Your Questions About Solar Power International

John asks…

Why don't most Christians care for the Earth considering the entire meaning of life?

Alright, God set planet Earth as a special planet in our Solar System. It's His prized planet because He supports civilizations on it. He values the civilizations on the planet that He also values. He even uses this planet in conjunction with civilizations to turn Earth into a sifting machine for souls to purify through.

Luke 22:31-32 (New International Version)

31″Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus clearly had no intention of stopping Satan from sifting his beloved like wheat. Since Jesus Christ was the express will and glory of the Father, it's God's will to sift people like wheat. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that we were born (incarnated on Earth) with a dirty soul and we need to be sifted like wheat in order to be purified. So why are we here on Earth? We need to be purified and that can only be accomplished in physical form. Suffering is allowed on this Earth because that's the very reason we were put on Earth. For example, Jesus Christ was made pure through his sufferings. Here's an example:

1 Peter 1:3-9 (New International Version)

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

See http://captivatedbychrist.org/2010/01/12/sanctified-through-suffering/ and http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/52-the-value-of-human-suffering for more info on suffering.

So, if someone loves God, he or she would care for the Earth because planet Earth is His tool to purify the souls of His children.
And really, why do some Christians want to die so badly to get to Heaven? They should desire suffering for Christ here on Earth, not to desire an easy exit. Desiring to suffer is much more valuable because one is purified that way.
Alright now, I'm talking about Christians who would rather waste their food on their plate rather than finish it. I'm talking about Christians who would rather throw recyclables in the wastebasket rather than walking 20 feet to the recycle bin. Recycling is free in my city.
And consider loving your fellow people. Every time you dump chemicals down the drain, you're poisoning your fellow people. The Earth is your connection with others.
INYOURFUTURE has posted a typical Christian response.

ssadmin answers:

Not sure if your “sifting” example is what Jesus had in mind brother. I would think that while God expects us to tend his Earth properly and with respect, he also knew that man would eventually invent industry, machines, oil, and automobiles….With that said, these are not the objects causing the sin and abominations God speaks of………..MAN IS ! Of course, there is much abuse…But man has abused life from the start….You only have to look at what we Americans are doing with mankinds' birth rate and how it's being defiled. How many of us can honestly say that we're obeyed God's commands of “marry one woman and have children within the family?” Seems to me that if we only obeyed that one command across the globe, we would not have the over population problem we're seeing in china, and the U.S. And the abuse from it as we speak.

Mark asks…

Shouldn't the debate about “Nuclear” energy be over? Natural disasters are part of Nature.. Atom Splitting ?

Not so much?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake

If California had a 9 pointer which it may well at any moment.. all the power plants. refineries, military installations would be suffering the exact same thing.. so far the Japanese have been selective on which data they release.. but anyone paying attention will recognize the flow of info as controlled.. Reality is, even if the explosion helped diminish the radioactivity .. and that's a big if…
It's still pure luck of the draw…
Nuclear power is not clean or safe and isn't it time we start moving away from polluting destructive forms of energy?

Tidal, geothermal,solar, wind and hydro, …. despite what the energy industry and their advertising dollars and pundits will tell you, is the solution to the worlds energy needs.

If the United States as an example stopped spending trillions on “securing Americas business assets” in Southeast Asia and instead began an international initiative to migrate to 100% renewable and alternative energy by 2030… the whole world would follow suit. How do I know? Because War is only good for a very small group of manufacturers and types of business.. if we moved to a technology based manufacturing economy with “New Energy” as the mantra.. America would once again return to it's 1st world leading status… as opposed to becoming the worlds largest debtor.
” I think that the US, which is in a very stable area”
The California quake in LA back in 94 was a 7.9.. the strongest ever felt there was a “9” in the cascadia region (Northern California) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1700_01_26.php

So what's shoddy about my education? And what great scientific knowledge do you posses?
I grew up in the shadow of “Indian Point” google it.. I've been around nuclear power for 45 years.. I probably know more about the workings of the various kinds of reactors than anyone in this room short of a nuclear physicist..

