Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

No.
Just because a growth rate of 40ish% exists now, does not mean that it will continue, and is likely to fall well below 20% in the period you stated. Show me any other technology that has continued to grow for over 20 years continuously at such rates.

Show me a global situation of tight energy supply relative to demand and Climate Change concerns as we have now, projected to 2050 and beyond ! No again your representation is missleading. I did not say growth rates would definately continue. I qualified my comments by stating "At current global growth rates". I further qualified them by stating that "if these growth rates fall dramatically, then yes one might question the direction" So once you again have changed the true representation of my remarks.

Originally Posted by Wobs

While its good to see grants or rebates for such technology available, they can only do so much.

Meaningless. How long is a piece of string ?

Originally Posted by Wobs

The improvements in terms of cost, and performance have eaked out improvements overall which has made them more appealing to some more people, and this is what we have seen in the increase in sales. The market will find its own level again after the improvements have found their niches.

As the market always does. Nothing new there. The current market is strong and will be for the forseeable future. Say no more.

Originally Posted by Wobs

While its encouraging that PV has increased in popularity, there will be a limit to such growth.

I've heard that somewhere before. Yes most people appreciate everything has limits. Nobody ever suggested otherwise, so again a mute point.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you have any further news on clean coal technology, feel free to put them in the appropriate forum of course.

A nonsense remark. In the context of Solar PV, clean coal comparison is relevant, particularly in the Australian context, which I have mentioned, as we are heavily dependant on coal. Find a forum that talks singularly about one technology to the exclusion of all others. Somehow I doubt it, so petty again.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Show me a global situation of tight energy supply relative to demand and Climate Change concerns as we have now, projected to 2050 and beyond ! No again your representation is missleading. I did not say growth rates would definately continue. I qualified my comments by stating "At current global growth rates". I further qualified them by stating that "if these growth rates fall dramatically, then yes one might question the direction" So once you again have changed the true representation of my remarks.

We've always had concerns about energy supply, fears of fuels running out. Yet here we are and still approx the same amount of years of fuel left.

I haven't misrepresented you at all. To make a statement of "At current global growth rates ( 40% - 50% ) of Solar PV deployment, by 2030 Solar PV will have had a significant impact on our energy balance" is unrealistic. Whether economic growth slows or not, solar PV will not continue to grow at current rates. The reasons I stated still stand:

wobs wrote:

The improvements in terms of cost, and performance have eaked out improvements overall which has made them more appealing to some more people, and this is what we have seen in the increase in sales. The market will find its own level again after the improvements have found their niches.

While its encouraging that PV has increased in popularity, there will be a limit to such growth.

Do you agree with the statement?
If you never believe that growth would continue at such a rate, then why say it?

Meaningless. How long is a piece of string ?

This long:> { }

As the market always does. Nothing new there. The current market is strong and will be for the forseeable future. Say no more.

See above.

Solar PV is still not showing signs that it will be a major player in energy supplies on a global scale. There are many uses for it, but as a percentage of the total energy demands, its still tiny, even with the improvements.

I've heard that somewhere before. Yes most people appreciate everything has limits. Nobody ever suggested otherwise, so again a mute point.

Seems its not a mute point if you think that growths could continue at current rates, or even 20%.

A nonsense remark. In the context of Solar PV, clean coal comparison is relevant, particularly in the Australian context, which I have mentioned, as we are heavily dependant on coal. Find a forum that talks singularly about one technology to the exclusion of all others. Somehow I doubt it, so petty again.

I'm tryng to get my head around your attitude here. All I said was that if you had any developments on clean coal technology then feel free to put some up. To go into detail into it, it would seem appropriate that the fossil fuel forum would be the place to put them. Where's the problem?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Now why would I think that ? Doh. What I indicated was that 1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal. This is to give an indication of solar radiation suitability of the country. Obviously that whole land segment is not suitable, in terms of installation locations. Selected segments of significant size, within that 1/3 of USA land mass however would be suitable. I suspect most reasonable people, can see what context I was referring to.

You just keep misrepresenting what I have indicated. Your remarks such as these, seem largely distracting from the core context. What you are doing is playing on words, to try to make a point about something that isn't. These remarks you have made seem rather mischievously frivolous and a bit of a time waster. Again though, this seems like the general theme that you ply, to make a very week case, go a very long way. You appear to be making your own arguments weaker by taking that line.

Your complaints of me are pure projection.

What is distracting and misleading is to say things like "1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal.". When only a small fraction would be suitable. You try to keep things vague to maintain any positive spin, which myabe why I seem to upset you with reality.

