Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by screener

Energy derived, and being used, from solar technologies replaces the need for using hydro power until the sun goes down and so stored water is equivalent to stored electricity.

I understand your point.
Stored energy is just that. Stored energy.
It can be generated in a number of ways, stored in a number of ways, and used in a number of ways.
Solar, for example, can be used on roof panels to heat domestic hot water without electrical energy being any part of the conversion. Thermal energy storage is the practical means.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Fine.
If my statement is incorrect then you should have no difficulty in citing a means of practical electrical energy storage. Do so and, at a stroke, you would prove the fallacy of my statement.

If my statement is incorrect then you should have no difficulty in proving there is no practical means of electrical energy storage. That however would be impossible and to persist in making the point without proof, is a waste of time and would be drifting off topic.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

If my statement is incorrect then you should have no difficulty in proving there is no practical means of electrical energy storage.

Cite just one example and your point would be made.
I know you won't.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Cite just one example and your point would be made.
I know you won't.

I already have and won't be repeating myself further.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Anyway getting back on topic for a change, one may at times wonder if Patrick Moore's seemingly somewhat unqualified remarks, rather guns blazing in delivery, might reflect an undercurrent of bitter cynicism. The picture Moore seems to offer, appears like a snapshot of the status quo on dollar cost, presented in terms of generalities, with scant acknowledgement of the carbon cost factor being the very reason the world seeks clean renewable energy solutions, that over time don't rise as significantly in cost, unlike fossil fuels dilemma the world now faces. Nuclear energy costs could skyrocket without fossil fuels, yet we desperately need to meet a growing energy demand and reduce burning of fossil fuels or clean up their act, adding more costs. The imperative is also for sustainability on several levels, particularly on an environmental and economical basis.

Given the choice, who would you rather trust (or trust the most):
Greenpeace or Moore?

Also, name one techonlogy who's costs would not skyrocket without fossil fuels?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Given the choice, who would you rather trust (or trust the most): Greenpeace or Moore?

Also, name one techonlogy who's costs would not skyrocket without fossil fuels?

I'm not wasting time on the first question, I deem it incredibly subjective and not reasonably provable and especially not in the context of this discussion and Moore's misleading arguments fail to convince. It's just a waste of time on a point that may never be agreed upon, where measurement of rationale is difficult at best. Time is too limited to reasonably spend on such matters.

In terms of cost, conceptually and fundamentally, clearly those industries and services most heavily dependant on fossil fuels will be the industries hit hardest when supply of fossil fuels diminish to a point of effective and even complete exhaustion or the price rises to such an extent as to make them significantly expensive enough, that they markedly and adversely effect profitability of enterprise. Those services and industries less reliant on fossil fuels for their productive capacity will be better placed to absorbed the impact. That's common sense.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

In terms of cost, conceptually and fundamentally, clearly those industries and services most heavily dependant on fossil fuels will be the industries hit hardest when supply of fossil fuels diminish to a point of effective and even complete exhaustion or the price rises to such an extent as to make them significantly expensive enough, that they markedly and adversely effect profitability of enterprise. Those services and industries less reliant on fossil fuels for their productive capacity will be better placed to absorbed the impact. That's common sense.

So you're saying that nuclear, wind and most solar power will increase about the same proportionally similar in such circumstances.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I'm not wasting time on the first question, I deem it incredibly subjective and not reasonably provable and especially not in the context of this discussion and Moore's misleading arguments fail to convince. It's just a waste of time on a point that may never be agreed upon, where measurement of rationale is difficult at best. Time is too limited to reasonably spend on such matters.

Pardon me for asking your opinion. It was clearly beneath what you think of your elevated mind.

You brought the subject up regarding the reliability of Moore, so I believe it to be a valid question given his background. People claim he is in the pocket of industry, and so this makes my question a valid one.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So you're saying that nuclear, wind and most solar power will increase about the same proportionally similar in such circumstances.

No I'm not saying what you said, but what I said. I'm not going to elaborate further. What I said is clear enough for people to form their own reasonable interpretation and they don't need my confirmation on that. Once you start naming proportions and amounts it becomes very speculative.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Pardon me for asking your opinion. It was clearly beneath what you think of your elevated mind.

You brought the subject up regarding the reliability of Moore, so I believe it to be a valid question given his background. People claim he is in the pocket of industry, and so this makes my question a valid one.

I have expressed a general view on Moore in the context of the article that was referred to, nothing more. Others may have differing views and that's their prerogative.