The “built in safety measures” require electricity to function.. the power was interrupted and that is what caused the super heating in the first place… are you saying that Mankind has ever once in our history designed one single thing that is foolproof?

ssadmin answers:

Don't be ridiculous, Japan's reactor did not spew radioactivity. It was contained through built in safety measures.
In Japan, which is in a very active area for earthquakes, can manage to have safe nuclear power, I think that the US, which is in a very stable area, can manage to have it as well. Europe does well
on Nuclear power.
I know there is a tendency amongst the scientifically uneducated to be afraid of technology like nuclear power. I blame the shoddy educational system for that ignorance. An ignorance that has cost many people their lives through pollution given out by conventional power plants.

James asks…

Suggestions regarding career options?

graduated in Electrical and Electronics Engineering 2011 and My training at infosys starts at 8th August 2011.
I have a passion to work in my core area. I am currently looking for job in my core area. Due to financial crisis, i must go to work within a month and repay my Educational loan and the Bond at Infosys is for 1.5 Years. But i heard through my friends that Training at Infosys is world class. I am really confused wheather to go to infosys, and stay there for one year till the bond ends or search for core job.

My Papers and projects include,

Two international conference papers:

1. Efficacy Of Symmetrical Multipulse Modulation In The Single-Phase Matrix Converter Topology.

2. Performance analysis of three phase PWM AC chopper feeding a delta connected load.

Main projects:

1. Power quality assessment in Three-phase matrix converter.
2. Performance analysis in HVDC bipolar link.
3. Unity power factor operations of a AC-DC converter feeding a DC drive based on Hysteresis current control technique.
4. Selective harmonic elimination in a Three-phase AC chopper based on Multi-pulse modulation.
5. Automatic sensorless dual axis solar tracking system.

Term projects:

1. Line follower two-wheeled robot.
2. Real time localisation of a mobile robot using Webcam.
3. PWM based speed control of DC Motor using PIC Microcontroller.
4. Residential automated water management system.
5. Stress level indicator (EEG).
6. External pace-maker (ECG).
7. Robotic arm for disabled Person (EMG).

ssadmin answers:

Kadalay illayama!!!!

Daniel asks…

Conservatives — Can you read this summary of the Cap and Trade bill without foaming at the mouth?

Summary Of The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill: American Clean Energy and Security Act.
June 27th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under

Some of the key points of the American Clean Energy & Security Act from Grist, since they know better than I do. You can head to their site to read the nitty gritty, but here is a general summary:

Renewable electricity standard

The bill creates a renewable electricity standard (RES) that would require large utilities in each state to produce an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Qualifying renewable sources are wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, marine and hydrokinetic energy, biogas and biofuels derived exclusively from eligible biomass, landfill gas, wastewater-treatment gas, coal-mine methane, hydropower projects built after 1992, and some waste-to-energy projects.

Emission cuts

The bill would put a cap on emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and would require high-emitting industries to reduce their output to specific targets between now and the middle of the century. (This is the “cap” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) The bill covers 85 percent of the overall economy, including electricity producers, oil refineries, natural gas suppliers, and energy-intensive industries like iron, steel, cement, and paper manufacturers.

Emission permits

Regulated industries would need to acquire permits for their emissions. (Emission permits are also referred to as “carbon credits,” “pollution allowances,” and various combinations of these words.)

If a company cuts its emissions so much that it has more permits than it needs, it can sell excess permits to other companies or bank them for future use. If a company doesn’t have enough permits, it can buy more or borrow its future credits and pay interest on them. Non-regulated entities (banks, nonprofits, people like you) can also buy and sell permits. (This is the “trade” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) If a company’s emissions exceed its permits, it would be fined two times the fair market value of the permits it should have purchased.

