Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[forfismum]

I've heard of Google Earth but what is this "happening on the ground"? another Google service?
As for this s**t about California,I thought that over the years the efficiency claims for windpower there had been reduced to about 9%[Altamont Pass]

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Everytime I've brought something up of relevance, you've either dismissed as not important, or just plain objected to discussing such issues. I find it a bit ironic that you now say that we must question these things, when you've avoided doing so for over 20 pages. But well done for saying it anyway.


Your idea of "what's going on ground" seems involve what the solar industry tells you. Please try to stick to your first statement in this post.

BTW, you planning to buy shares in these companies? Would seem prudent if you say they are to be as big as you claim.

I don't need to elaborate further. I have discussed issues and acknowledged challenges exist and arrived at the overall view that there are no show stoppers. People can form their own views on all the information available from a wide range of sources available, as they should. My time it too valuable to spend chasing up every doubt or uncertainty you might have. Shares ? oh what a good idea. Thanks for the advice.

Originally Posted by California Energy Comission
Many large solar energy projects are being proposed in California's desert area on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. BLM has received right-of-way requests encompassing more than 300,000 acres for the development of approximately 34 large solar thermal power plants totaling approximately 24,000 megawatts

24 Gigawatts

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Quite easy, I just pressed the keys on the keyboard.

If you are not going to come forth with any logic as to how you can come to any such conclusion I can only summise that you are simply a spanner in the works that can so easily be avoided.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I don't need to elaborate further. I have discussed issues and acknowledged challenges exist and arrived at the overall view that there are no show stoppers.

What you've done is not answer a single question that I've asked about the technology in case you painted it in a bad light (no pun intended). You've brushed aside any issue that might effect it's viability with no real evidence, other than hype.

"No show stoppers" shows a lack of joined up thinking. I've raised a lengthy list of issues that need to be considered, but you only look at them individually. You've not actually looked at them as a whole, not to mention that there are other issues that we've not even mentioned yet.

Even though I've said I would like to see more of the technology, that I'm not opposed to its expansion, you wouldn't discuss limitations, which would be benefitial to both of us, and others reading this. Your attitude has brought about an adversarial debate where one did not have to occur.

You've also not even mentioned its low efficiency of course.

My time it too valuable to spend chasing up every doubt or uncertainty you might have.

LOL. But you are willing to spend time disproving and arguing for over 20 pages, with nothing but hype. There's me thinking that you might want to learn about it further. My mistake.

Shares ? oh what a good idea. Thanks for the advice.

Just be aware that I charge reasonable commission for my advice

24 Gigawatts

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

Wow, one source says one thing, another says something different. You haven't actually thought about why have you? Such as it just might be that one is looking at pushing hard to expand the technology and such biase will disregard certain issues? Or that the previous report cited that they were taking into account efficiencies?

Also, from NREL: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/39291.pdf we have:

"The 4,000 MW high deployment scenario could result in a savings of $60 million per year for natural gas in California for a 1 percent price reduction for a 1 percent usage reduction."

However, the capital cost range from $494,386,000 (2009 - 100MW) to $631,373,000 (2015 - 200MW), show some interesting numbers don't you think? And of course there are the running costs of CSP, which are not insignificent, and will infact be influenced by fossil fuel trends. So high captial costs etc, seems a risky business, but its your money.

Remember of course, that these plants won't actually prevent any gas plants being built, it will only prevent the emissions up to a point.

That's not to say they shouldn't be built, but taking up huge areas of flat dry land, and installing many miles of cable and other utilities and disturbing potentially fragile ecosytems mustn't be done blindly.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

If you are not going to come forth with any logic as to how you can come to any such conclusion I can only summise that you are simply a spanner in the works that can so easily be avoided.

Hey, you managed a post without using an exclamation mark (!). Well done.

Some older fields are running dry, some money people are nervous about it. Prices are recently claimed to be artificially high.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

What you've done is not answer a single question that I've asked about the technology in case you painted it in a bad light (no pun intended). You've brushed aside any issue that might effect it's viability with no real evidence, other than hype.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I hate to be blunt, but your questions are not of primary importance. What's important is people form their own views.

Originally Posted by Wobs

"No show stoppers" shows a lack of joined up thinking. I've raised a lengthy list of issues that need to be considered, but you only look at them individually. You've not actually looked at them as a whole, not to mention that there are other issues that we've not even mentioned yet.