To satisfy you though, no I did not intend to mean 1/3 of the USA's land mass could be used. I intended to demonstrate the solar radiation levels of around 5.5 kwh per day hit around 1/3 of the USA, thus meaning that from in isolation perspective a significant part of the USA receives sufficient solar radiation for Solar Thermal. Within that third, there is more than sufficient land that could equate to the conceptual 92 miles squared, that has been said to be sufficient to meet USA power grid needs. Triple this land amount to conservatively allow for lower output per metre squared and there is still likely more than sufficient land for application of Solar Thermal energy.

More overly optomistic statements. It shows no appreciation of deminishing returns, impacts on ecology, water table impacts, geography, grid stability, capital costs or basic economics

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Your complaints of me are pure projection.

What is distracting and misleading is to say things like "1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal.". When only a small fraction would be suitable. You try to keep things vague to maintain any positive spin, which myabe why I seem to upset you with reality.


More overly optomistic statements. It shows no appreciation of deminishing returns, impacts on ecology, water table impacts, geography, grid stability, capital costs or basic economics

The optimism is reflected in the Solar Thermal industry and I have not seen any evidence from any other power generation industries that criticize Solar Thermal. If you are aware of any, you are most welcome to post the information to help enlighten the us all. We eagerly await the details.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Your complaints of me are pure projection.

What is distracting and misleading is to say things like "1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal.". When only a small fraction would be suitable. You try to keep things vague to maintain any positive spin, which myabe why I seem to upset you with reality.


More overly optomistic statements. It shows no appreciation of deminishing returns, impacts on ecology, water table impacts, geography, grid stability, capital costs or basic economics

The optimism is reflected in the Solar Thermal industry and I have not seen any evidence from any other power generation industries that criticize Solar Thermal. If you are aware of any, you are most welcome to post the information to help enlighten the us all. We eagerly await the details.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

We've always had concerns about energy supply, fears of fuels running out. Yet here we are and still approx the same amount of years of fuel left.

I haven't misrepresented you at all. To make a statement of "At current global growth rates ( 40% - 50% ) of Solar PV deployment, by 2030 Solar PV will have had a significant impact on our energy balance" is unrealistic. Whether economic growth slows or not, solar PV will not continue to grow at current rates. The reasons I stated still stand:

wobs wrote:

Do you agree with the statement? If you never believe that growth would continue at such a rate, then why say it?

The statement is clearly hypothetical. Anyone can appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Solar PV is still not showing signs that it will be a major player in energy supplies on a global scale. There are many uses for it, but as a percentage of the total energy demands, its still tiny, even with the improvements.


Seems its not a mute point if you think that growths could continue at current rates, or even 20%.

Again historical growth of Solar PV and more recent growth rates would show strong cause to contend that view. The signs are early, but they are there. To clarify my remarks though I said "significant" so further more again you have misrepresented my remarks with your use of the word "major" there is a big difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I'm tryng to get my head around your attitude here. All I said was that if you had any developments on clean coal technology then feel free to put some up. To go into detail into it, it would seem appropriate that the fossil fuel forum would be the place to put them. Where's the problem?

It's evident this reflects upon yourself, particularly in light of the above misleading reflection of my remarks and the fact that you don't really need to remind me where to put detailed information on clean coal. If I have information on clean coal that pertains to this discussion on Solar Energy, then it will likely go in this forum. As previously explained, no forum on energy restricts itself exclusively to its single topic.

Topics are often discussed and mentioned in context of comparison across forums. If the thread was brand new about clean coal then yes that's a separate matter. However in this case the discussion centers around the comparisons of Solar relative to clean coal developments. Thus its quite appropriate to discus clean coal in this forum in the context of Solar Energy to see how the two compare.

I briefly mentioned clean coal, though I do suggest that if you have information on clean coal developments, please do feel free to post that information as appropriate and if it is useful to compare these developments with Solar Energy and it pertains to this discussion of comparison, please feel free to post them in this forum as should others. I mean really, if one is going to post comparison notes between two technologies, whilst at the same time continuing the thread of a discussion on the main topic, they need to go in the same forum. If its a new or separate discussion, then yes of course they belong in their respective forums.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The statement is clearly hypothetical. Anyone can appreciate that.

I could hypothetically say anything, but that doesn't make any of it remotely realistic.

Again historical growth of Solar PV and more recent growth rates would show strong cause to contend that view. The signs are early, but they are there. To clarify my remarks though I said "significant" so further more again you have misrepresented my remarks with your use of the word "major" there is a big difference between the two.

So little things like what uses they are employed in are ignored. Or limits to their applicability.

It's evident this reflects upon yourself, particularly in light of the above misleading reflection of my remarks and the fact that you don't really need to remind me where to put detailed information on clean coal. If I have information on clean coal that pertains to this discussion on Solar Energy, then it will likely go in this forum. As previously explained, no forum on energy restricts itself exclusively to its single topic.

