[ucodegen]

Some of this is really sad..

Some of those clunkers are not really that much of a clunker. The Oldsmobile Aurora V8 is a pretty good engine and hot-rodders like to build hot-rods from them. It is one of the very few 4valve cyl, dual overhead cam V8s made by GM, and is derived from the Cadillac Northstar engine.

Here are some pictures of properly dressed Aurora V8s.
http://www.fabulousracers.com/images/photo_gallery/aurora.jpg
http://www.katechengines.com/street_performance/images/tour/DSCF0921.JPG

Most of those cars should be donated to low income people in trade for the POS they may be driving (income lower than a certain amount, and only to replace a car of poorer condition). It also shows how stupid some people are. Some of the used car values on the cars turned in are greater than the $4500 that they receive on the clunkers program.

So what will really happen from all of this?

* more stuff going to landfills (not 100% of a car is recyclable)
* repair/replacement parts get more expensive – rebuilt engines come from somewhere.. you can’t use the crank or the block of these engines in a rebuild because of the scoring.
* Used cars get will more expensive – these cars would have probably gone on the used car market.
* New cars get more expensive – prices were going down until this.
* People who had a car that was paid off now have a new car that will be depreciating quickly and have yet another ‘mortgage payment’. (less discretionary income.. which is needed for recovery)

Dealers may also be gaming the system…

—
How about $4500 towards a roof-top solar array of 5KVA or better?.. $4500 will buy you 2.5KVA+. I wonder how much CO2 we would be prevented this way…

Peter Schiff’s take, actually starts at 0:23:

Interesting comment at 2:09…

[ucodegen]

Some of this is really sad..

Some of those clunkers are not really that much of a clunker. The Oldsmobile Aurora V8 is a pretty good engine and hot-rodders like to build hot-rods from them. It is one of the very few 4valve cyl, dual overhead cam V8s made by GM, and is derived from the Cadillac Northstar engine.

Here are some pictures of properly dressed Aurora V8s.
http://www.fabulousracers.com/images/photo_gallery/aurora.jpg
http://www.katechengines.com/street_performance/images/tour/DSCF0921.JPG

Most of those cars should be donated to low income people in trade for the POS they may be driving (income lower than a certain amount, and only to replace a car of poorer condition). It also shows how stupid some people are. Some of the used car values on the cars turned in are greater than the $4500 that they receive on the clunkers program.

So what will really happen from all of this?

* more stuff going to landfills (not 100% of a car is recyclable)
* repair/replacement parts get more expensive – rebuilt engines come from somewhere.. you can’t use the crank or the block of these engines in a rebuild because of the scoring.
* Used cars get will more expensive – these cars would have probably gone on the used car market.
* New cars get more expensive – prices were going down until this.
* People who had a car that was paid off now have a new car that will be depreciating quickly and have yet another ‘mortgage payment’. (less discretionary income.. which is needed for recovery)

Dealers may also be gaming the system…

—
How about $4500 towards a roof-top solar array of 5KVA or better?.. $4500 will buy you 2.5KVA+. I wonder how much CO2 we would be prevented this way…

Peter Schiff’s take, actually starts at 0:23:

Interesting comment at 2:09…

[ucodegen]

Some of this is really sad..

Some of those clunkers are not really that much of a clunker. The Oldsmobile Aurora V8 is a pretty good engine and hot-rodders like to build hot-rods from them. It is one of the very few 4valve cyl, dual overhead cam V8s made by GM, and is derived from the Cadillac Northstar engine.

Here are some pictures of properly dressed Aurora V8s.
http://www.fabulousracers.com/images/photo_gallery/aurora.jpg
http://www.katechengines.com/street_performance/images/tour/DSCF0921.JPG

Most of those cars should be donated to low income people in trade for the POS they may be driving (income lower than a certain amount, and only to replace a car of poorer condition). It also shows how stupid some people are. Some of the used car values on the cars turned in are greater than the $4500 that they receive on the clunkers program.

So what will really happen from all of this?

