear plant on campus and quite a point of pride for our U and a selling point for our engineering program.

Respectfully, Good... Your response is part of the reason why athletics at Rice are struggling. I spoke about CONNECTING ATHLETICS TO THE RESEARCH ASPECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY and you ignore that and act as if Athletics should simply go purchase existing technology. Like what has put us here in the first place, you seem hell bent on looking for obstacles as a reason to do nothing.... or at least to not do what might work.

Research is all about finding dozens of ways that don't work... and although current solar panels and wind turbines can be an issue, there is no reason to think that we would HAVE to use current technology.

The reality is that our stadium is a microcosm of the entire electric grid world. As it is a distance from the University, there is a relatively large expense associated with getting power from the existing grid TO the stadium.... like many places in the world. Also like many places in the world, the power demands of the stadium outstrip the current supply (which is zero in some places). It is the PERFECT potential incubator for alternative enegy generation and storage, especially in that it sits idle in the wind and in full sun for hours each day and weeks each month. With more and more people wanting to live independently and protect themselves from issues with the grid (either temporary or permanent) not to mention many places where there IS no grid... this research has PLENTY of applications, regardless of your political slant.

We were previously working on a paint that collected solar power.... and we paint large portions of the stadium. That is what gave me the original idea... but I don't pretend to be as up to date (or smart) as the numerous engineering students on campus who can come up with much better ideas than I can.

And generation is only part of the question. Another question would be storage. Current battery tech involves rare earth minerals.... but NASA uses mechanical technology... we probably had something to do with that... so there are opportunities with alternative chemistries for standard batteries as well as alternative tech.

And whether you agree or not, guess what sort of technology is currently in vogue for research grants with not only the government, but private industry?

But remember... My goal here isn't really to address the power needs at the stadium. If that were the goal you write a check. The GOAL is to integrate the stadium into the activities of the University... as that makes HRS and the activities there part of our academic pirsuits.... and brings global attention to the University... and athletics.

Really, Ham? My #1 goal for HRS is to have a Championship-Winning Football team playing there most or all of the time. I'm pretty sure that would provide a ton of publicity for the University, as it does for the many other schools around the country who do so, and not to the detriment of their research or subschools (Michigan, USC, et al.)

Rice has shown itself to be quite thrifty when it comes to the football program that resides at HRS, and far from b!tching about things without offering solutions, I have offered three (3) so far, all of which would do the same as the choices you offered: Nuclear, Grease-powered, and Natural Gas turbine right next to the stadium.

I don't automatically assume as many have been trained to do, to automatically value solar or wind as superior without thinking and considering the significant downsides. Indeed, when I was much younger, I, too, bought the line that solar and wind were the undisputed future of energy with no or almost no downsides. That false narrative has proven to be, well, quite false when confronted with the actual facts. Also, they increasingly show themselves to not be very economical, and my compassion for the poor and how they suffer from overly expensive solutions to their problems when oftentimes basic and time-tested solutions are more than adequate belies my thinking as well.

Some, like apparently you, seem to want to do this:


when all that seems to be needed is this:

(sign this guy up--he can bench!)

I mean, as a kicker, tell me: at practice did you spend your time at practice learning how to do THIS:

which is very hard to do, but certainly posssible....
or did you want to practice trying to do something like THIS over and over consistently?


Aim for the Middle, or "Right Down the Middle"
--it's in your own Avatar description!!
Are you saying you don't really mean that?


Some time ago, I posted something about Solar Powered Roads...and when I first heard about the idea my initial reaction was: "Cool! That sounds like a great idea!" After researching the actual data and testing results, I saw that while it might someday be possible, it wasn't anywhere close to being ready today. Plus it would be very expensive, perhaps prohibitively so.

But gasoline I.C.E. engines are well-developed, pretty cheap to run, and I fix my own a lot when they break down because I have consciously opted to drive simpler vehicles that have the LEAST amount of technology involved in them, thus allowing me more freedom to be self-reliant rather than always needing another's expertise (and the expense of that expertise). I mean, sure, I could drive a rocket-powered vehicle, or an electric one, but all I really want to do is get to where I'm going quickly, safely and efficiently, so any I.C.E. box-on-wheels will do the job. The fact that it may or doesn't have extra bells and whistles or "hot" new technology matters not a whit to me. I don't value most extras and add-ons as I perceive them as mostly wasteful (and my experience has been the added-in extra electronics are more prone to break and or keep your vehicle from running when you need it, kinda like adding electronics to a washer when all you need is a simpler (and cheaper) mechanical one to get the job done well); I'm not against them, per se, I just place them in a different context, the context of "what is the essential thing that I am trying to do, and what's the simplest (and most economical) way to get that done efficiently? I may or may not opt for the simplest and/or cheapest, but I tend to lean that way. I think, over time, that basic idea of keeping efficiency top of mind has served mankind well.

