Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

You posted the link up to provide context, believing it to be true. I commented on it because I happened to click on it and found it to be nonesense. If you're going to get uppity about people commenting on your links, then don't put up any more links.

This is not about other people, it's about your lack of substance. Its about the fact that you made false and misleading inferences based on assumptions of my views, which frankly you know very little about other than the fact that I have indicated a belief that Solar Thermal has a strong future globally and I maintain that view in spite of your diversionary efforts to build arguments based on things I have not asserted. You can say whatever you like about the links, and articles, no skin off my nose, but you offer absolutely no alternative other than an unsupported point if view.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If it were true, it would be an important reference to the subject, but as its not, it is equally important to debunk it. To point out where it falls down.

At least I have used references. You have presented nothing but an opinion with which you present no credibility.
You can debunk anything but there is nothing other than your posts to suggest your views have any credibility at all. No backing evidence or references at all. There is absolutely scant information other than a point of view that you have provided. You have no more credibility on this forum than anyone else. Nothing puts you above others and based on the gross lack of any supporting evidence you bring to your views, one can't reasonably take them seriously. You have pointed out very little and nothing I and I suspect others don't already know.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've asked you on more than one occasion about this, and tried to give you clues to the answer. This paragraph reinforces the idea that you are missing the point, so let me try to explain in nice simple terms.

Who are you to offer anyone clues ? This is not a guessing game. Put up or hold your piece, for lack of a nicer way of putting it. Clues to the answer ? There appears no good reason evident, that anyone should think you have any credible answer. You have an opinion like anyone else, but if you don't back it up with external evidence, that it carries little weight. At least I have made some effort to provide evidence, whether you believe in the evidence of not. The advice you are providing is far from credible.

"In nice simple terms" as you say. I rest my case, I think it's your manner that needs checking and this theme of veiled insult you ply, originated from your first critical remarks of my mentioning Solar Thermal and its reported 70% base load potential. It seems you but can't help yourself, one suspects because you have no substantial case to make. The bigger question is why ?

Originally Posted by Wobs

Here's the my statement again:
"It is also the nature of that percentage that needs to be tackled, and that is why such renewables can only provide a low percentage of the total grid requirements. "

The nature of it being that if a renewable such as wind or solar has a capacity factor of 70%, then the remaining 30% when it isn't providing energy will occur when nature dictates rather than the people running it. Where as a fossil fuel power station is much more in the control of the operator (breakdowns aside). This means that a spinning reserve isn't really needed for a fossil fuel source compared with a renewable.

This means that their application will be limited in a similar fashion to wind, even though they have the ability for reserve (which will require fossil fuel backup, as stated in a number of reports).

Spinning Reserve ? Tell me something I don't know. This has nothing to do with spinning reserve. Again you create an augment based on nothing that I have said. In fact I have already mentioned the notion of backup by fossil fuel reserve in a previous post. Blind Freddy can see that 70% capacity factor leaves 30% to be accounted for by other energy reserves. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. What I have maintained is that Solar Thermal has been reported to have a 70% capacity factor based on the articles I have read. That's it. I have claimed nothing more. Again you are making an argument where there never was one.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I assumed you'd know that, but you seem to skim over it, even though I've tried to give you clues. Only later did you vaguely acknowedge some limitations, but you can't seem to qualify any drawback with some positive spin, which leaves you looking like you've been seduced. Infact there is little evidence to suggest that you haven't been.

You assumed I knew that because I did know that. Positive Spin ? YES of course. Solar Thermal is positive ! and has fantastic potential. Why would one not put a positive spin on that. It's 70% positive ! That's a win for the planet ! Solar Thermal has awesome potential ! Coal ranges from 70% to 90% Solar Thermal is right up there and its an immature technology still. That's very impressive and very positive and deserves all the positive spin it can get because its damn clean at zero emissions. That's everything good and nothing of the negative you pretend it to be.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Important:
There are other issues with the technology. Can you think of other reasons why their application will be limited other than climate?

Save you breath please and spit it out for God sake, if there really is any substance there. The suspense is unbearable.

