Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

[size=2][font=Arial]Efficiency effects all power generation technologies. From what I have heard, over 60% of fossil fuel energy burnt, is dissipated as heat into the atmosphere.

CHP would use some of that loss (but not in CSP), but what you're saying is that coal is twice as efficient as CSP. Well I wasn't going to be so harsh, but there you go. Actually, combustion efficiency in a coal plant is much higher. Overall efficiency is an issue for all plants of course.

Make it so.

I'll do the Picard impression around here if you don't mind. (You should see my Picard manoeuvre)

13 hours storage is old skool. Get with the present. The plants should be configured to meet strict government standards to be accepted onto the grid. The optimal configurations can be built to meet their capacity and load requirements. Cost is the main limiting factor as will all technologies.

Which is why most have limited storage, and don't lend themselves to baseload supply. As gas costs rise this will increasingly limit their future storage flexibility

No kidding. backup is required for all power generation technologies.

Further evidence of your lack of understanding.

Rubbish. Fossil fuel is the biggest environmental destroyer, particularly with regard to CO2 emissions ( the crux of the matter ) known to man, far far far worse then CSP. Also the whole point of renewable energy is th reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels, in part for sake of Climate Change and in part pollution and in part rising fossil fuel prices. You completely seem to be missing the whole point. Further evidence that your ears seem to remain blocked and eyes shut. Fossil fuels and mans dependancy upon them, are creating a serious problem.

And again, you fail to grasp the relevance.
While we are all trying to move away from fossil fuels, we must tread carefully. Just because they emit CO2, does not mean we must embrace all other technologies blindly and not look at their impacts.

The emissions from current power stations are only a problem because of the quantities involved. CSP and other technologies have not been implemented on the same scale generally, and so its tempting to compare them as it is currently, but direct impacts are often over looked when one is focussed on the gaseous emissions.

Overall environmental impacts on an area are not so straight forward as "it emits this much CO2, so it must be good/bad".

Nonsense. Solar Thermal CSP plants are water efficient. More so than fossil fuel power plants and can more readily be air cooled than fossil fuel plants.

This has already been debunked. Repeating it won't make it any more true. I've already gone over how systems need a bleed off and on to refresh it. Any way to reduce that consumption will lead to some kind of energy consumption along the way. Again - we reuse water on our site, but we must replace a portion of it. But the main issue is that you'd be building a large system that needs water in an area that is especially vulnerbale to water shortage. Nearly any other energy production does not have that issue, as combustion or nuclear plant location can be much more adaptable to local issues.

Should we continue to pollute the world with fossil fuel emissions, we will be in a far bigger mess than we are already in. Climate Change is already effecting global water supply, get real, you must be dreaming.

Where did I express a wish to continue to burn fossil fuels? I prefer to find alternatives, but I refuse to bow to idealology.

The Solar power industry and Governments clearly do not agree with you and nor do I. Clearly they view Solar Thermal as baseload capable, when appropriately configured.

Sorry, but there are PDFs out there that show performance of solar plants with storage that produce nothing in early mornings. They are ideal for matching peak loads, such as A/C demands at noon and afternoon, but just because those involved claim something from some ideal conditions, does not make it applicable in the real world.

You have proved far worse than that. You continue to discuss the technology so stop complaining. However, near every argument you have raised has easily been countered and any of your points with any merit are so insignificant in terms of comparative priorities and global mandates and imperatives, that they just fall by the wayside along with the rest of your arguments that don't offer significant merit. If you have any reputation worth holding up, your arguments dont reflect that at all and in fact represent you unfavourably. Your arguments are very weak and many of them false.

No, infact you've just demonstrated that any reasonable discussion with you is impossible unless someone agrees with you, and you want to celebrate something. Not just here, but elsewhere. you've complained that I've stated the obvious (after you've refused to answer a question), but then do so yourself on other issues.

I've raised a whole list of issues that will limit its implementation, many of which will act in conjunction with each other. But cost will be a huge factor. I've not raised a single false issue, as they are either based on links, or real life experience. Just because you believe hype, does not mean we all have to.

Your views have no support. You keep raising the same weak issues. Everything has limits so again you tell us nothing new. You will have to convince more important people than me to be taken seriously. Somehow I doubt that will occur. Stop dreaming about the ifs and start looking at the what's happening.