Again, my goal for HRS is to have a winning football team. I perceive the best way to do that is to spend money we have on better coaching. For a few million more a year, we could get a much better return than adding solar panels and wind turbines to the stadium. Not that we couldn't do both, but it seems money's an issue here (except when it comes to , as you say, "political stuff" from a certain point of view---then money can be shoveled at it, it appears. I don't agree with that, but whatever, the powers that be do, so that's the way it is.) So I suggested just build a simple Natural Gas power plant next to it and hook up your power grid and be done with it. Or burn excess restaurant grease, or to tie in with the University's science and engineering schools, build a small Nuclear plant that could handle the job and demonstrate some world-class solutions for the problem, as you wish.

What I don't think is so very smart, is to do much with Wind or Solar, as the more data that becomes available, the more it seems they have as much, if not possibly more, downside than Oil, Gas or Nuclear (or grease...but that's the word.) I also don't like killing all those birds with it, which few seem to really talk about much. That's my opinion and perspective. You don't have to agree.

My goal since you kept bringing it up here, was to use the opportunity to add some much needed balance to the solar/wind/gas and oil debate, and I appreciate your letting me do that. They are not the panacea mostly being marketed.

Let's win on the field, as we've spent on the EZF (remember how that was supposed to be the solution) and other renovations (which I like, especially the bathrooms!) But I don't think we really need solar or wind-powered toilets so we can toot our "Green" horns while losing 41-9 on the field because in part we are unwilling to spend those same dollars on a winning coach who can recruit better kids here, for one example. Our school colors are Blue and Gray anyway, not Green, they are historical and I prefer to keep it that way.

Thanks for the response, and I'll always appreciate the way you kicked for us!


Edit: Oh, P.S. I have liked your Med Center connection ideas much better than your solar and wind connection ideas.

(02-13-2023 02:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  For some perspective, 10 tons suspended 50 feet in the air is 377 watt-hours. You could run a coffee-maker for about half an hour with that.

Good point, and relevant. Thanks for posting that.

Like Solar-Powered Roads, the giant kinetic weight idea initially sounds cool, but that would be one heck of an air-traffic stopper to hang over our U. And heaven (or whoever) help us if it fell over!

As to efficiency, I can steam a nice little chicken and rice dinner in a hotel coffee pot if need be, but I'm not sure that would be able to provide enough concessions for all the hungry fans at games. Well, then again, maybe if we keep the downward trend on-field going, we could get to where all we'd need is a couple of coffee-makers to handle the fan traffic that's left.


And, to address Ham's apparent interest in chasing after government grant dollars, I'm just not sure I agree with following the government, or at least the mostly un-elected administrative bureaucrats, wherever they may dictate to control us to go. Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out as seems to be happening too much these days, especially with government. Some people it seems will follow money no matter where it may lead them. It seems to lead you too often to unintended destinations surrounded by people with whom you'd be better off not associating with, and worse to be beholden to them when you drop your not-so-smart phone off to be repaired.

All these high-falutin' ideas don't seem to hold a candle to winning on the field, something I think the OG understood very well. I miss him being here and being part of our school. I wonder how much he liked coffee?

(02-14-2023 12:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Really, Ham? My #1 goal for HRS is to have a Championship-Winning Football team playing there most or all of the time.

I'm trying to figure out what 90% of the post I responded to or this post that i edited for brevity has to do with your goal. You can say its your goal, but none of your energies here seem directed towards that end. Nothing about how 'dirty' solar panels are does anything to improve Rice athletics.

I'm talking about ways to make 'football' (in particular) INTEGRAL to the University.,, which to me means somehow tying athletics in to academic pirsuits, like getting grant dollars for energy research.

Power generation and storage (since we need it at the stadium... since its a global issue... and since you agree there is a lot of money in researching it right now) seems obvious to me. I'm unaware of any significant dollars being invested in building (or researching) biofuel or nat gas generation.... and that would be impractical in many parts of the US and world. That doesn't mean that it isn't a viable application to our situation, it just means that we're simply buying existing tech, which has nothing to do with academics.

Getting better coaches, getting better players, calling better plays, winning more games are obvious goals that i support. I've posted a lot of my ideas on that before... just because I don't say it here doesn't mean I've changed my mind on it.

Part of my Med Center idea that you support has to do with integration as well. The point is to make 'athletics' as much a part of the University as Physics.... because if it is, then suddenly our students are interested in athletics... or at least in HRS... and now all of a sudden, the University has a reason to spend potentially millions on improvements to HRS out of ACADEMIC budgets, and we can use money we might have raised for renovations on coaching.

(02-14-2023 01:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 02:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  For some perspective, 10 tons suspended 50 feet in the air is 377 watt-hours. You could run a coffee-maker for about half an hour with that.