Have your view, I will have mine, as others will have theirs. No time to bicker and nit pick.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Even though I've said I would like to see more of the technology, that I'm not opposed to its expansion, you wouldn't discuss limitations, which would be benefitial to both of us, and others reading this. Your attitude has brought about an adversarial debate where one did not have to occur.

You've also not even mentioned its low efficiency of course.

Look to yourself for that, you are the one on the front foot.

Originally Posted by Wobs

LOL. But you are willing to spend time disproving and arguing for over 20 pages, with nothing but hype. There's me thinking that you might want to learn about it further. My mistake.

Just be aware that I charge reasonable commission for my advice

Nothing proves or disproves anything. Your defensive remarks are a sure sign of you own adversarial attitude. As I said, people can form their own views. I hope they do.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Wow, one source says one thing, another says something different. You haven't actually thought about why have you? Such as it just might be that one is looking at pushing hard to expand the technology and such biase will disregard certain issues? Or that the previous report cited that they were taking into account efficiencies?

Also, from NREL: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/39291.pdf we have:

Many reports of many views of varying times of formulation looking at varying aspects. One might surely expect some differences of opinion. Get over it.

Originally Posted by Wobs

"The 4,000 MW high deployment scenario could result in a savings of $60 million per year for natural gas in California for a 1 percent price reduction for a 1 percent usage reduction."

However, the capital cost range from $494,386,000 (2009 - 100MW) to $631,373,000 (2015 - 200MW), show some interesting numbers don't you think? And of course there are the running costs of CSP, which are not insignificent, and will infact be influenced by fossil fuel trends. So high captial costs etc, seems a risky business, but its your money.

Nobody can have any firm handle on all that information. Bold of you to think you can, though somehow I doubt it very much. You demonstrate clear evidence of over simplification. Similar issues are across many technologies of varying kinds. As I said, I will watch what emerges, but as it stands there looks to be lots that seems likely to emerge.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Remember of course, that these plants won't actually prevent any gas plants being built, it will only prevent the emissions up to a point.

That's not to say they shouldn't be built, but taking up huge areas of flat dry land, and installing many miles of cable and other utilities and disturbing potentially fragile ecosytems mustn't be done blindly.

Nothing short of balderdash. We have already done far worse to the environment. Renewables liks Solar Thermal are needed to fix up the mess we have created with fossil fuels. Its the very reason the debate on Climate exists. Get real. Glad I didn't waste too much time on all that. Go Solar ! Praise the sun, the most abundant source of energy known to man, with the biggest future of all

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I hate to be blunt, but your questions are not of primary importance. What's important is people form their own views.

Pardon me for wishing to explore the technology further.

Have your view, I will have mine, as others will have theirs. No time to bicker and nit pick.

But you have.

Look to yourself for that, you are the one on the front foot.

Look back, and you'll its you who became uppity at any questions. You set the tone.

Nothing proves or disproves anything. Your defensive remarks are a sure sign of you own adversarial attitude. As I said, people can form their own views. I hope they do.

I reply to your rants, and also try to explore further knowledge. Anything wrong with that?

Many reports of many views of varying times of formulation looking at varying aspects. One might surely expect some differences of opinion. Get over it.

Of course there'll be differences, and I even thried to show you why they were different, but you wouldn't even acknowledge it.

Nobody can have any firm handle on all that information. Bold of you to think you can, though somehow I doubt it very much. You demonstrate clear evidence of over simplification. Similar issues are across many technologies of varying kinds. As I said, I will watch what emerges, but as it stands there looks to be lots that seems likely to emerge.

So again, you refuse to actually look at anything that might educate us all. You just refuse to discuss, which is a shame.

Care to look at the numbers I put up? High capital costs in relation to how much is actually produced..... A risky enterprise. Now I know what you're thinking: All things have a risk, but it assumes a certain rise in fuel prices, and that it won't be too effected itself in those costs. A bold claim in itself, and one that a wealthy area such as California can probably afford, but else where, its worth looking at some of the numbers to see if its viable on such scales in the short to medium term.

Nothing short of balderdash. We have already done far worse to the environment. Renewables liks Solar Thermal are needed to fix up the mess we have created with fossil fuels. Its the very reason the debate on Climate exists. Get real. Glad I didn't waste too much time on all that. Go Solar !