How permit auction revenue would be spent

About 15 percent of the pollution permits would be sold by the federal government in the initial years of the program. Here’s how the revenue would be spent (shown as a percentage of the value of all permits):

* 15 percent would be used to offset increased energy costs for low- and moderate-income households
* 5 percent would be used to prevent international deforestation, scaling back to 3 percent from 2026 to 2030 and 2 percent from 2031 to 2050
* 2 percent would be used to help the U.S. adapt to the negative effects of climate change from 2012 through 2021, scaling up to 4 percent from 2022 through 2026 and 8 percent thereafter; half would be spent on wildlife and natural resources and the other half on other adaptation concerns, like public health

Investments in energy technology

By 2025, the bill would direct an estimated total of $190 billion to energy technologies and efficiency measures:

* $90 billion to energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies
* $60 billion to carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology
* $20 billion to electric vehicles and other advanced automotive technologies
* $20 billion for basic scientific research and development

Offsets

Regulated companies would be allowed to purchase carbon offsets to meet a portion of their required emission reductions—meaning they could fund clean-energy projects elsewhere instead of cutting their own emissions. This could lower the cost of complying with the new law.

Coal-fired power plants

* New coal plants could be built between 2009 and 2020, though they would be expected to adopt carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technologies when they become commercially available
* By 2025, all coal plants built after 2009 would have to capture 50 percent of their CO2 emissions

Worker transition

* Workers displaced due to new emission regulations would be entitled to 156 weeks of income supplement (70 percent of their average weekly wages), 80 percent of their monthly health-care premium, up to $1,500 for job-search assistance, and up to $1,500 for moving assistance

Smarter cars and smarter grids

* The bill includes a “cash-for-clunkers” program that would provide roughly 1 million vouchers, ranging from $3,500 to $4,500 in value, to consumers who trade in older, less-fuel efficient vehicles for new vehicles that get better gas mileage

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/06/27/summary-of-the-waxman-markey-climate-bill-american-clean-energy-and-security-act/
Apparently they can't…

ssadmin answers:

So, … It sounds like, in addition to substantial costs being passed on to the consumer, you're counting on the means of energy production being sources that have minimal output. It's unbelievable that anyone in their right mind supports this. The real question is: If and when programs like this, socialized medicine, and an unimaginably oversized budget take effect, what will the democrats do? You can only blame Bush for so long. So long!

Nancy asks…

A couple of questions about the future?

Hi

I was just wondering a couple of things about how humanity is to survive in the future:

— Would it make sense for the EU to become more of a ‘federation'? I would never suggest they make it into one country, but perhaps it would be more effective if it were more unified than it is at present.

— Would it ever be feasible for a global international grid to be set up? That way we could have solar harvesters in the Sahara and the advanced European fusion plants powering the entire planet, allowing energy for all without damaging the planet (as developing countries would not be reliant on fossil and bio fuels).
I don't mean like the US – perhaps ‘Confederation' would have been a better term than ‘Federation'. I'm thinking of something like the modern EU, but perhaps with a combined military force (as well as the individual nations militaries) and stricter rules on the member nations to improve all quality of life (such as a higher minimum wage for all EU countries or they get in trouble).
I don't mean like the US – perhaps ‘Confederation' would have been a better term than ‘Federation'. I'm thinking of something like the modern EU, but perhaps with a combined military force (as well as the individual nations militaries) and stricter rules on the member nations to improve all quality of life (such as a higher minimum wage for all EU countries or they get in trouble).
Also, remember that this is just a hypothetical future. I am hoping that nations will *at some point* be able to put their survival and the survival of humanity above money.

ssadmin answers:

Your second question is probably a great idea except for one problem, it would mean the world working together…

I only hope for a federal EU, as I can only see this will benefit the world. Look at the current and future superpowers, USA, China, Russia, India, Brazil. I would prefer a stable level headed just EU leading the world not the USA or China.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Solar Panel

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments are closed.