Small Solar Chargers

Ron Baker wrote:

"cncfixxer1" schrieb im Newsbeitrag Does anyone realize the damage that would be done if Water could be converted to Hydrogen cost effectively?
First the oil stocks would plummet effectively wiping out thousands of pension funds. The government would lose billions in taxes paid by big oil. The states and government would lose perhaps a trillion dollars in lost tax revenue. There would be no money to maintain Oil Platforms and they would fall down creating pollution and hazards to navigation. Congress would have to live on their salary once bribes and payoffs from the oil companies ended, some may even be forced to leave Congress due to financial hardship Catalytic converters would be beat into plow shares and the platinum markets would disappear. Every state having emissions inspection would have to fire all the inspectors and make the buildings into senior centers. and ... worst of all We would be need to send billions in foreign aid to the OPEC nations and no doubt be sued in the World Court for creating extreme poverty in the Middle East.
I think as a gesture of good will we could at least retrain the terrorists so they could find a different line of work after all their funding dried up due to our technology
Fuel Cell Cars make sense, but still to expensive See here what GM is doning in CA and VA http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea7337 http://media.wma.com/cs/jay_leno_environment/ http://www.marketwatch.com/tvradio/player.asp?siteid=yhoof&guid=%7BF7CB859D%2D55AA%2D416C%2D806B%2DF9355374F3EA%7D
Ron Ron
Most people don't realize that gas is the by product after you refine

the good stuff out of oil. So all of the markets will not collapse they will just shift directions to other interests. like the government taxing the water that will go into a car. The key board that you are typing on is a petroleum product. just my 2 cents cheers John Geigle www.masterpiecemodels.com

Eeyore wrote:

Ron Baker wrote:
Fuel Cell Cars make sense
In what way.
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and the fuel cell is only about 50% efficient. What's good about that ?
Graham
The big lie about fuel cells is that they are "far more efficient" than

the ICE.
In reality, NONE of them are even remotely so today, and the total fuel cell based system efficiency is unlikely to EVER beat out an ICE by more than a very few percentage points at its very best.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Don Lancaster wrote:

Eeyore wrote: Ron Baker wrote:
Fuel Cell Cars make sense
In what way.
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and the fuel cell is only about 50% efficient. What's good > about that ?
The big lie about fuel cells is that they are "far more efficient" than the ICE.
In reality, NONE of them are even remotely so today, and the total fuel cell based system efficiency is unlikely to EVER beat out an ICE by more than a very few percentage points at its very best.

Factor in the (rather poor) efficiency of electrolytic hydrogen production and energy loss involved in hydrogen storage and a hydrogen fuel cell car is most certainly no more efficient than a gasoline ICE powered one and far LESS efficient than a diesel car.
Use hydrogen in an alternative fuel in an ICE and the overall efficiency drops to somewhere around the 6% region !
Graham

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:46:43 -0700, "Bob Eld" wrote:

"cncfixxer1" wrote in message Does anyone realize the damage that would be done if Water could be converted to Hydrogen cost effectively?
First the oil stocks would plummet effectively wiping out thousands of pension funds. The government would lose billions in taxes paid by big oil. The states and government would lose perhaps a trillion dollars in lost tax revenue. There would be no money to maintain Oil Platforms and they would fall down creating pollution and hazards to navigation. Congress would have to live on their salary once bribes and payoffs from the oil companies ended, some may even be forced to leave Congress due to financial hardship Catalytic converters would be beat into plow shares and the platinum markets would disappear. Every state having emissions inspection would have to fire all the inspectors and make the buildings into senior centers. and ... worst of all We would be need to send billions in foreign aid to the OPEC nations and no doubt be sued in the World Court for creating extreme poverty in the Middle East.
I think as a gesture of good will we could at least retrain the terrorists so they could find a different line of work after all their funding dried up due to our technology
Not to worry! Since there is no source for hydrogen and ALL of it has to come from some other energy source, the oil companies can always supply that other source and stay in business creating taxes and all you mention.
Current spot price of platinum which you need for the electrodes in

fuel cells is a mere $2170 an ounce, and its only going up. Unlikley to be ever viable for normal cars.