I am looking at the what's happening. I'm looking at the limited implementation, where the money is coming from and to, and looking at the issues that professionals have raised, that you've glossed over, and issues that I'm aware of from experience.

Nonsense. The technology is good to go and further developments are a bonus. No assumptions required, just fact of what's happening now and industry projections.

Not nonsense at all, because you wrote:

The technology will evolve and improve

Again you will have to convince the experts not me, who will have considered many issues like these and far more issues than you have raised. Same old arguments you raise over and over nothing new.

Neither of us have to convince any experts. This is a forum.
Has its occurred to you that you haven't actually addressed any issues I've raised in any meaningful way?

Sorry but industry cost projections are expected to reach coal parity by 2015. Again the views I reflect are industry and not mine. I'm just reporting them, though happen to agree with them. 24 GW is not my figure, its what's been applied for. Your whole argument severely lacking in support is your smokescreen.

Your argument is basically echoeing what you've been told by people who have a vested interest in it. I look at a variety of different sources and take a balanced view. That's where we differ.

You see a few planned plants, and project that to the rest of the world, not accounting for environmental, techincal, economic, and political issues, unless it suits you.

[url="http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html"][size=3]Large Solar Energy Projects

You continue to put the same link up, and yet fail to appreciate the flaws involved.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

CHP would use some of that loss (but not in CSP), but what you're saying is that coal is twice as efficient as CSP. Well I wasn't going to be so harsh, but there you go. Actually, combustion efficiency in a coal plant is much higher. Overall efficiency is an issue for all plants of course.

Originally Posted by Wobs

As I said

Originally Posted by Wobs

I'll do the Picard impression around here if you don't mind. (You should see my Picard manoeuvre) Which is why most have limited storage, and don't lend themselves to baseload supply. As gas costs rise this will increasingly limit their future storage flexibility Further evidence of your lack of understanding.

Again industry disagrees with you. Further evidence of you lack of understanding and lack of substance.

Originally Posted by Wobs

And again, you fail to grasp the relevance. While we are all trying to move away from fossil fuels, we must tread carefully. Just because they emit CO2, does not mean we must embrace all other technologies blindly and not look at their impacts.

Again you show that you fail to grasp any aspect of the technologies. Just because you say so, is no reason for anyone to believe you, especially in the face of no support or substance to your views. You bring no credibility to your views.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The emissions from current power stations are only a problem because of the quantities involved. CSP and other technologies have not been implemented on the same scale generally, and so its tempting to compare them as it is currently, but direct impacts are often over looked when one is focussed on the gaseous emissions.

More unsubstantiated nonsense. It's tempting to eat ice cream.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Overall environmental impacts on an area are not so straight forward as "it emits this much CO2, so it must be good/bad".

Considering CO2 emissions area among the world biggest problems, I think you further demonstrate your lack of substance and hence the lack of credibility you bring to the discussion. The issues you raise pale into insignificance of carbon emissions being a key reason for renewable energy growth.

Originally Posted by Wobs

This has already been debunked. Repeating it won't make it any more true. I've already gone over how systems need a bleed off and on to refresh it. Any way to reduce that consumption will lead to some kind of energy consumption along the way. Again - we reuse water on our site, but we must replace a portion of it. But the main issue is that you'd be building a large system that needs water in an area that is especially vulnerbale to water shortage. Nearly any other energy production does not have that issue, as combustion or nuclear plant location can be much more adaptable to local issues.

You have debunked nothing other than air unsupported opinions. Um does that leave anyone else ?

Originally Posted by Wobs

Sorry, but there are PDFs out there that show performance of solar plants with storage that produce nothing in early mornings. They are ideal for matching peak loads, such as A/C demands at noon and afternoon, but just because those involved claim something from some ideal conditions, does not make it applicable in the real world.

Changes nothing on the ground. 24 GW planned for California alone.

Originally Posted by Wobs

No, infact you've just demonstrated that any reasonable discussion with you is impossible unless someone agrees with you, and you want to celebrate something. Not just here, but elsewhere. you've complained that I've stated the obvious (after you've refused to answer a question), but then do so yourself on other issues.

By all means have your opinions, but don't expect anyone to take them seriously. You have no case and no backing substance. The reality of the day contradicts your theories.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've raised a whole list of issues that will limit its implementation, many of which will act in conjunction with each other. But cost will be a huge factor. I've not raised a single false issue, as they are either based on links, or real life experience. Just because you believe hype, does not mean we all have to.