Good point, and relevant. Thanks for posting that.

Like Solar-Powered Roads, the giant kinetic weight idea initially sounds cool, but that would be one heck of an air-traffic stopper to hang over our U. And heaven (or whoever) help us if it fell over!

As to efficiency, I can steam a nice little chicken and rice dinner in a hotel coffee pot if need be, but I'm not sure that would be able to provide enough concessions for all the hungry fans at games. Well, then again, maybe if we keep the downward trend on-field going, we could get to where all we'd need is a couple of coffee-makers to handle the fan traffic that's left.


And, to address Ham's apparent interest in chasing after government grant dollars, I'm just not sure I agree with following the government, or at least the mostly un-elected administrative bureaucrats, wherever they may dictate to control us to go. Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out as seems to be happening too much these days, especially with government. Some people it seems will follow money no matter where it may lead them. It seems to lead you too often to unintended destinations surrounded by people with whom you'd be better off not associating with, and worse to be beholden to them when you drop your not-so-smart phone off to be repaired.

All these high-falutin' ideas don't seem to hold a candle to winning on the field, something I think the OG understood very well. I miss him being here and being part of our school. I wonder how much he liked coffee?

A couple of industrial size generators can be bought for under $100k and installed easily next to the stadium, one on the East side and one on the West. Plenty of power for hours, and they only have to be turned on six times a year. Done.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2023 12:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Really, Ham? My #1 goal for HRS is to have a Championship-Winning Football team playing there most or all of the time.

I'm trying to figure out what 90% of the post I responded to or this post that i edited for brevity has to do with your goal.

I believe I did say that I was discussing the solar and wind things since you had repeatedly advocated for them here. I agree that theses posts from myself as well as the post from you on the subject don't have much to do with my #1 goal of having a Championship-Winning Football team playing at HRS most or all of the time.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You can say its your goal, but none of your energies here seem directed towards that end. Nothing about how 'dirty' solar panels are does anything to improve Rice athletics.

Again, I agree. I also stated that since you were bringing up adding solar and wind to HRS, I was willing to discuss those aspects. And I further stated that my goal with these particular posts was to provide some balance to those considerations and push back on the seemingly prevailing viewpoint that they are free or mostly free from environmental issues (I believe I have shown with the links I posted and the pictures on the previous page, that while solar and wind have their positives, they are clearly not as clean and green as their marketing has led many to believe and have some troubling negatives akin to what most people have been led to believe only apply to oil and gas. It seems clearer now that all energy sources have some significant environmental problems, whether solar, wind, oil, gas, nuclear, et cetera). Again, I only decided to go down the path you seemed to be laying out with your repeated posts here on solar and wind. I don't mind you doing that, nor advocating for what you would like. That's cool with me. I'm just following your lead.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm talking about ways to make 'football' (in particular) INTEGRAL to the University.,, which to me means somehow tying athletics in to academic pirsuits, like getting grant dollars for energy research.

And that's fine to wish to advocate for that from your perspective. Certainly Universities have pursued greater and greater government dollars through the years. There are some merits to that. And, importantly, there are also some drawbacks to that. The increased costs to taxpayers and having their dollars spent by un-elected bureaucrats rather than being able to advocate themselves for where those dollars are spent perhaps with private or non-profit entities. I'm not so comfortable with continuing with that model, not at the extremely high-dollar and high-taxation levels we are at now, especially with the country's debt level flying past the $31.5 TRILLION Dollar mark in the past year, and getting uncomfortably close to annual GDP. Seems we'd do well to look to cut the budget somewhere, and giant government grant programs to Universities seems a good place to start cutting back. Not eliminating, mind you, but it's gotten way out of hand, we can't really afford it, and we need to reign it back in, IMO. Again, following your lead on the discussion topic that you've been posting about.

Now, also, along those lines, and even more troubling, are all the research dollars we are seeming to allow from foreign governments and operative entities, many of which among the highest spenders are openly enemies of our national interest and sovereignty. Yes, I am talking about money from Communist China, and Rice is as guilty of that as any university. I think that's a very bad idea as well from a national security standpoint. Regardless and irrespective of whether the money goes to research ways to help reduce the tremendous negative environmental problems of Wind and solar, or other things that may or may not be related to Rice athletics success. Heck, I don't know why we'd let folks who are foreign nationals from enemy countries (not friendly foreign folks) come study at our top universities in the first place. And no, I don;t think it matters much if they can dribble or kick or not. Don;t give your enemies bullets or the knowledge to make the bombs that can potentially kill you is the operative strategy I'd pursue in these matters, therefore all foreign do0llars from enemy countries or world organizations that include these enemy countries would be non-starters.