Originally Posted by Wobs

While a 70% capacity should yield some nice financial benefits compared to lower numbers typically associated with wind technology, it is not that relevant from a technological stand point for reasons just stated. Because of this it falls down when it comes to baseload supply.

The reasons you have stated amount to nothing not heard before. You haven't said anything significant other than mention spinning reserve, which can be provided by fossil fuels, no argument there, never has been. But not only that, reserve can be provided by additional thermal storage relative to load. Even conventional fossil fuelled power stations have blackouts and down time. You really have not made any case at all and what little point you have made about the remaining 30% capacity factor, I have never contended but rather elaborated further.

Originally Posted by Wobs

No, you must look at how you come across. There really is no need to be so defensive, unless you're projecting your own biase onto me of course. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that happen.
What bias do you think I have?
If you want bias, Google: Solar Thermal. Its actaully hard to find a balanced view on it, which may explain your attitude.

I think the way you have come across is quite evident. I'm simply asserting my views on Solar Thermal and the fact that those views are based on my readings on the subject and the fact that you have manufactured non arguments and made inferences about views you think I might hold and presented them in a way as to reflect my views in a incredulous way. The vast majority of your arguments are based on your supposition about my views on Solar Thermal and not based on any key points I have made. As I said you have created arguments where none existed and written off the information that I have presented as meaningless and biased. I think that's more than good reason to firmly offer an alternate view to things from yourself.

And in answer to your question, I don't know of your bias, tell me what is it ? but I do know of your false and misleading representations about my views. This does appear explain your attitude.

Originally Posted by Wobs

So somewhere among all that emotive speak, we have what? Nothing you haven't already said, which would suggest something. Among other things, your language suggests that you are defensive, which suggests that you think I'm attacking you or your ideas. I'm not.

Say something useful. Those remarks reflect more upon yourself. Stick to the point and present a case, rather than another distraction. This is not about what you think about me or about what you might think I think about you. This is about addressing the key points with something more than just another unsubstantiated opinion. It seems you have made no effort, to provide any external information that might reflect your opinion more favorably and with substance.

The key pieces of information I have alluded to, are about the reported capacity factor of Solar Thermal and the fact that 70% is a very good figure, given the immaturity of this technology, the fact that it is said to be clean and the fact that it is said to be cost competitive with coal. By all means discuss those points, but the rest of your criticisms are based on making up arguments along the way, that I have never presented and that just serves as a diversion, to distract people from the core points I have made, because really you have not presented any credible argument against those three points and provided no evidence to give any credibility to your views.

I note it was you that initiated a barrage of falsehoods and misleading inferences based not based on things I had said, but based on things one suspects ticking over in your mind, seemingly to discredit even the mere fact that I have just mentioned public information, that is reflected an many reports and public information from companies and organizations doing research and implementing the technology.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I'm trying to point out that downsides of a technology can't be swept under a carpet, that anyone can Google Solar Thermal, and stick a few links up, but trying to being overly positive about such things does leave your posts open to criticism. This maybe why you feel attacked, and if you changed that, you might find yourself having a more productive discussion in future.

You just refuse to accept that the information I have referred to has any credibility. That is unfortunate because I re-iterate you have presented nothing other than an unsupported opinion. I have presented at least something and my position is based on that information, rather than just my opinion. Nobody has any reason to believe anything you have said any more than believe the information I have presented. I have presented information from a range of sources and you have presented nothing but a single voice.

Thus you are in absolutely no position give anyone advice on changing the way they present their case. It seems
you have set an extremely a poor example in this regard yourself.

It seems difficult to have a productive discussion with someone who appears to fabricate inferences about other peoples views, when such views were never expressed. What views I do maintain though are reflective of the information I have read in research articles and not solely reflective of any view of my own. Before reading articles on Solar Thermal, I had very little knowledge about it and my views are shaped by what I have read on the subject and not what I have been told by a few people skulking around a forum.