Again, projection.
And indeed uppity.
If want to compare clean coal and solar fine.
If you have any info on clean coal, please bring it to the relevant forum.

Topics are often discussed and mentioned in context of comparison across forums. If the thread was brand new about clean coal then yes that's a separate matter. However in this case the discussion centers around the comparisons of Solar relative to clean coal developments. Thus its quite appropriate to discus clean coal in this forum in the context of Solar Energy to see how the two compare.

I briefly mentioned clean coal, though I do suggest that if you have information on clean coal developments, please do feel free to post that information as appropriate and if it is useful to compare these developments with Solar Energy, please feel free to post them in this forum as should others. I mean really, if one is going to post comparison notes between two technologies, whilst at the same time continuing the thread of a discussion on the main topic, they need to go in the same forum. If its a new or seperate discussion, then yes of course they belong in their respective forums.

This truly takes my breath away. My suggestion for further details on clean coal technology was meant in the nicest intentions, and you turned it into another source of agitation.

You could argue with yourself in solitary confinement.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The optimism is reflected in the Solar Thermal industry and I have not seen any evidence from any other power generation industries that criticize Solar Thermal. If you are aware of any, you are most welcome to post the information to help enlighten the us all. We eagerly await the details.

So you hear optomism in an industry and you don't question it? What if the fossil fuel industry were optomistic that they could build power stations that would use fuel that wouldn't harm the environment? Would you accept it so blindly? You would rightly question it I'm sure.

If you only want other industries to criticise solar thermal, then you might have a long wait. Is the criticisms of the nuclear industry only from wind or solar manufacturers? Or do you also listen to pressure groups and other sources.

Or would you prefer it that we all question all power generation industries?

Personally I prefer the latter. As long as its based upon some kind of truth of course. When I question the viability of solar thermal, its based upon experience of looking at other power generation technologies, and some basic egineering and environmental issues. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at the same time, it would be appreciated if you didn't get so defensive about it, as it is highly detrimental to the discussion of such technology. Any issue I've raised about it you've either said is a "mute point" - even though you've never brought it up; "it's obvious"; or "irrelevant". There is no need for such defensive behaviour if you want a constructive discussion, and none of those responses are helpful and often most inappropriate. How can a comment not previousely mentioned that is relevant be a mute point?

I may have had a cryptic question to begin with, but that does not warrant such responses. You always seem to avoid answering questions I ask, no matter how relevant to the issue in hand.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So you hear optomism in an industry and you don't question it? What if the fossil fuel industry were optomistic that they could build power stations that would use fuel that wouldn't harm the environment? Would you accept it so blindly? You would rightly question it I'm sure.

If you only want other industries to criticise solar thermal, then you might have a long wait. Is the criticisms of the nuclear industry only from wind or solar manufacturers? Or do you also listen to pressure groups and other sources.

Or would you prefer it that we all question all power generation industries?

Personally I prefer the latter. As long as its based upon some kind of truth of course. When I question the viability of solar thermal, its based upon experience of looking at other power generation technologies, and some basic egineering and environmental issues. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at the same time, it would be appreciated if you didn't get so defensive about it, as it is highly detrimental to the discussion of such technology. Any issue I've raised about it you've either said is a "mute point" - even though you've never brought it up; "it's obvious"; or "irrelevant". There is no need for such defensive behaviour if you want a constructive discussion, and none of those responses are helpful and often most inappropriate. How can a comment not previousely mentioned that is relevant be a mute point?

I may have had a cryptic question to begin with, but that does not warrant such responses. You always seem to avoid answering questions I ask, no matter how relevant to the issue in hand.

It's not my role to be critical against something that I support. I have already accepted that all technologies have limitations in their application. I have yet to see you be critical of nuclear energy. Another double standard. My interest lies with renewable energy and I happen to believe its benefits are overall positive. Get over it.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It's not my role to be critical against something that I support. I have already accepted that all technologies have limitations in their application. I have yet to see you be critical of nuclear energy. Another double standard.

I can see where you're coming from here (re nuclear), but then when you are faced with people who are so dead against something you are in favour of, one is hardly going to come out with limitations to it to reinforce their position, as one rarely even gets the opportunity, and nearly all the objections that people put up against nuclear are flawed IMHO. I've stated many times in this thread alone that I'm in favour of this technology, but its the limits of its application that I wanted to discuss. To just celebrate it is a bit blind to me.

Do you see how the two issues are different? (No pun intended)

My interest lies with renewable energy and I happen to believe its benefits are overall positive.

While you may be right overall in that statement, we must not lose sight of the fact that every techology has its limits. To do so would be to do us all a disservice. To object to discussing its limitations doesn't sit well with me.

Get over it.

You do yourself no favours here.