http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* If every roof was a solar panel - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd0a5af9cc4337f6?hl=en
* Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: If every roof was a solar panel
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd0a5af9cc4337f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 22 2011 7:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Mostly when people get home from work, when
>> the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
> But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning
> their store or office during the heat of the summer
Those can be perfectly adequately powered with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
more expensively.
>> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
> But spread out over several time zones and millions
> of rooftops it's a perfect way to produce extra base load.
Pity about the immensely more expensive cost, fuckwit.
That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 22 2011 10:09 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8ut2o7F415U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Mostly when people get home from work, when
> >> the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
>
> > But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning
> > their store or office during the heat of the summer
>
> Those can be perfectly adequately powered with the baseload power generation,
> fuckwit.
Maybe yesterday and maybe today, but with the ever increasing new gotta have
gizmos the base load requirement will soon be swamped. In any event
supplementing the baseload with solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
>
> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
> more expensively.
Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build just TWO
Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that and never even have to
address the spent fuel issue...while increasing baseload and lowering emissions.
But what the hey, PV is just too damn expensive...unless you have a gov't loan
guarantee...too bad such a thing couldn't happen for PV
>
> >> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
>
> > But spread out over several time zones and millions
> > of rooftops it's a perfect way to produce extra base load.
>
> Pity about the immensely more expensive cost, fuckwit.
Compared to Nukes, it's an absolute bargain
>
> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could, improving the environment
and lessening health care costs...absolutely
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 22 2011 10:44 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Mostly when people get home from work, when
>>>> the panels are producing fuck all power, stupid.
>>> But of course no business would ever consider airconditioning
>>> their store or office during the heat of the summer
>> Those can be perfectly adequately powered
>> with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
> Maybe yesterday and maybe today,
No maybe about it. For the future too.
> but with the ever increasing new gotta have gizmos
> the base load requirement will soon be swamped.
Nope, anyone with even half a clue builds more as they are required.
> In any event supplementing the baseload with
> solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
Like hell it does with airconditioning.
A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
And does that MUCH more expensively than any of the
normal base load power generation systems does.
>> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
>> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load, much
>> more expensively.
> Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build
> just TWO Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
No need, they know that $130B wouldnt do anything like that.
> You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that
Another pig ignorant lie. Nothing like what those nukes will generate.
> and never even have to address the spent fuel issue...
Nothing to 'address', its reprocessed and used in nukes.
> while increasing baseload
At a VASTLY higher cost, particularly when is so unreliable.
> and lowering emissions.
Another pig ignorant lie. You're ignoring the emissions produced when the panels are made.
> But what the hey, PV is just too damn expensive...
Corse it is. PV would cost 5 times what the nukes would cost
and would be MUCH less a reliable source of electricity.
> unless you have a gov't loan guarantee...too bad such a thing couldn't happen for PV
Because even Obama aint actually THAT stupid.
>>>> And its a stupidly expensive way to produce peak load power anyway.
>>> But spread out over several time zones and millions
>>> of rooftops it's a perfect way to produce extra base load.
>> Pity about the immensely more expensive cost, fuckwit.
> Compared to Nukes, it's an absolute bargain
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
havent got a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
You need the nukes for when the sun aint shining anyway, fool.
>> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
> By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could,
Pigs arse it would. What jobs it would produce would be in china.
> improving the environment
Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those roofs.
> and lessening health care costs...
Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns falling off their roofs when cleaning the panels.
Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted with.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 22 2011 7:17 pm
From: Bill Bowden
On Mar 20, 10:48 am, Susan Bugher <sebug...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bill Bowden wrote:
> > Yes, the convenience store next door sells several types of long
> > distance calling cards. The gal that works there recommended a $2 card
> > she uses to call Viet Nam. And my brother uses the internet and a web
> > cam to talk to relatives in other states. I knew these cheaper
> > services were available, but I didn't have time to research it. All I
> > wanted to do was wish my niece a happy birthday and figured it
> > wouldn't cost much to use the operator. I would have been happy with a
> > 3 or 4 dollar charge, but I had no idea the rates would be almost $3 a
> > minute.
>
> You have my sympathy. That was a rather expensive lesson but I expect it
> will stick.
>
> Susan
Yes, I won't do it again. I found the email address for
randall.stephenson@att.com, CEO of AT&T, and sent an email explaining
the situation. Got a phone call today from a representative who agreed
to "go half-way" and reduce the charge from 60 to 30 dollars. Still an
expensive call at $30, but I was happy to get the other 30 credit.
-Bill
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