So to be fair, I did offer three suggestions, two of which would strongly address your stated goal of pursuing ways of solving the HRS problems with power and solutions that would be ways to make 'football' (in particular) INTEGRAL to the University, which to me means somehow tying athletics in to academic pirsuits(sic), and those ways for me would NOT be Solar or Wind power because of the many undesirable environmental problems those two technologies bring along with the negative and harmful ecological problems of Wind and Solar power, and that includes the waste. I'm really not convinced that grinding silicone to dust wouldn't bring health issues like asbestos does, but I do think it would take a few generations to see those negative health outcomes manifest themselves in people's and animals' bodies while they are, as the Rice article alluded to, integrated into building products and other things people come into regular contact with (like the suitcases and computer screens alluded to in Grungy's post about the newer recyclable wind components (and wondering what the end-of-life and energy expenditures of further recycling and/or disposal of those products is). Not sure that Siemens has addressed the myriad solar waste issues yet, but at least they're aware and admitting there is a massive hidden problem with solar and wind technologies that was not originally adequately addressed.

I'd rather pursue Grease, Nuclear and/or Natural gas. You'd rather stick with Solar and Wind. Okay. At least we can discuss options, and they DON'T all have to be "green", as was another point I was making. It seems best for the solutions to be realistically available, economical and solve the problem without creating too many others for a net loss.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Power generation and storage (since we need it at the stadium... since its a global issue... and since you agree there is a lot of money in researching it right now) seems obvious to me.

Okay. I agree we need power generation at our stadium while storage may or may not be an added component that is necessary. It seems immaterial at best why we'd be worried whether global issues play into it or not. It's an American football stadium, with no track but we do have the opportunity to again host concerts and things like Monsters of Rock and such, so there's that. I am concerned with where the non-Univeristy money is coming from, and you seem to be more comfortable with two sources I'd rather reduce or eliminate, namely forced decisions by un-elected government bureaucrats through grants and Enemy countries of ours, namely Communist China. M I'd rather private sources, individual donors who have an interest and non-profits. Opening up to some corporate sponsorship seems more than prudent to look into, although the current corporate climate has certainly changed somewhat from whence it used to be.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm unaware of any significant dollars being invested in building (or researching) biofuel or nat gas generation....

While I'd surmise they're out there, they do seem to be suffering the past two years especially from what many would call a somewhat unwarranted and foolish government bias against them, for some strange reason. To your interest in Solar and Wind whilst mostly ignoring or downplaying their significant drawbacks both environmentally and ecologically I'd just ask to consider and compare them in their totality of effects environmentally and especially economically, not just all their short-term touted positives (and I want to say I really do appreciate your not getting too huffy when I point the drawbacks out like some other more "enlightened" posters tend to do who march more or less lockstep to a pre-determined agenda their leaders inculcate into them at the expense of reason and measured evaluation.) nevertheless, that does not to me seem to preclude utilizing present and proven technologies and fuels, so I'll just point to and question your apparent compulsion to wish to so vigorously pursue them when we have technologies that aren't apparently broke and don't appear to need fixing.

Again, I'm ignoring the apparently ill-informed alarmists who say we have but, what is it now, 8 years of life left on earth??? They seem to keep changing their minds. I'm also specifically still waiting for the great Ice Age that was screamed about in the 70's and 80s before they flip-flopped and switched to the warming thing now. I was looking forward to all the snow-skiing in Houston (cross-country to be sure, but it's a great exercise to keep in shape, and I use my indoor skiier a lot, especially when it's raining). Shame it never happened. Oh, well. Maybe they'll switch back to Cool after we're all still here in 8 years?

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and that would be impractical in many parts of the US and world.

So what? if it's practical here, that's all we seem to need to worry about. If you want to worry and give your own personal funds for global problems that's great, but please don't raise my taxes and attempt to force me involuntarily to. I have my own community and charities I participate in, some of which happen to be global in nature, to be sure, and I have my own family to take care of. I don;t need or appreciate un-elected government bureaucrats deciding for me when I am freely capable of making choices myself.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That doesn't mean that it isn't a viable application to our situation, it just means that we're simply buying existing tech, which has nothing to do with academics.

So, if we apply this new rule of yours (I'm not sure where all your dogma is coming from here, Ham, I really am not.) then I don;t think we'd be able to have an awful lot fof things that make a University function as far as infrastructure because they are just not cutting-edge enough. I mean are the students even allowed to have a bonfire and roast hot dogs and marshmallows (oops global warming!!!) anymore? (but smoking cigs or weed and throwing the butts down on the ground or at the curb doesn't count, because, hey, man, you know, that's cool, bro?) I mean your dogmatic logic sound a bit unhinged here. Maybe you'd like to reconsider?

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Getting better coaches, getting better players, calling better plays, winning more games are obvious goals that i support. I've posted a lot of my ideas on that before... just because I don't say it here doesn't mean I've changed my mind on it.

