[ApS]

A retired British oil expert (with no ax to grind) should give us pause:

"Moreover, oil supply is increasingly limited to a few giant fields, with 10% of all production coming from just four fields and 80% from fields discovered before 1970. Even finding a field the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest and said to have another 125bn barrels, would only meet world demand for about 10 years." http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...111414,00.html

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Still there is a huge concern about what cooling off the earth under these huge panels would do.

The 10X10 square mile solar array (that I recalled from NewScientist) doesn't have to be tightly constrained to a 10X10 space. It could be spaced over a much larger area, with areas set aside for "shade-grown" crops. While the Earth may receive a deficit of sun as a result, the arrays will still heat up. I suspect there would be no/little loss (or gain) to Planet Earth.

OTOH, hydroelectrics take up huge amounts of land, and the effect on Earth's stability can be calculated. (Due to most hydroelectrics being north of the Equator).

Originally Posted by Audifn

Flying over the desert in the Western US, there sure seems to be hundreds (thousands?) of square miles of sun drenched land that could be used for solar collectoring. Transmission loss over long distances may be a problem, but a professor in a class, taken over 30 years ago, predicted this would come, and the power would be transmitted as direct current (DC) to reduce losses. His theory was that only one wire would be required, and the earth would be used as "ground". We'll see...

While I'm concerned that desert ATVs will make "jumps" out of the solar arrays, vacant desert stretches certainly seem like ideal sunny locations.

Even AC transmitted over long distances loses "oomph". "Standing waves" emanating from those overhead wires are another question mark in health/cancer issues.

I recall that DC requires huge diameter copper wire to transmit over long distances. Maybe it's time to buy copper "futures" -- if there is such a thing? "Sudden wealth" in cattle-futures has resulted for some....

Originally Posted by Wizard of Oz

"...performance boats tend to run on the lean side for more power. I've actually blown up a motor looking for that last couple of hp running it a little too lean. I know many other GFBL boaters who have done the same thing....So I guess that blows your performance boat running rich theory right out of the water.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

"Running on the lean side" is a desirable trait of engines -- for economy. If you're running lean for performance AND economy, you reap what you sow. (If you failed to observe the obvious signs of your "lean side", then of course your motor will blow up). Did you try sodium-filled valves? Do you have past experience with a "Wheatstone bridge"?

I don't want lead added (post-fillup) to gasoline burned on a freshwater lake that the residents draw their household water from, either, so I won't address that "fix" for your blown performance engines. Or the wide burning of leaded "Av-Gas" -- another favorite of GFBLs.

And still another concern of those who suspect that GFBLs fill their tanks with Av-Gas before arriving at a freshwater lake.

Go to NHIS (or any auto racetrack) and check the long-term results of racecars' tuning by observing the interior-color of their exhausts. You won't find any that are beige -- or even dark brown. They will all be black: The cost of performance cars -- and performance boating.

OTOH, simply idle your boat and determine if there's unburned gasoline in the exhaust odor. (They don't call them "stinkpots" for nothin').

As I indicated in my earlier "Church crowd applauding the boater finally shutting off his engine" quote, the hydrocarbons (and everything else bad for Life) will announce themselves for you.

Multiply that times <10% of the boats on a Winnipesaukee weekend, and you MAY see our "Residents' Angst" regarding GFBLs.