"Ulysses" wrote in message

"Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!" wrote in message
"Ulysses" wrote in message
"Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!" wrote in message
"jan siepelstad" wrote in message I have a 15 kWp PV system on my roof. The panels tend to get quite hot in full sun. Because of the reduced output from high temp. panels, I thougt it might be usefull to put garden sprinklers on my roof, to distribute water over the panels. I have free water available from a small stream in the back of our house. So it would cost met just the energy for a pump. Offcourse the energy gain should be more than the pump energy. Has anyone in this group ever experimented with something like this? And if yes, what were the results?
regards, Jan (from Holland)
I'd look into a ram pump. In all honesty I can't tell you how they work (anybody else?), but they use the flowing water of the stream for their power so there's no operating cost. I don't think they put out much volume, but for this you wouldn't need it anyway.
You would need at least 4 or 5 feet of head for the RAM pump to work. I made a 1" pump that had about 7 feet of head and about 25 feet of feed pipe and it pumped about 1/2 pint per minute to a height of about 60 feet. This went into a storage tank (55 gal plastic drum). Considering how little power a small fountain pump uses, and it will be needed only when the sun is shining, I'd lean in that direction. I think it cost me about $50 to make the RAM pump. A small fountain pump from Harbor Freight is only around $7.
Fair enough. I'll let Jan do the math on which is better. Will the fountain pump develop enough pressure to reach a rooftop?
I guess that *is* rather iffy. We don't know how far away the creek is, or how high the roof is, or if the pump needs to be directly in the creek, or, for that matter, why the main source of water for the house can't be used. If OP has a hill then a RAM pump might work if there is enough head and flow rate and a small storage tank can be used. I had a 55 gallon drum that fed four misting nozzles and it would run all day and there would still be quite a bit of water left over. But I just reread jan's posts and we are talking about an awful lot of panels. The misting hoses and nozzles alone could get pretty expensive.
It looks like all this means I have to go and connect a fountain pump to a misting hose and report back ;-)

Well, forget the mini fountain pump. It did not work very well. I'm sure it used to have more power but after many months of using it for an evaporative cooler it doensn't have much umph left.
Considering how many panels Jan has and the flow rate needed for sprinklers something like a 12 volt pump would have to be pretty big and use quite a bit of power. Also considering that the average high temperature for August in Amsterdam is only 71 F I wonder why cooling is even needed.

LG -- Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford

"Ulysses" wrote in message

"Ulysses" wrote in message
"Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!" wrote in message
"Ulysses" wrote in message
"Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!" wrote in message
"jan siepelstad" wrote in message I have a 15 kWp PV system on my roof. The panels tend to get quite hot in full sun. Because of the reduced output from high temp. panels, I thougt it might be usefull to put garden sprinklers on my roof, to distribute water over the panels. I have free water available from a small stream in the back of our house. So it would cost met just the energy for a pump. Offcourse the energy gain should be more than the pump energy. Has anyone in this group ever experimented with something like this? And if yes, what were the results?
regards, Jan (from Holland)
I'd look into a ram pump. In all honesty I can't tell you how they work (anybody else?), but they use the flowing water of the stream for their power so there's no operating cost. I don't think they put out much volume, but for this you wouldn't need it anyway.
You would need at least 4 or 5 feet of head for the RAM pump to work. I made a 1" pump that had about 7 feet of head and about 25 feet of feed pipe and it pumped about 1/2 pint per minute to a height of about 60 feet. This went into a storage tank (55 gal plastic drum). Considering how little power a small fountain pump uses, and it will be needed only when the sun is shining, I'd lean in that direction. I think it cost me about $50 to make the RAM pump. A small fountain pump from Harbor Freight is only around $7.
Fair enough. I'll let Jan do the math on which is better. Will the fountain pump develop enough pressure to reach a rooftop?
I guess that *is* rather iffy. We don't know how far away the creek is, or how high the roof is, or if the pump needs to be directly in the creek, or, for that matter, why the main source of water for the house can't be used. If OP has a hill then a RAM pump might work if there is enough head and flow rate and a small storage tank can be used. I had a 55 gallon drum that fed four misting nozzles and it would run all day and there would still be quite a bit of water left over. But I just reread jan's posts and we are talking about an awful lot of panels. The misting hoses and nozzles alone could get pretty expensive.
It looks like all this means I have to go and connect a fountain pump to a misting hose and report back ;-)
Well, forget the mini fountain pump. It did not work very well. I'm sure it used to have more power but after many months of using it for an evaporative cooler it doensn't have much umph left.
Considering how many panels Jan has and the flow rate needed for sprinklers something like a 12 volt pump would have to be pretty big and use quite a bit of power. Also considering that the average high temperature for August in Amsterdam is only 71 F I wonder why cooling is even needed.