* more stuff going to landfills (not 100% of a car is recyclable)
* repair/replacement parts get more expensive – rebuilt engines come from somewhere.. you can’t use the crank or the block of these engines in a rebuild because of the scoring.
* Used cars get will more expensive – these cars would have probably gone on the used car market.
* New cars get more expensive – prices were going down until this.
* People who had a car that was paid off now have a new car that will be depreciating quickly and have yet another ‘mortgage payment’. (less discretionary income.. which is needed for recovery)

Dealers may also be gaming the system…

—
How about $4500 towards a roof-top solar array of 5KVA or better?.. $4500 will buy you 2.5KVA+. I wonder how much CO2 we would be prevented this way…

Peter Schiff’s take, actually starts at 0:23:

Interesting comment at 2:09…

[ucodegen]

Thanks ucodegen for looking into it… i apologize but I had to delete your post because of the allegations that mckenna did something wrong, which they didn’t.

ACCCKK!! .. i’ve been censored!! Must be Obama’s fault, BIG BROTHER!!.. tinfoil hat time.. -joking-

One thing your friend might want to look at, is that he/she is using full-self-referencing-paths in most of the links. This is why it jumped from your machine to http://www.mckennaco.com/ on the links. Using ‘dot’ relative paths on the links within the pages makes them more relocatable (ie. if the domain name needs to be changed, if it needs to respond to more than one name, and to make it easier to test on another server or at home). This is what also threw me off. People who ‘camp-out’ on extensions to domains tend to put all of the front page on that name they are camping out on and then jump to/redirect to their server on the links.

I initially wondered if it was accidental until probing showed that all other pages redirected, not just one and links jumped to the real site. Looking at the HTML source, it looks like it was developed with a tool. It should be possible to tell the tool to use ‘dot’ relative links for all links that stay within the server-name.

[ucodegen]

Thanks ucodegen for looking into it… i apologize but I had to delete your post because of the allegations that mckenna did something wrong, which they didn’t.

ACCCKK!! .. i’ve been censored!! Must be Obama’s fault, BIG BROTHER!!.. tinfoil hat time.. -joking-

One thing your friend might want to look at, is that he/she is using full-self-referencing-paths in most of the links. This is why it jumped from your machine to http://www.mckennaco.com/ on the links. Using ‘dot’ relative paths on the links within the pages makes them more relocatable (ie. if the domain name needs to be changed, if it needs to respond to more than one name, and to make it easier to test on another server or at home). This is what also threw me off. People who ‘camp-out’ on extensions to domains tend to put all of the front page on that name they are camping out on and then jump to/redirect to their server on the links.

I initially wondered if it was accidental until probing showed that all other pages redirected, not just one and links jumped to the real site. Looking at the HTML source, it looks like it was developed with a tool. It should be possible to tell the tool to use ‘dot’ relative links for all links that stay within the server-name.

[ucodegen]

Thanks ucodegen for looking into it… i apologize but I had to delete your post because of the allegations that mckenna did something wrong, which they didn’t.

ACCCKK!! .. i’ve been censored!! Must be Obama’s fault, BIG BROTHER!!.. tinfoil hat time.. -joking-

One thing your friend might want to look at, is that he/she is using full-self-referencing-paths in most of the links. This is why it jumped from your machine to http://www.mckennaco.com/ on the links. Using ‘dot’ relative paths on the links within the pages makes them more relocatable (ie. if the domain name needs to be changed, if it needs to respond to more than one name, and to make it easier to test on another server or at home). This is what also threw me off. People who ‘camp-out’ on extensions to domains tend to put all of the front page on that name they are camping out on and then jump to/redirect to their server on the links.

I initially wondered if it was accidental until probing showed that all other pages redirected, not just one and links jumped to the real site. Looking at the HTML source, it looks like it was developed with a tool. It should be possible to tell the tool to use ‘dot’ relative links for all links that stay within the server-name.

[ucodegen]

Thanks ucodegen for looking into it… i apologize but I had to delete your post because of the allegations that mckenna did something wrong, which they didn’t.