You clearly didn't spend much time on it, as you'd of realised that CSPs mentioned in the report will not prevent any gas power stations. It looked at CSP with 6hr storage, and even those 13hr storage show graphs of varied output depending upon time of year, time of day, cloud cover, and issues with matching demand. The systems are ideal for peak supply, as they produce it pretty much when the demand is there, and with the storage, it makes it more manageable, but gas power stations will still need to run to supplyment it at some point.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Pardon me for wishing to explore the technology further.

Originally Posted by Wobs

But you have.

Wrong. You have. Explore all you like. I have presented my opinion and people can form their own views, whatever they may be, but I wont be wasting my time chasing up every point.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Look back, and you'll its you who became uppity at any questions. You set the tone.

This is not about uppity or any other ity. You've have presented a view, but nothing of substance that would change things. I have presented my view. There is nothing for you to prove and nothing you can prove.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I reply to your rants, and also try to explore further knowledge. Anything wrong with that?

As I said explore all you want, on your own time thanks.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Of course there'll be differences, and I even thried to show you why they were different, but you wouldn't even acknowledge it.

Why is simply your opinion, just like anyone's nothing more. Each to their own.

Originally Posted by Wobs

So again, you refuse to actually look at anything that might educate us all. You just refuse to discuss, which is a shame.

LOL. Educate ? Get real. This is not an online university , unless I'm mistaken and you get ur cheap degrees here.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Care to look at the numbers I put up? High capital costs in relation to how much is actually produced..... A risky enterprise. Now I know what you're thinking: All things have a risk, but it assumes a certain rise in fuel prices, and that it won't be too effected itself in those costs. A bold claim in itself, and one that a wealthy area such as California can probably afford, but else where, its worth looking at some of the numbers to see if its viable on such scales in the short to medium term.

Um no. I will let the market take care of it and report back when there are any new developments, rather than indulge on more speculative theorizing. All the developments are building a platform for the long term where the biggest price will be paid if we don't act NOW, but to get there we have to bear the short term costs and evolve the technologies. That means higher costs in the early phases, but cost reductions have been significant over recent years and are trending down. The short to medium terms are largely transition terms and are expected to be more costly. Ultimately though, its largely about the long term.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You clearly didn't spend much time on it, as you'd of realized that CSPs mentioned in the report will not prevent any gas power stations. It looked at CSP with 6hr storage, and even those 13hr storage show graphs of varied output depending upon time of year, time of day, cloud cover, and issues with matching demand. The systems are ideal for peak supply, as they produce it pretty much when the demand is there, and with the storage, it makes it more manageable, but gas power stations will still need to run to supplyment it at some point.

Of course. We all know that where ever possible, fossil fuels should be used for backup, rather than primary supply. Mother Teresa, save me.

Originally Posted by California Energy Comission
Many large solar energy projects are being proposed in California's desert area on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. BLM has received right-of-way requests encompassing more than 300,000 acres for the development of approximately 34 large solar thermal power plants totaling approximately 24,000 megawatts

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

This is not about uppity or any other ity. You've have presented a view, but nothing of substance that would change things. I have presented my view. There is nothing for you to prove and nothing you can prove.

Read through the thread again, and you'll see I've tried to discuss the technology, but you got uppity. If you think there is nothing to prove, it just demonstrates further your refusal and how closed you are.

As I said explore all you want, on your own time thanks.

What do you think I'm doing.

Why is simply your opinion, just like anyone's nothing more. Each to their own.

Indeed

LOL. Educate ? Get real. This is not an online university , unless I'm mistaken and you get ur cheap degrees here.

Important note: Education does not finish at the college gates. Most of us never stop learning and exploring further knowledge. Its one of the benefits of constructive discussion, which you seem to shy away from.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Quote:
Originally Posted by California Energy Comission
Many large solar energy projects are being proposed in California's desert area on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. BLM has received right-of-way requests encompassing more than 300,000 acres for the development of approximately 34 large solar thermal power plants totaling approximately 24,000 megawatts


http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

Its never occurred to you that that will not actually produce 24000MW has it. Or that 300,000 acres is actually quite a lot. Or that the rush to benefit from Government money might drive them to impact on the environment more than they should. No you just look at "what's happening on the ground".