LG -- Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford


Well, although the average high temp may not be that high in our country, I

would have expected it to be a little higher. But I didn't studie it.
However it's not the average airtemp. that's important, but the temp. of the panels (or actually, the cells). And I didn't measure it, but my guess is that they can be 30�C (54F) above the ambient temp.
If I could cool them down to let's say the ambient temp. (with the use of water as described), that would bring a gain of about 30 * 0.5% in power. For my 15.5 kWp, let's say the real life max. power is 13 kW. So the gain would be 30*0.5*13,000=1950 Watt. This seems worthwile to me.
So far, there were a lot of advises from many people. Thank you all. But to be honest, I hoped to find someone who really did this cooling thing himselves and could share his results with us.
Jan

"jan siepelstad" wrote in message

However it's not the average airtemp. that's important, but the temp. of the panels (or actually, the cells). And I didn't measure it, but my guess is that they can be 30�C (54F) above the ambient temp.
If I could cool them down to let's say the ambient temp. (with the use of water as described), that would bring a gain of about 30 * 0.5% in power. For my 15.5 kWp, let's say the real life max. power is 13 kW. So the gain would be 30*0.5*13,000=1950 Watt. This seems worthwile to me.
So far, there were a lot of advises from many people. Thank you all. But to be honest, I hoped to find someone who really did this cooling thing himselves and could share his results with us.
Jan

This happens to me faily often. I search and Google and find little or nothing about whatever I'm looking for. I think part of the problem is that many people will ask a question, and as in your case get no response based upon actual specific experience, and go on to figure it out themselves. Then the results are not posted so others can share that experience. For example I recently searched for information regarding using a wind turbine to drive an air compressor. All I found was responses saying it would not work but nobody really said why. Well, being the kind of guy I am I had to try it for myself. It didn't work, and I'm not sure why. I would have thought that simply getting the compressor head to turn would result in a cumulation of small amounts of compressed air but it would not build up. I'm guessing the compressor needs to turn at a certain speed in order to work. Once I figure it out I will post my results even if they are negative. Someone else might read it someday and get it to work. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean it can't be done ;-)
The RAM pump idea sounds like a possiblity for you but we don't know enough about your creek or terrain. If you have 4-5 gallons per minute from your creek you could use a 1" pump. If you have more than that then perhaps a larger pump might work. But the RAM pump wont develop much pressure so the water would need to be pumped into an elevated tank and use gravity for the water pressure. You also need a certain amount of "head" for the RAM pump to work but we don't know if you live on flat or hilly land.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:57:01 -0700, "Ulysses" wrote:

The RAM pump idea sounds like a possiblity for you but we don't know enough about your creek or terrain. If you have 4-5 gallons per minute from your creek you could use a 1" pump. If you have more than that then perhaps a larger pump might work. But the RAM pump wont develop much pressure so the water would need to be pumped into an elevated tank and use gravity for the water pressure. You also need a certain amount of "head" for the RAM pump to work but we don't know if you live on flat or hilly land.