That's ok, you're free to believe your own hype. I focus more broadly held views and on more expert opinions. Cost effects everything. Again you show no substance, just unsupported views.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I am looking at the what's happening. I'm looking at the limited implementation, where the money is coming from and to, and looking at the issues that professionals have raised, that you've glossed over, and issues that I'm aware of from experience.

24 GW applied for, get over it.

[quote=Wobs;241479] Neither of us have to convince any experts. This is a forum.Has its occurred to you that you haven't actually addressed any issues I've raised in any meaningful way? [/quote]

I cant account for your finding of lack of meaning. Its occurred to me that you have no substantiation of your claims.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Your argument is basically echoeing what you've been told by people who have a vested interest in it. I look at a variety of different sources and take a balanced view. That's where we differ.

Of course. If you want to know what coal or fossil fuel plants are being planned, you go ask those who have planned them. Doh ! Of you ask government bodies, which I have sited on many occasions. CA government sites the 24 GW applied for. Stay in your shell of denial if you like.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You see a few planned plants, and project that to the rest of the world, not accounting for environmental, techincal, economic, and political issues, unless it suits you.

Nothing to do with what suits me. Its what government and industry are saying. Get used to it.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You continue to put the same link up, and yet fail to appreciate the flaws involved.

Flaws exist in everything. Move on. 24 GW applied for many planned in the state of California USA, confirmed by industry and government, regardless of my opinion. Face reality. Solar Thermal is being seen as an energy source with major potential.

The rest is history.

[Besoeker]

Or just argumentative and unwilling to accept the opinion of others better informed?
Or just simply won't gracefully accept that he/she could be wrong?

Transient post........

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Or just argumentative and unwilling to accept the opinion of others better informed?
Or just simply won't gracefully accept that he/she could be wrong?

Transient post........

There is no reason why anyone has to accept anyone's opinion on a chat forum. It's mostly unsubstantiated and invalidated opinion anyway and there is no mandate for one view over another to be the last word. Each to their own view. If you can't accept that then you may have the problem. If you want to debate more stringently on matters of fact, you are probably in the wrong place. Anyone can have their view, but get over the fact that others might disagree, they don't have to agree on your say so. Each has their own view and that's largely all they are. Views.

[forfismum]

T***k as p*****t in a b*****t is our e*******o,some one had to say it,and I am delighted to oblige

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

There is no reason why anyone has to accept anyone's opinion on a chat forum..

Quite so.
But when your points are repeatedly shown to be incorrect or have no substance isn't that time to pull stumps?

You may or may not accept that I am a professional electrical engineer with 40 years practical experience in the field of power control.

So, unless you think I am lying, I have a sound basis for commenting on power and energy.

Do you?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quite so.
But when your points are repeatedly shown to be incorrect or have no substance isn't that time to pull stumps?

You may or may not accept that I am a professional electrical engineer with 40 years practical experience in the field of power control.

So, unless you think I am lying, I have a sound basis for commenting on power and energy.

Do you?

Comment all you like. It's just an opinion regardless of what you claim. Your comment is worth no more than anyone else's in this arena. Comments like that give you something to hide behind, in the face of lack of substantive opinion. Some people describe it as elitism. George Bush is a politician, which does not mean people cant have an opinion about the shite job he's done. Almost laughable that you put forward such claims. Just shows an inability to make a substantive case. Serves you no good at all. I think your bails have already long been lifted and stumps bowled over. However this is not the appropriate forum for such discussion.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Comment all you like. It's just an opinion regardless of what you claim. Your comment is worth no more than anyone else's in this arena. Comments like that give you something to hide behind, in the face of lack of substantive opinion. Some people describe it as elitism.. Almost laughable that you put forward such claims.

OK.
Find a single point that I have made and prove it to factually incorrect.
A single point. Just one. Since you consider my claims to be laughable, that should be easy peasy for you.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

OK.
Find a single point that I have made and prove it to factually incorrect.
A single point. Just one. Since you consider my claims to be laughable, that should be easy peasy for you.

There is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt this forum. It's a forum for opinions. You may prove something to yourself if you so desire.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

There is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt this forum. It's a forum for opinions.

So there's nothing I have posted that you can show to be factually incorrect. Yet you call my claims laughable.
That's not very nice, you know.