Downside ? You have not pointed out a downside of Solar Thermal. The key point of any relevance in your critique, is 70% capacity factor. That is not a down side. That is a huge positive, because it leaves only 30% to be covered by other power sources. That's a huge upside. Add solar PV into the mix and you can further increase that capacity factor. Add wind and go further again. That is not a downside. That is a huge opportunity. The long term global potential of Solar Thermal is massive and should not be undersold.

[Wobs]

There's none so blind as shall not see.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

There's none so blind as shall not see.

Here we go again, this remark exactly reenforces the point I was making about your style - more slogans, more ridicule, same old distraction, same lack of substance, same methodology of affront the messenger when you don't like the message and most importantly, absolutely no evidence presented beyond an opinion. Some might say, somewhat careless in delivery.

I will re-iterate my summary of oberservations from the articles I have read about appropriately situated Solar Thermal CSP power, with thermal storage;

1. Clean near zero emissions

2. Projected to be cost competitive with coal and eventually cheaper over the longer term.

3. Up to 70% capacity factors when appropriately situated. Backup alternate energy reserve an obvious requirement, subject to thermal storage reserves Vs average daily loads. Potential for higher capacity factors with the right mix of storage and energy capture relative to load.

You might contend the articles, but you can't reasonably contend my reporting of them which is a fairly accurate reflection of them.

Next time, try to stay on point, because the rest really is boring for people I suspect.

[Karl]

I remember first reading the comments along the lines of "Nuclear Energy = Solution to Climate Change" (attributed to Patrick Moore) in this article some time last month:

‘Greenpeace should now go pro-nuke’

While I could not fully agree with his sentiments, I thought was a very interesting perspective, especially considering the past involvements of the source of the statements (co-founder of Greenpeace; former president of Greenpeace Canada, etc.). The comments on the original article, available through the link, are also very instructive.

While there is some validity to the sentiments, especially in terms of the lack of carbon dioxide emissions, and the potential for recycling the radioactive waste within the system, it appears overall to be somewhat of an oversimplification of the issue. The idea of nuclear energy as a mitigation measure for climate change appears more to be temporarily evading the problem than actually providing a solution.

I recall having previously read data to the effect that the fission of 1 lb of uranium being the equivalent to 6000 barrels of oil and 1000 tons of coal, thereby being more efficient than fossil fuels, despite the major drawback of radioactive waste. Further to this, even if it is “environmentally friendly” in relation to its carbon footprint, it still generates steam (water vapour), which is a greenhouse gas (though not as serious an issue as carbon dioxide or methane at the moment). As such, it would be better described as a “less negative” technology rather than “positive” in the context of climate change.

There are more serious aspects as well – the residual risks in the case of unplanned events (accidents and incidents). For example, the field of “risk assessment” which is now a standard subcomponent of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, had its origin in the nuclear energy industry – where certain possible events, of low probability, could have extremely severe consequences. It was only in subsequent years that it was expanded, with the use of concepts from probabilistic risk analysis extended to characterize more general environmental impacts whose occurrence and nature are not easy to predict with any degree of accuracy.

The point being that regardless of how many safeguards and quality control features are implemented in the operation of nuclear facilities, the consequences of a mishap (however improbable) are almost definitely more serious than in the case of most other types of power plants. From that perspective I disagree with Moore. Further to this, I was under the impression that the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 had a much more significant role in the general aversion towards nuclear energy than any “Carter era legislation” as implied by Moore (but I suppose he would be in a better position to remember these things than myself).

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Karl

I it still generates steam (water vapour), which is a greenhouse gas (though not as serious an issue as carbon dioxide or methane at the moment). As such, it would be better described as a “less negative” technology rather than “positive” in the context of climate change.

It generates steam to drive the turbines which produce the power and then the steam condenses into water and is reheated and turned to steam and it drives the turbine and then it condenses into water and is reheated and turned to steam and it drive the turbines and condenses back into water.DO YOU GET THE PICTURE ??
Ooops sorry for being loud ,we have a new policy of being polite in the forum.

In passing may I gently remind one and all that the major atmospheric gas likely to influence temperatures or anything else for that matter is water vapour ,produced in prodigious quantities by our pals the oceans.Methane comes second or perhaps,as the jury is still out,some of the other gases which may be small in quantity but large in their effects.Thank you for flying TES Airways,we hope to see you on board again soon.