I haven't followed this very closely but I DO have lots of water ram experience. Our previous cabin had one that ran literally for 50 years with little more attention than occasionally replacing the leather valve. It pumped water about 100 ft vertically and about 500 feet in distance from the tiny creek that we got our drinking water from.
I'd be afraid to guesstimate the creek's flow but probably in the 10-50 gpm range. The key to making a ram work is to have one SMALL enough to work with the water available. Ours had perhaps a 4 ft drop which was more than enough. The water emitted from the pipe at our cabin with gusto.
There are plans on the net for making a ram using PVC pipe. They look like they would work. And, of course, the original design cast iron rams are still available.
John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -Darwin

"Ulysses" wrote in message

"jan siepelstad" wrote in message
However it's not the average airtemp. that's important, but the temp. of the panels (or actually, the cells). And I didn't measure it, but my guess is that they can be 30�C (54F) above the ambient temp.
If I could cool them down to let's say the ambient temp. (with the use of water as described), that would bring a gain of about 30 * 0.5% in power. For my 15.5 kWp, let's say the real life max. power is 13 kW. So the gain would be 30*0.5*13,000=1950 Watt. This seems worthwile to me.
So far, there were a lot of advises from many people. Thank you all. But to be honest, I hoped to find someone who really did this cooling thing himselves and could share his results with us.
Jan

This happens to me faily often. I search and Google and find little or nothing about whatever I'm looking for. I think part of the problem is that many people will ask a question, and as in your case get no response based upon actual specific experience, and go on to figure it out themselves. Then the results are not posted so others can share that experience. For example I recently searched for information regarding using a wind turbine to drive an air compressor. All I found was responses saying it would not work but nobody really said why. Well, being the kind of guy I am I had to try it for myself. It didn't work, and I'm not sure why. I would have thought that simply getting the compressor head to turn would result in a cumulation of small amounts of compressed air but it would not build up. I'm guessing the compressor needs to turn at a certain speed in order to work. Once I figure it out I will post my results even if they are negative. Someone else might read it someday and get it to work. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean it can't be done ;-)

I see this sequence of posts often as well: The OP (Original Poster) raises a question that involves some equipment and a setup that he has, looking to see if anyone can tell him how to do something to that exact same setup. It often takes a number of posts to finally drag out a sufficient description, of the setup and local conditions to properly define the issue. There are a number of posts provided to the OP that describe steps HE can take to either accomplish what he wants or establish data/information that can be used to establish what will meet his needs. Some of these OP make use of the suggestions provided and do some experimentation on their system and post back the results.
Other OPs (often exAOL types posting through GoogleGroups) can't understand why the people in the Newsgroup won't answer their simple question, and why they keep asking for information or even asking them, the OPs, to try things out on their system. They seem to come to the conclusion that Usenet and the NewsGroups, is a waste of time, and usually leave after some complaints about how poorly they were treated and/or how incompetent Newsgroup posters are, in not quickly answering their queries.
So - to answer this OP's question; Is "cooling PV-panels with garden sprinklers usefull": It could be, you have the PV-panels and certain sprinklers in mind, why not report back your results?
Luck; Ken

On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:57:01 -0700, "Ulysses" wrote:
Time to change the subject line, I think.

This happens to me faily often. I search and Google and find little or nothing about whatever I'm looking for. I think part of the problem is that many people will ask a question, and as in your case get no response based upon actual specific experience, and go on to figure it out themselves. Then the results are not posted so others can share that experience.

One of the keys to google is thinking outside the box. Try to imagine what terms OTHER than the ones you use might be used by the author of what you're searching for. And try to think of related areas. The following will be a good example and will address your air compressor dilemma.

For example I recently searched for information regarding using a wind turbine to drive an air compressor. All I found was responses saying it would not work but nobody really said why. Well, being the kind of guy I am I had to try it for myself. It didn't work, and I'm not sure why. I would have thought that simply getting the compressor head to turn would result in a cumulation of small amounts of compressed air but it would not build up. I'm guessing the compressor needs to turn at a certain speed in order to work. Once I figure it out I will post my results even if they are negative. Someone else might read it someday and get it to work. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean it can't be done ;-)