Good. We agree on that. Yes, I know you to be very passionate and rooting for us to do significantly better in sports at Rice. That's one thing I do admire about reading when you post. I would say I share those sentiments, though admittedly I have become a lot more cynical the past 10 years, and I wish it were njot so, but the lack of success on the field and corts and the apparent administrative apathy whist at the same time energetically and financially pursuing and supporting goals which seem out of step with national inerest, sovereignty and or traditional success has certianly weigehd heavily on me. Would that we had pursued things athletically motre like Texas Christain did when they were behind us in teh S.W.C. (which I do also miss). Oh, well, we haver our own administrative dogma to follw it seems.

(02-14-2023 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Part of my Med Center idea that you support has to do with integration as well. The point is to make 'athletics' as much a part of the University as Physics.... because if it is, then suddenly our students are interested in athletics... or at least in HRS... and now all of a sudden, the University has a reason to spend potentially millions on improvements to HRS out of ACADEMIC budgets, and we can use money we might have raised for renovations on coaching.

Well, I see where you are with this and can get behind most of those ideas (not the solar and wind parts myslef, but the support and integration parts, yes, yes.) I, too would like our student selection committes to be more considerative of more well-rounded student applicants where athletics interest and participation is much more of a balanced concerned than perhaps some of the more one-dimentional matriculants that we have seemd to have had, which seems to hurt our athletic endeavors as well. Let those one-dimentional geeks gfo to RPI (although they have a pretty good hcokey program there, or they used to). Troy can't hold a candle to Houston, but I digest my pizza again...

I'll end with agreeing (I think we are) that if we spent a few more million on head coaching, we might find the athletic success to probvide more of the budget to pursue a lot of these and other ideras. I've always posted that I consider athletics a subset of Universiyt marketing and bugetarily I'd put it there as far as accounting, with the requisite goodwill estimation acciounted for as well.

Now, about those generators OurLand posted about...make it so....

(02-14-2023 04:40 PM)Ourland Wrote:  A couple of industrial size generators can be bought for under $100k and installed easily next to the stadium, one on the East side and one on the West. Plenty of power for hours, and they only have to be turned on six times a year. Done.

We already do this.... and have for decades now.

(02-14-2023 01:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 02:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  For some perspective, 10 tons suspended 50 feet in the air is 377 watt-hours. You could run a coffee-maker for about half an hour with that.

Good point, and relevant. Thanks for posting that.

Like Solar-Powered Roads, the giant kinetic weight idea initially sounds cool, but that would be one heck of an air-traffic stopper to hang over our U. And heaven (or whoever) help us if it fell over!

As to efficiency, I can steam a nice little chicken and rice dinner in a hotel coffee pot if need be, but I'm not sure that would be able to provide enough concessions for all the hungry fans at games. Well, then again, maybe if we keep the downward trend on-field going, we could get to where all we'd need is a couple of coffee-makers to handle the fan traffic that's left.

Forest:Trees

You could generate and then 'store' that energy thousands of times over in between uses. Again, like Rice... you're looking for reasons to sit on your hands. Kinetic storage doesn't have to involve massive weights. Nasa uses springs. Again, I'm no engineer... and I'm betting by your comments that you aren't either... but to deny that there are potentially BILLIONS of dollars involved in energy storage other than via rare earth metals is just insane. All athletics is doing here is making its facility open to the University and University initiatives.

Quote:And, to address Ham's apparent interest in chasing after government grant dollars...

Woah there chief..... It's not MY interest Good... It's the University that chases grant dollars... and they're not all from the government. Athletics wouldn't get a dime of that. I'm literally shocked that you don't get this. You think car manufacturers wouldn't LOVE a battery that didn't involve rare earth metals and hundreds of pounds? Be serious.

Quote:All these high-falutin' ideas don't seem to hold a candle to winning on the field, something I think the OG understood very well. I miss him being here and being part of our school. I wonder how much he liked coffee?

I just find it odd that someone would say that these 'ideas' don't hold a candle to winning....

First, because there is nothing about this idea that precludes working on 'winning'. It's not an either/or. I mean seriously Good, it's laughable for you to speak as if I'm not interested in winning... as if I don't think winning is 'key'. Literally laughable. But we've never TRIED any of these ideas... and alternatively have been trying to win now for decades without success.

Like you're doing now... obviously at some point those who want to spend more money have hit obstacles... and its somehow kept us from doing what you think needs to be done. I believe (from working closely with insiders, particularly Bobby) that it has a lot to do with many on campus (and many alumni) who don't see the connection between sports and academics.... and with NIL and what the SEC is doing, their position is GROWING, not shrinking. My goal here is to take them and that argument off the table... which actually works IN FAVOR of your idea of spending more on coaching.

Seriously... you don't think anyone has thought of that? Why do you think they haven't done it? Why do you think Brian Patterson and Bobby Tudor (and others) gave tens of Millions of dollars to buildings, instead of to coaching? We've endowed the HC position, so clearly we've spent more... and how are the results looking to you?