ACCCKK!! .. i’ve been censored!! Must be Obama’s fault, BIG BROTHER!!.. tinfoil hat time.. -joking-

One thing your friend might want to look at, is that he/she is using full-self-referencing-paths in most of the links. This is why it jumped from your machine to http://www.mckennaco.com/ on the links. Using ‘dot’ relative paths on the links within the pages makes them more relocatable (ie. if the domain name needs to be changed, if it needs to respond to more than one name, and to make it easier to test on another server or at home). This is what also threw me off. People who ‘camp-out’ on extensions to domains tend to put all of the front page on that name they are camping out on and then jump to/redirect to their server on the links.

I initially wondered if it was accidental until probing showed that all other pages redirected, not just one and links jumped to the real site. Looking at the HTML source, it looks like it was developed with a tool. It should be possible to tell the tool to use ‘dot’ relative links for all links that stay within the server-name.

[ucodegen]

Thanks ucodegen for looking into it… i apologize but I had to delete your post because of the allegations that mckenna did something wrong, which they didn’t.

ACCCKK!! .. i’ve been censored!! Must be Obama’s fault, BIG BROTHER!!.. tinfoil hat time.. -joking-

One thing your friend might want to look at, is that he/she is using full-self-referencing-paths in most of the links. This is why it jumped from your machine to http://www.mckennaco.com/ on the links. Using ‘dot’ relative paths on the links within the pages makes them more relocatable (ie. if the domain name needs to be changed, if it needs to respond to more than one name, and to make it easier to test on another server or at home). This is what also threw me off. People who ‘camp-out’ on extensions to domains tend to put all of the front page on that name they are camping out on and then jump to/redirect to their server on the links.

I initially wondered if it was accidental until probing showed that all other pages redirected, not just one and links jumped to the real site. Looking at the HTML source, it looks like it was developed with a tool. It should be possible to tell the tool to use ‘dot’ relative links for all links that stay within the server-name.

[ucodegen]

So, you think solar tech is no longer in its infancy but it’s already matured and it can’t get much better? I hope you’re wrong.

The efficiencies will not go up much more, but the costs will slowly come down. Presently, inverters/controllers and installation costs are a increasing portion (percentage wise) of a solar installation. I suspect this will continue for a while as panel costs are dropping. Presently there is a large distribution of efficiencies from 10% to 23%.. this distribution will narrow.

One thing that can drive the costs down is that if thin film efficiencies can approach the efficiency of mono-crystalline. Presently there is more than a 2:1 ratio in efficiency between thin-film and mono-crystalline photovoltaics. There also little known about the lifespan of thin-film. I suspect the costs on thin-film are going to drop fairly rapidly. It will be harder to drop the price on mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline photovoltaics because the costs of making highly refined/purified silicon wafers, though I know of some Chinese companies that are attempting to drive down the costs of producing refined silicon ingots.

I suspect we will see more innovative applications though.

[ucodegen]

So, you think solar tech is no longer in its infancy but it’s already matured and it can’t get much better? I hope you’re wrong.

The efficiencies will not go up much more, but the costs will slowly come down. Presently, inverters/controllers and installation costs are a increasing portion (percentage wise) of a solar installation. I suspect this will continue for a while as panel costs are dropping. Presently there is a large distribution of efficiencies from 10% to 23%.. this distribution will narrow.

One thing that can drive the costs down is that if thin film efficiencies can approach the efficiency of mono-crystalline. Presently there is more than a 2:1 ratio in efficiency between thin-film and mono-crystalline photovoltaics. There also little known about the lifespan of thin-film. I suspect the costs on thin-film are going to drop fairly rapidly. It will be harder to drop the price on mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline photovoltaics because the costs of making highly refined/purified silicon wafers, though I know of some Chinese companies that are attempting to drive down the costs of producing refined silicon ingots.

I suspect we will see more innovative applications though.

[ucodegen]

So, you think solar tech is no longer in its infancy but it’s already matured and it can’t get much better? I hope you’re wrong.

The efficiencies will not go up much more, but the costs will slowly come down. Presently, inverters/controllers and installation costs are a increasing portion (percentage wise) of a solar installation. I suspect this will continue for a while as panel costs are dropping. Presently there is a large distribution of efficiencies from 10% to 23%.. this distribution will narrow.