As you've found out, conventional air compressors aren't very well suited to low speed operation. There's the cogging problem, the periodic resistance on the compression stroke that at high speed is overcome by flywheel inertia. Then there's the blowby problem. As you know, you can slowly turn either an engine or an air compressor through its compression stroke and accomplish nothing. All the air leaks past the piston and rings. Again, both machines rely on speed to cause the compression to happen fast enough that the blowby has little effect. Plus, most piston rings require a certain amount of backing pressure to properly seat.
All you need for low speed compression is a suitable design. One that doesn't rely on inertia or conventional piston rings.
Recently I became interested in big bore air rifles. Think .50 caliber with enough energy to kill big game. Like this, for instance
http://www.quackenbushairguns.com/
The gun is pre-pressurized to from 2500 to 4500 psi. Most folks use diving tanks but believe it or not, there is actually a hand pump available that can generate that kind of pressure.
http://www.airgundepot.com/hand-pump-samyang.html
Of course, in the fine print for one of the rifles, it notes that from 1500 to 2000 strokes are required for the first pressurization. Yikes! Holy exhaustion, Batman!
Not being interested in building my triceps or wearing myself out and not being terribly interested in having to travel 50 miles to the nearest dive shop to beg 'em to fill a tank for a non-certified non-diver, I naturally started looking for alternatives. I momentarily considered building a slow speed crankshaft affair that would drive that manual pump with a motor. Having some doubts about its durability when used like that, I decided to look further.
There are, of course, commercially made high pressure air compressors but they're big $$$$. One of the air gun e-stores sells a ChiCom made unit for $1995 or thereabouts, far too rich for my blood.
So I went googling. I didn't find anything related to air guns. I knew that both divers and emergency responders also use high pressure air. Divers are more likely to homebrew something than are firemen so I included diving terms in my search. There I hit paydirt. Consider this homemade low speed shop-air-drive oxygen compressor.
http://www.brianb.org/images/Scuba/Homemade/Gas%20Booster/gas_booster.htm
From practically zero pressure to 3400 psi in one stage! Pretty zippy. I would have done several things differently. I would not use the lever arm but instead would find the correct diameter air cylinder to generate the necessary force directly. That way the two cylinders are directly coupled and there is no bending moment. I'll probably also go with more than one stage. And since I happen to have an electro-hydraulic power pack, I'll probably use a hydraulic cylinder instead of air.
Anyway, here's a design of a pump that can be directly driven from an old-fashioned farmer's wind mill. You can drive it directly from the reciprocating motion that these windmills deliver to the ground. Actually, the air cylinder that he used to drive his pump would probably be more suitable. You'd want the inlet and outlet check valves to be as close to the cylinder as possible to minimize dead space.
So how long will it take you to get one running? :-)
John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN There is much pleasure in useless knowledge. �Bertrand Russell

yaeh cold water on a hot chip . KABOOM crack crack crack lots of broken cells


On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:14:53 +0200, "jan siepelstad" wrote:

I have a 15 kWp PV system on my roof. The panels tend to get quite hot in full sun. Because of the reduced output from high temp. panels, I thougt it might be usefull to put garden sprinklers on my roof, to distribute water over the panels. I have free water available from a small stream in the back of our house. So it would cost met just the energy for a pump. Offcourse the energy gain should be more than the pump energy. Has anyone in this group ever experimented with something like this? And if yes, what were the results?
regards, Jan (from Holland)

I have never had a problem with a garden hose on my panels in hot sun. I have watched the power meter rise excitedly several times.
Do you understand the construction of PV panels and how tough they are?
"mike6" wrote in message

yaeh cold water on a hot chip . KABOOM crack crack crack lots of broken cells


On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:14:53 +0200, "jan siepelstad" jan@microsoft.com> wrote:
I have a 15 kWp PV system on my roof. The panels tend to get quite hot in full sun. Because of the reduced output from high temp. panels, I thougt it might be usefull to put garden sprinklers on my roof, to distribute water over the panels. I have free water available from a small stream in the back of our house. So it would cost met just the energy for a pump. Offcourse the energy gain should be more than the pump energy. Has anyone in this group ever experimented with something like this? And if yes, what were the results?
regards, Jan (from Holland)

wrote:

Every year I get excited about installing solar panels. I then do my research online and quickly get discouraged by the high price tags and mediocre performance...