[Karl]

One additional point, in that article (‘Greenpeace should now go pro-nuke’), the following statement was made:

Quote:
Environmental groups advocate investing in wind and solar power as an alternative to nuclear power. But Moore dismissed these alternatives as unreliable and expensive. “Germany has spent billions on wind farms, without replacing a single coal-fired power station,” he said.

While it is very true that (at the moment), renewable/sustainable energy sources like solar and wind are expensive and unreliable compared to non-renewable (oil, gas, coal, uranium, etc) is that the only criteria on which they are to be judged?

While research by various institutions and agencies is ongoing, to address the “efficiency” limitations of solar energy (especially photovoltaics), are the renewable sources required to be as efficient to be seen as competitive (or desirable), as targets towards the goal of reducing/eliminating our dependence on geological sources (e.g., fossil fuels and radioactive materials)?

Solar and wind energy are also obviously “unreliable”, compared to the conventional sources – wind turbines require a certain wind speed to be effective / functional, and solar devices in particular can obviously be used only during the day-time for power conversion (and would clearly be less effective on overcast days, etc). So, at least at the present time, these “carbon neutral” or “climate friendly” or “ecologically compatible” options cannot fully replace the more environmentally damaging energy sources / infrastructure. But is that the only intention of investing in them? Further, does that mean that they should be abandoned in favour of nuclear energy?

All things considered, I was under the impression that “sustainability” had three main aspects for consideration:

• Economic
• Social
• Ecological

From this perspective, in selecting a method to replace or reduce dependence on fossil fuels, the technology should ideally be economically viable and socially acceptable, while avoiding environmental degradation. Strangely enough, however, Moore’s endorsement of nuclear energy and derisiveness towards solar energy, seems to be premised upon economic factors only (depending furthermore on which definition of “economics” is used). While solar energy may be less efficient, of lower cost-effectiveness and unreliable (intermittent output), in relation to nuclear energy, can it seriously be said, all things considered, that it is superior from the perspective of being socially acceptable or environmentally benign?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Karl

Further to this, I was under the impression that the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 had a much more significant role in the general aversion towards nuclear energy than any “Carter era legislation” as implied by Moore (but I suppose he would be in a better position to remember these things than myself).

The aversion towards nuclear power goes back to the '50s and '60s when it was linked to nuclear bombs by CND and some other nutters.Ces't la vie.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Thank you for flying TES Airways,we hope to see you on board again soon.

That's what I like to see. You cant beat good customer service. I'm sure they will be back for more.

[LMagic007]

I think the issue with greenhouse gasses is more an issue of climate Change tipping point. We know greenhouse gasses occur naturally. We also appreciate that if what the "experts" are saying is anything to go by, that its this shift in balance that's a concern. i.e. The atmospheric scales are being tilted against equilibrium.

In terms of reducing the tipping point contribution that man makes, the issue of power generation technologies becomes pivotal in the debate. Clearly some nations will be better positioned to contribute with certain technologies and thus some flexibility is required to achieve an optimal solution globally, in terms of what nations adopt what renewable and other energy strategies.

Where renewables can be adopted successfully in one form or another, I think presents an opportunity that we should take full advantage of. Long term, I think energy grids need to be better linked internationally and fossil fuel electricity generation be used when needed to help balance the grids.

With technological advancements, hopefully in say 50 years time, this type of discussion will be a thing of the past, but clearly in order to get to that place, we need to move in that direction today. Fortunately, that does appear to be actually happening.

[screener]

From my perspective the major problem with nuclear is waste management and our inability to do that, the linkage to nuclear weapons is still pretty valid when you consider that we are currently seeing a war over some imagined weapons of mass destruction. Now, what if they had been real and had been deployed. Perhaps we are going to continue to ensure that nuclear technology is only in the hands of sane nations like a republican led USA.

Naaah, let's go with the renewables. The pentagon will figure out how to make heat beams out of passive solar if they have to, but it'll at least lead to a less explosive atmosphere.