I'm not saying don't spend more on coaching. The opposite in fact. I'm just saying that jousting at windmills (quite literally in this sense) is what has put us where we are. LEAN IN to what the University does and ask them 'how can we help you'.... and then when we ask to spend $3mm/yr for an HC, they owe us or are now tied into us somehow and it is easier for them to say 'ok'.

Ham, I want to better address your INTEGRATING of technology angle to drive more interest in football, after reading again. I'm not sure I adequately did so, though I did dance around your point quite a bit. Give me a few minutes, please...

Oh, I see you already responded. That;s okay. Hmm. Well, I'll read it first and thenm respond, since what you worte might help me with your perspective.

(02-14-2023 05:34 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I'll end with agreeing (I think we are) that if we spent a few more million on head coaching, we might find the athletic success to probvide more of the budget to pursue a lot of these and other ideras. I've always posted that I consider athletics a subset of Universiyt marketing and bugetarily I'd put it there as far as accounting, with the requisite goodwill estimation acciounted for as well.

Now, about those generators OurLand posted about...make it so....

I'm ignoring most of what you posted before this. Sorry, but you just don't get what I'm saying... Since you like my avatar comments, perhaps you should also read my signature.

Now to the above...

If you can figure out how to win without integrating with the University in order to get the 'buy in' necessary to do what we both probably agree needs to be done then more power to you... and we don't need to integrate. SOme very smart people have been after that for decades now without success.

As I've said... we've been trucking generators in for decades. Why do YOU think we haven't made them permanent? 100k is a rounding error to what we've spent on the EZF, the north fields and south additions, plus the new stadium improvements. I mean, you seem to think all we have to do is fund 100k... so why haven't we while we've raised some $100mm?? Spedning probably ten thousand dollars each time we rent them?

And there is nothing for us to 'fund' in my ideas. All we have to do is let the University do what it was probably going to do anyway.


And I'm not really doing this to drive more interest in football... in the way that 'winning' would. I'm doing this to drive more interest from people who don't care one bit about athletics and SURE don't support spending tens of millions of dollars on it to allow those of us who DO care about athletics to do so... and in my mind, that comes from them seeing a USE for athletics or at least our facilities.

(02-13-2023 03:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

FYI ... the caption for this image is:

I’m creating images showing how much space my 2050 national solar dump will take up in South Australia, I feel I shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to show it next to the old Leigh Creek Coal Mine:

Solar panel waste vs. coal ash dump (Note: That's the coal mine on the left.)

As you can see, it’s obviously insignificant compared to one insignificant Australian coal mine. A mine that’s puny compared to the nearly 80 kilometer long Blackwater monster mine in Queensland. The Leigh Creek Mine removed 60 million cubic metres of coal when in operation, so we could fit my 2050 national solar waste dump in the holes they left behind more than 30 times over.

(Source: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/recy...nel-waste/)

(02-14-2023 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2023 04:40 PM)Ourland Wrote:  A couple of industrial size generators can be bought for under $100k and installed easily next to the stadium, one on the East side and one on the West. Plenty of power for hours, and they only have to be turned on six times a year. Done.

We already do this.... and have for decades now.

Well there you go. So I think we're in agreement the problem is not so much we can't do it, it's that we (or our U leadership) won't do it. A problem of the will.

OK, so to address your INTEGRATING technology angle, I think this is where we can further parse that one.

I think it should be clear by now that based on the facts presented, and the fact that they have heretofore mostly not been included in a balanced way in most discussions people generally see of these two technologies (Wind and Solar) whether by outside media or by many here on these boards (which is understandable because as I said, I too was initially misled as to their true natures and the significant hidden downsides of Solar and Wind akin to oil and gas, so I understand how that happens) based on facts like those I am highly, highly suspect at this point about Solar and Wind. Much more work needs to be done to be willing to spend so much on them when we do have present technologies to further refine and develop (oil and gas, biofuels, Grease, et cetera) and others to pursue: Nuclear in its different forms and scales clearly to me offers the most present and upside future potential and the most bang for the buck, understanding that there is NO fuel/energy technology that is totally clean and without environmental risk. I hope this brief discussion the past two or so pages has helped to enlighten or at least raise valid questions on the Solar and Wind industries from those who might previously have bought like I did the false narrative that they are mostly clean and "green" when the truth scientifically seems to be that they are clearly anything but.