PVs are hideously expensive compared to solar heat from a sunspace, which can cost 100 times less per peak watt and provide useful floorspace. Most US houses need several times more heat energy than electrical energy.
With a $50 used car radiator and its 20 watt fans, a sunspace can also store 140 F water in a large unpressurized tank containing a $60 1"x300' 13-gallon pressurized plastic pipe coil to make hot water for showers. The same radiator can heat the house with tank water on cloudy days.
Amorphous silicon solar electricity should get cheaper in a year or so, with companies like XsunX coming on line with a manufacturing cost close to $1.50 per peak watt for panels which produce more electricity than other kinds in dim sun and high temperatures. XsunX stock seems interesting at 42 cents/share, with a $21 million venture capital commitment, which isn't easy to get these days. Unisolar's similar product has a long waiting list.
Nick

1/ Muistamme miten aikoinaan asbesti oli tie loistavaan tulevaisuuteen. Koska kyseess� oli suoranainen Ven�j�n lahja maailman teollisuudelle. T�m� aine ratkaisi keksimisens� j�lkeen suoranaisen leegion tekniikkaan pesiytyneit� lukuisia ongelmia. Asbestista haluttiin tehd� jopa lakanoita, koska n�in estettiin palot joita syntyi valtaisasti s�ngyss� tupakoinneista. Miljoonat jarrupalat olivan mailman turvan tae, jne.. Asbesti oli kertakaikkiaan erinomainen ja turvallinen aine vuosikymmenest� toiseen, kunnes... ..!
2/ Aikoinaan freon vapautti maailman kuivuvista, l�ikkyvist�, huonosti toimivista t�lkeist�. Tuotti puhdasta ja turvallista elintarviketta m��r�tt�m�sti j��kaapeissaan. Freoniin luotti niin eristeteolisuus, hiuslakkafirmat, kuin henkil�kemikaalituotannot naiskaunmeuteen asti, liuotinmaailmat, kuin sen TARKOIN tiedettyyn turvallisuuteen ja vaarattomuuteen luotettin jopa l��kinn�llisi� sumutteita my�ten. 60-luvun vallankumouksen er�s taattu kulmakivi. Ja ennen kaikkea oli niin perusteellisin tutkien todettu vaarattomiksi sen kaikki ilmentym�t, ett� kunnes .. ..!
3/ DDT oli aikansa legenda. T�ysin vaarattomana se vapautti sotien kasvattamista hy�nteisinvaasioista. Poisti malariat, punataudit, loiset kaikialta ja sy�p�l�iskiusat niin kodista, kuin puutarhoista. Halpaa huviketta vaikka maailmat t�yteen, made by maailman mahtavin USA osasi kaupata ja suorittaa myynit. Niin oli DDT pelastava koko kurjan maailman. Kunnes tuotettiin ihan vaan silkkaa ilkeytt� viritelty kirjafiasko. "Hiljainen kev�t!.. ..Paskanmarjat tiedettiin , kukas noita nyt uskoi moisia huuhakkeita intt�mineen. Kun rahaisat insin��rit osasi miljoonasti enemm�n.. ..!
4/Maailman energiamonopolien kuningasajatuas oli vaikka nyt nakutuksenestoaine lyijyinen hermomyrkky. Toki jo Rokkefellerin bensiini-impperiumi tiesi tarkoin, ett� vaihtoehtoja nakutuksen estoon olisi vaikka vaarattomampi biopohjainen alkoholi. Ja sit� jonkinaikaa kilpailijat kauppasi. Mutta kun USA:n hallitus tajusi bensiinin py�ritt�v�n maailmaa ja oivalsi sen monopoliarvon p��tettiin syrj�ytt�� alkoholin yksityisk�ytt�j�t h�skisti. Tuttua tapaako? No taatusti! Pian varmistettiin lyijyhermomyrkkybensiinill� se, ett� maailma t�ytet��n tulevan vuosisadan t�ll� er��l� maailman vaarallisimmmalla supermyrkyll�. Kaikki bensiiniammattilaiset kyll� sairasteli t�iss��n, mutta kuka uskalsi purnata ty�nantajaansa? Mit��n painoarvoa vaaran suhteen ei toki testein n�hty, koska JUURI vaarallisuus takasi sen, ettei kukaan nyksityinen voisi valtiomonopolibisneksi� pilata tiukissa turvam��reiss�. Vasta kun kaupunkilaisnmuorissa 70-luvun energiakriisin alta tavatiin huikeaa 30% suuruusluokan �lykkyysvajetta myrkytyksist� alettiin panikoida. Silloin oli maapalloa tuhottu mit� lienee 66,6v, kunnes massojen tapposysteemille alkoi tulla sein� pyst��n. No nyt kukaan ei halua edes muistella miksi Antarktista my�ten maailmamme kerrustelee lyijyhermomyrkkyjen takia.. ..!
5/ Vaan kaiken huippu on tietysi no, TAAS kerran t�ysin virheet�n ja mit��n haittavaikutusta tekem�t�nt� enerkiaansa puurtavaa.. ..ydinvoima. Ja jos nyt joku Pekka Jauho, mit��n tiet�m�t�n Albert Einstein, tai vaikka K.V. Laurikainen jotain aikoinaan koetti vihjaista ydins�teilyn mitatuista kasautumisista biotooppeihin kohtalokkaasti ja joku Nobelisti pari kertoili kirjoissaan Ajzenberginm laboraatiotodisteista s�teilyn megatappokyvyist� kavaluuksineen. Niin ei t�llaisin kannata kajota. Mit� lienee haihattelijoita edell�kerrotut, kun ei juhli pian 66,6vuottaan miljoonatappokasoillaan riehuvaa ydinvoimaa, niin olkoon v�kivoimin valtiotoimin vaiettu kuoliaaksi! IAEA ei totta tosiaan STUK/SUPO:n kanssa halua rahantuotolleen realisoijia ja haittaajia! Niin .. kunnes. .. kerran paljastuu ihmiskunnan maailmalta miltei t�ysin pyyhkivin seuraamuksin. Jo pitk��n ja kauan varoituksiaan kaikkialle esitellyt. ..no arvatkaas .. .. !

