[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So why put up the link if you didn't want me to reference it? I was simply using it as an example (edit: it was the first and only link I randomly looked at from your post)
I referenced it as you clearly take such things seriously, and that such things are seriously misleading (maybe Greenpeace was behind it LOL).

You referenced it, so you clearly thought it relevant. I mentioned it to give an example of an intermittent supply being inappropriate for baseload supply, and how you don't seem to grasp the idea, owing to the fact that you put the link up.


My point that I've made before, but I clearly need to repeat it, is that you cite figures that bare no relation to the real world overall. Even if such a system did have a 70% capacity factor in ideal situations, it is meaningless given that you claim to look at things in a global context.

Also, I earlier said:

Care to answer that one?



They're installing large systems? Couldn't be happier for them. I'd buy them a beer if I met them.
But the reality is the most ideal sites will be used first. It will have its uses, but on a global scale, that you claim to be concerned with, it has a more limited potential. Not only that, but such systems cannot work without gas/oil back up (even with energy storage), and the installed capacity must be much more than a conventional or nuclear power station to compensate for daily variations.

Another example of your reporting misleading figures:
"Storage Efficiency was measured at over 97%, also meeting design goals. "
These are not real world numbers, but you throw them around as if they're written in stone. You come across as one that is seduced by this technology, and seem incapable of saying anything negative about them. Even if you were to say something bad about them, you'd then try to qualify it with something more ideological.

You still haven't figured out the TV comment have you.
I'll let you have another go. But I'll give you a clue:
70% capacity factor
Solar energy
Baseload supply.

Sorry for being cryptic, but I'm trying to make you think.

I posted the link to provide additional context for others to consider and form whatever view they choose. You have one view, I another and others will form their views. Again you have twisted the reality by implying I didn't want you to reference the article. I never made any such representation. You have thus created another non argument of irrelevancy out of nothing. Wasted Effort. Many of your arguments or more to the point non arguments, seem to have this flavour and favored approach. i.e. when you don't have a case, manufacture one. When there isn't an issue, make one.

Clearly you fail to understand and the performance region of 70% capacity factor mentioned in some articles on Solar Thermal, is quite the contrary to meaningless, which is another non-argument you present. In fact this figure is very meaningful, especially to those that have done the research. Clearly it appears you haven't done the research and I'm only quoting what findings researchers have arrived at. Obviously with fossil fuel backup or more thermal storage, capacity factors can be increased. Its actually interesting how some fossil fueled power stations are using solar thermal for pre-heating of feedwater for steam power generation.

Again you're constructing a perception evidently I suspect influenced by your own personal bias, to build a case rather than dealing in fact. I never said the numbers were written in stone, again twisting fact to build a weak argument.

Clearly numbers vary along with variations in the Solar Thermal technologies and the test environments. That's common sense. I mean really that is just a nothing argument, to imply based on a perception, I have suggested the figures are written in stone, when I have never indicated that.

I have quoted figures from articles, that you and even I or anyone else don't have to believe. Make of them what you will, but deal with the facts rather than implying, that somehow I have a certain disposition toward embellishment of reality, when all I have done is made reference to figures posted by others researching the technology.

Whether you believe or disbelieve is irrelevant to my reporting of figures in articles. Interpret the numbers however you choose. The details are there for anyone to read.

The global context of Solar Thermal is one that fits the technology where it yields the most benefit, just as it does with other renewable energy technologies. Each technology where applied appropriately, maintains a presence its a global context as part of a whole range of global solutions that when combined, result in a system of power generation networks that have the capacity to provide a reliable base of energy supply. Solar Thermal is being applied in many parts of the world as is the global transfer of the technical knowledge and that alone shows its global context. That's a no brainer.

No doubt Solar Thermal is just another technology among many that will make up the combination of solutions applied toward bringing clean energy technology to the world. It's not practical and not realistic for every nation to be running nuclear and coal and gas fired power stations. Solar thermal among other renewable energy technologies has huge role to play to help.

I never said that the potential of any technology is unlimited. All technologies are limited. Another non argument you bring.

I did not say Renewables like Solar Thermal can work without backup. Another example of you trying to present an argument in contradiction to my position, that I have never made.

This has nothing to do with ideology. You are dreaming up scenarios in your own mind and using them to build a very weak case. You're manufacturing arguments that have never been made by me and presenting arguments based on perceptions of what you think my likely position might be, rather than observed facts of what I have said. When you have commented on the facts of my observations, you present the case as if the figures were made up and twisted by me and clearly they are not.

The figures I presented are representative of the data presented in the articles. Whether you or I or anyone else believes the data is accurate, is a completely separate matter. My comments about Solar Thermal are in part, based on an understanding that the articles figures consistent similarities, give more substantial weight to the perceived accuracy of their respective findings. You are most welcome not to believe in them.

The numbers are not my numbers. They are numbers from the research articles. You can make of them what you will, it makes no difference to me. I'm reporting information based on research that people have been doing for years and probably have more knowledge of their own work than I suspect you have. Interpret the numbers how you will.

Go tell the scientists and engineers that produced the research and reports that their numbers are not real world numbers, so they take heed of your advice and stop building Solar Thermal at the rate they are building and planning them. I suspect not.
My key point is that Solar Thermal ( CSP ) has significant global potential as a method of power generation. Nothing more nothing less. There is no need for you to present my case to be anything other than that because it's clearly shadow boxing not offering any real punch for us to consider.

Solar Thermal technology will have its place along side other technologies. It's very clear though that Solar Thermal technology of varying forms and designs will be a significant player around the world, as will solar PV and other renewable technologies. Why ? because that's what they are building more of. It's where among many areas, the research is heading. My message is about of what the world is already doing, and nothing more. People can find out for themselves fairly easily how the future renewable energy projects are evolving. Solar is a booming technology globally in varying forms.

At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, so I suggest we all observe what happens over the coming years in the area of Solar Thermal ( CSP ) technology development along with other solar technologies and other renewable energy technologies in various parts of the world. Fossil fuel technologies are projected to become even more expensive over time and renewable energy even more competitive. Time, good planning and management and basic economics will take care of the rest.

Reducing the load per rated output capacity of a solar thermal plant, can in effect improve the capacity factor to a level required to be considered comparable with coal, again where the technology is appropriately situated. As with all technologies, you avoid putting them where they are inappropriate. It means higher cost per watt hour stored and hence generated, but as the cost of fossil fuels increase, the cost of additional solar thermal storage becomes more attractive. Additionally mitigation of greenhouse gasses can justify higher energy production costs, where the longer term benefit of mitigation outweighs the cost of inaction. The technology is still immature and already it shows great promise in terms of cost, capacity and near zero carbon operating footprint.


The TV comment was fairly obvious but again an example of being short on substance and cheap in delivery, but to some readers new to the topic it may be viewed as cryptic as it was demonstrated.