One thing that can drive the costs down is that if thin film efficiencies can approach the efficiency of mono-crystalline. Presently there is more than a 2:1 ratio in efficiency between thin-film and mono-crystalline photovoltaics. There also little known about the lifespan of thin-film. I suspect the costs on thin-film are going to drop fairly rapidly. It will be harder to drop the price on mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline photovoltaics because the costs of making highly refined/purified silicon wafers, though I know of some Chinese companies that are attempting to drive down the costs of producing refined silicon ingots.

I suspect we will see more innovative applications though.

[ucodegen]

So, you think solar tech is no longer in its infancy but it’s already matured and it can’t get much better? I hope you’re wrong.

The efficiencies will not go up much more, but the costs will slowly come down. Presently, inverters/controllers and installation costs are a increasing portion (percentage wise) of a solar installation. I suspect this will continue for a while as panel costs are dropping. Presently there is a large distribution of efficiencies from 10% to 23%.. this distribution will narrow.

One thing that can drive the costs down is that if thin film efficiencies can approach the efficiency of mono-crystalline. Presently there is more than a 2:1 ratio in efficiency between thin-film and mono-crystalline photovoltaics. There also little known about the lifespan of thin-film. I suspect the costs on thin-film are going to drop fairly rapidly. It will be harder to drop the price on mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline photovoltaics because the costs of making highly refined/purified silicon wafers, though I know of some Chinese companies that are attempting to drive down the costs of producing refined silicon ingots.

I suspect we will see more innovative applications though.

[ucodegen]

So, you think solar tech is no longer in its infancy but it’s already matured and it can’t get much better? I hope you’re wrong.

The efficiencies will not go up much more, but the costs will slowly come down. Presently, inverters/controllers and installation costs are a increasing portion (percentage wise) of a solar installation. I suspect this will continue for a while as panel costs are dropping. Presently there is a large distribution of efficiencies from 10% to 23%.. this distribution will narrow.

One thing that can drive the costs down is that if thin film efficiencies can approach the efficiency of mono-crystalline. Presently there is more than a 2:1 ratio in efficiency between thin-film and mono-crystalline photovoltaics. There also little known about the lifespan of thin-film. I suspect the costs on thin-film are going to drop fairly rapidly. It will be harder to drop the price on mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline photovoltaics because the costs of making highly refined/purified silicon wafers, though I know of some Chinese companies that are attempting to drive down the costs of producing refined silicon ingots.

I suspect we will see more innovative applications though.

[ucodegen]

I wouldn’t say it will always be a problem. Right now, the efficiency is in the teens and twenties. I think, when solar tech matures, we’ll get much higher efficiency numbers.

Not really. The reason why has to do with quantum physics. Each photon (quanta of light) has energy that is proportional to its frequency (hv with h being Planck’s constant and v being the frequency of that particular color of light). Sunlight has several ‘colors’ of light within it, therefore several different energies. Additionally each of these photons of different energies will yield a different voltage when converted to electricity. The last sentence is why it is not possible to go too much further in efficiencies. With a pair of wires, only one voltage can be generated. This means that photons with energies below the threshold (output voltage – barrier voltage) will be reflected or turned into heat. Photons with higher energies will convert to electricity but the energy above the conversion energy will be converted to heat.

There have been attempts to fix this with multi-layer, multi-tap solar cells, but these also have issues.

Moores law does not apply to everything.

[ucodegen]

I wouldn’t say it will always be a problem. Right now, the efficiency is in the teens and twenties. I think, when solar tech matures, we’ll get much higher efficiency numbers.

Not really. The reason why has to do with quantum physics. Each photon (quanta of light) has energy that is proportional to its frequency (hv with h being Planck’s constant and v being the frequency of that particular color of light). Sunlight has several ‘colors’ of light within it, therefore several different energies. Additionally each of these photons of different energies will yield a different voltage when converted to electricity. The last sentence is why it is not possible to go too much further in efficiencies. With a pair of wires, only one voltage can be generated. This means that photons with energies below the threshold (output voltage – barrier voltage) will be reflected or turned into heat. Photons with higher energies will convert to electricity but the energy above the conversion energy will be converted to heat.

There have been attempts to fix this with multi-layer, multi-tap solar cells, but these also have issues.

Moores law does not apply to everything.

[Author]

Posts