MYRTYNEIT� ydinherraskaisia.
YLE 8.5.2008. Haastateltavan energiaherran suusta: "Olemme joutuneet huomaamaan, ettemme kovista yrityksist�mme huolimatta kyenneet vakuuttamaan Suomen kansalle ydinvoiman tarpeellisuutta lainkaan!" .. ..
Ja melkein itkua v��nt�v�� ydinlobbariherraa yksi toisensa per��n kuvaruutuun enemm�n kuin harminsa kiukkua nieleskellen. Eik� mairitteluun todella ole syyt�. Suomen kansa oli pannut karut faktat esiin. Gallupin mukaan vain 20 % oli ylip��t��n edes yht� ydinvoimalaa halukas rakentamaan. Teollisuuspiirien himoitseman triplan ydinhankke- emieliin peilaili 4 % kannatus! Eik� edes ydinalan OL-3 plutoniumpoltolle ja isotooppiuraanikaivoshankkeille uraanirikastamoineen v�ltt�m�tt�m�n NATO-j�senyyden suosio ole ylitt�nyt 20 % p�yristytt�v�n pient� kannatusnyanssiaan kovasta, megalomaanisesta painostuksesta piittaamatta. Toki jo Niinist�n pit�m�n nuorisoparlamentin 80 % ydinvastaisuuden kanssa kaikki kivasti stemmaa.
Ehk� silti kaikkein t�rkein on yh� sanomatta. Nimitt�in tuollaisilla ydinprojektiensa tahkoamilla kannatusluvuilla on p�iv�n selv� viesti niin ydinintoisille puolueille yleens�, kun erityisesti ydinryvettyneelle Kokoomukselle, KTM:lle kuin ihan koko tulevan hallituskuvion varmennukseksi. Jokainen joka t�llaisiin lukuihin luo ydinhankkeitaan tiet�� tarkoin, ett� kansa viskaa vaaleissa oppositioon takuuvarmasti JOKAISEN ydinkannatuspuolueen ministeri�ineen!..
Ei siis mik��n ihme, ett� ydinherrojen rasvaiset hikivanat kasvavat vaalien l�hetess�. Ei lupaa muuten jatkossa ruusutarhoja yhdelle sun muille ydinyhti�monopoleillemme. Ja HYV� NIIN!)