I also hope that introducing the true environmental costs of these seemingly "good" technologies helps us all understand hat economics can and should play an important role in how we decide which and how much of each to pursue, especially as the poor are much more severely negatively impacted by things like Wind and Solar technology problems than some or many of us may at first glance see for ourselves. Finally, it is unscientific and plain wrong to assume that we can now or in the foreseeable future (next 20 to 50 years or even 100) replace any significant amount of fossil fuel use with Wind or Solar energy commensurate with both the power they produce or the quantity needed for our needs. If you have nay doubt about this fact, I'd ask if you've ever used a gas-powered chainsaw alongside an electric one. If not, I'd encourage you to get out and join a tree crew for a week as I do occasionally (for fun and exercise, as well as service) and see firsthand why the electric "green" alleged revolution is far,l far away from being ready or adequate to address the present or future needs and jobs we need to and are doing.

Now, I am on record as offering technologically interesting areas to pursue Ham's INTEGRATING agenda: Nuclear, which speaks most directly to what I believe are Rice's engineering strengths and specialties, grease recovery and power generation, as I don't think anyone will be giving up Fires and tempura anytime soon, and further looking into how to improve natural gas which is very clean, greener than solar and Wind, IMO, and plentiful for a few centuries, as well as Rice's past and demonstrated prowess in exploration, identifying and improving methods of extracting fossil fuels.

Students interested in, and pursuing those three areas can then be given a goal/project of helping with the Stadium's power needs and the U can publicize it and get the international recognition Ham was suggesting is important, while kicking right down the Middle, as Ham's own Avatar suggests, and staying away from the uprights which is hard, and can cause problems, anticipated or unanticipated. Nuclear, especially, offers the most promise of greater returns and rewards to get us where we'll need to be in 100 or so years. Solar and Wind do not. Especially when it comes to things the U has also been involved with and which we can imagine will be pursued more in the future like space exploration, mining asteroids for precious metals and other possible power sources.

Remember that Voyager and other ships carried Nuclear generator to provide most of their long-term power needs. Solar panels were mostly low-level supplemental, and to my understanding Wind is non-existent in outer space, but may exists on some planet or moon environments. These two should be secondary or tertiary endeavors, but never primary ones. Nuclear, propellant-based fuels and I'll go ahead and add in Plasma-based fuels as I've been hearing this is a promising newer area to explore for power and propulsion as well.

(02-14-2023 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Forest:Trees

You could generate and then 'store' that energy thousands of times over in between uses. Again, like Rice... you're looking for reasons to sit on your hands.

Nope, I'm nothing like Rice, so I'll disagree with your assertion here.

I want to get out and pursue as much as you do, just not WHAT you want to pursue. I can't believe you can't plainly see that, so I state it again. Sitting on our hands has never been what I at least have advocated for on these boards, although to be fair many, many others (including our admin and Athletic dept) have.

As to the storage, what you COULD do (of course you can do a lot of things) and what you SHOULD do (or what is best overall) are two very different things. Did you see the two mousetrap gifs above? That is the difference. Both accomplish the same thing (or are at least designed to) one is much more convoluted, time and resource-consuming while the other is simpler and more proven.

I'm not nearly as enamored as you seem to be with the dogma of storage. I'm, just not. It's important, but not the end-all be0-all it often seems to be made out to be. Ourland pointed out you can get a couple generators and be done with HRS needs and a lot of others. There is nothing wrong with looking at solving needs that way, but it does seem you have some sort of problem with it and that's one thing that confuses me. Save the trick plays for special occasions, not as an every other down thing. they cease to be effective.

(02-14-2023 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Kinetic storage doesn't have to involve massive weights. Nasa uses springs. Again, I'm no engineer... and I'm betting by your comments that you aren't either... but to deny that there are potentially BILLIONS of dollars involved in energy storage other than via rare earth metals is just insane. All athletics is doing here is making its facility open to the University and University initiatives.

Okay, I'm not against that, just not all that thrilled as much as you are in pursuing it when I can solve problems with proven, efficient and available technologies and methods. Run a Clean Natural Gas generator and store your energy in a spring, or what have you. You can do that too, without as many negative environmental consequences as Solar and Wind, and far, far cheaper. everybody wins!

(02-14-2023 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:And, to address Ham's apparent interest in chasing after government grant dollars...

Woah there chief..... It's not MY interest Good... It's the University that chases grant dollars... and they're not all from the government. Athletics wouldn't get a dime of that. I'm literally shocked that you don't get this. You think car manufacturers wouldn't LOVE a battery that didn't involve rare earth metals and hundreds of pounds? Be serious.

I knew a guy at Rice who's name was Chief, but I'm not him.
I've stated I'd like to get away from government involvement as much as possible in these things and you of all people understand why. I'd discourage and seek for the University to detach some from that system and be more independent-minded. That's a perspective. I understand the ingrained reality. Moving a large ship takes time, but someone does have to make the choice to start turning the wheel. So I don't think I'm saying what you think I am here. And yes, it's the University (or the Hospital, or whatever large entity we might be discussing) not you personally, I get that, Kimosabe. As well as Athletics doesn't get the money from it. Yes, of course, I don't know how you got that I said it would, but I'll move forward on that one. UI was maybe hust trying to address the power needs of HRS, maybe that's where.

I don't see how a giant weight in the sky works for a car, but I don;t want to go down that rabbit hole, so I'll just say assuming something like that exists, sure they might have some interest.

(02-14-2023 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:All these high-falutin' ideas don't seem to hold a candle to winning on the field, something I think the OG understood very well. I miss him being here and being part of our school. I wonder how much he liked coffee?

I just find it odd that someone would say that these 'ideas' don't hold a candle to winning....

First, because there is nothing about this idea that precludes working on 'winning'. It's not an either/or. I mean seriously Good, it's laughable for you to speak as if I'm not interested in winning... as if I don't think winning is 'key'. Literally laughable.

The only thing laughable is that you seem to think that I said that. I do not believe I said you didn't care about winning. I actually think I went out of my way to compliment that you did. Don't go all RiceLad loco on me, man.

(02-14-2023 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But we've never TRIED any of these ideas... and alternatively have been trying to win now for decades without success.

We also haven't tried paying market rate for a good coach and staff and a decent recruiting budget. I'd rather do that than solar and wind, for example. I don't need to kill the two birds like you're seemingly advocating for here. I don't mind trying that if that is what they want, I've just been saying come off of only Solar and Wind, as it doesn't appear to scientifically be what many of us were sold it was. Look at some other technologies and apply your methodology. Build your giant springs. That's all I'm saying. The only thing I see we disagree on here is the use of Soar and Wind. that's why I originally asked you about the Landfill, because if you're gonna do solar and Wind you're gonna need an awfully big Landfill, that's all.

Look, I got a business meeting tonight, so I got to cut this short. I'll look again at your responses from there, but from my perspective I really don't think we're all that far off from each other here. And we both want Rice to win. That I do know.

God Bless, Ham.

edit: fixed the quoting miscues (i think)

(02-14-2023 06:25 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-13-2023 03:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

FYI ... the caption for this image is:

I’m creating images showing how much space my 2050 national solar dump will take up in South Australia, I feel I shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to show it next to the old Leigh Creek Coal Mine:

Solar panel waste vs. coal ash dump (Note: That's the coal mine on the left.)

As you can see, it’s obviously insignificant compared to one insignificant Australian coal mine. A mine that’s puny compared to the nearly 80 kilometer long Blackwater monster mine in Queensland. The Leigh Creek Mine removed 60 million cubic metres of coal when in operation, so we could fit my 2050 national solar waste dump in the holes they left behind more than 30 times over.

(Source: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/recy...nel-waste/)

Yep, that's the source and yep, that the caption. Not trying to hide anything there.

But tell me: How long has coal mining been around? A: Thousands of years.
And how long has this coal mine been around? Well, Australia was founded as a British Penal colony, and large-scale coal mining didn't really get going until the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, so we'll say about what 150-almost 200 years, tops? Okay.

And how long has Solar panel technology been in widespread use, enough to necessitate a large Landfill to dump the stuff? Well, as the articles I posed state, we are at the very infancy of that technology and industry, so this is only the first cycle of solar waste in any appreciable amount we are just now starting to see. There will be a lot more to come.

Point is, if we project out solar waste over the next 150-200 years we are getting a lot more waste than just that one little starter blue square and that is more comparable to the coal waste in the photo (not sure how much of that is waste and how much is other mining activity, but the caption indicates there is mining activity there as well, so the coal waste is also not the whole area). Or we could do the reverse and go see how much smaller the coal waste would be say 20 years into the modern history of coal mining--I'd guess it'd be about the size of the little blue square, perhaps a bit more.

But there's one other important factor in the comparison that Almadenmike leaves out: What is the equivalent energy produced from the coal versus the energy from the solar: Answer seems to be it's not even close. Coal provides a lot more power than the solar. Remember, solar cannot realistically replace even a fraction of the energy we get from fossil sources like coal, gas, oil. But too often in these types of comparisons, it is dishonestly pretended that somehow the laws of science are suspended because it's been labelled "green", so math somehow doesn't matter.

Never said coal or oil or gas was 100% clean, but neither is solar. Not at all. And given enough time, the Landfill for solar can become just as big, with fare less energy produced and far more expensively. So it's a choice, and there are plusses and minuses for solar, wind, coal, oil, gas, nuclear...that's the point. And, oh, by the way, the guy that wrote the blog article that the photo is taken from makes his living from solar energy, so no bias there, right? (Disclosure: I do Not make my living from any of solar, wind, oil, gas or nuclear, just in case you were wondering.)

New generators solve the problem.

(02-15-2023 12:03 AM)Ourland Wrote:  New generators solve the problem.

I think Ham and I agreed they don't want to solve it. I agree with you, though.