Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Sener and Masdar announce joint venture to develop concentrating solar power plants in the 'Sunbelt'

Yet another renewable energy technology-concentrating solar power (CSP)-may be ready for the explosive growth that has marked solar photovoltaic and wind power systems in recent years.

CSP Today

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

All technologies have financial and technical limitations. Again you are telling us nothing new here, just repeating yourself. Solar thermal grew 18% in the US last year but this year is set to grow a whole lot more. There comes a point where the economic and technical factors reach a stage where a technology matures to a price point, where its growth rate picks up. This point has been reached and we can now expect this uptake of Solar Thermal to increase. This is not my opinion, this is reflective fact of what's happening in industry.

I repeat myself because you ignore it. You gloss over the most basic of issues.

It's not my aim to disprove anything you say, because what you say is not the issue. As I have indicated before, like most technologies, there are technical issues, but such technologies only need reach certain point in the development, where by their net benefits outweigh their costs. Solar thermal has reached that point, so matter how much you rattle off all the negatives of Solar Thermal technology, it makes no difference. The technology has arrived and the technical issues are surmountable and they are not show stoppers. Clearly the benefits of the Solar Thermal technology outweigh the costs and this is reflected in industry and in the fact that the US has 1000 MW of solar thermal planned for 2008 and far more beyond 2008. Again this is not my opinion, but industry opinion.

So you've just demonstrated that you take no notice of such issues, and just like to celebrate it expanding. Nice one.

This issue of the "best sites" has been discussed by many in the industry and again you have non argument. It's already been stated in industry circles that 92 miles squared ( 9 percent of the state of Nevada ) could power the entire US electricity grid. Again this is not my opinion, but industry opinion. There are plenty of good sites all around the world. Another non argument. This is the opinion of industry. I'm just telling what industry is saying. Even applying this conservatively and usng 3 times as much land, shows more than adequate land thats usable for solar.

Again, the nature of those numbers eludes you.

So the people who are behind the technology say it has huge potential. What else are they going to say?

This is the crux of your failing. You cite page after page of solar websites claiming it proof that such technology will be huge in the near future, and the slightest criticism is met with insults. Such sites are going to say nothing but try to sell their technology. Journalists love them, as they make great stories. You've only ever provided one sided stories, and have no balance at all. Meanwhile, I've repatedly stated that I think they're fab, but think that their expansion has limits owing to a variety of factors. I'd love it to be otherwise, but there you go.

You must realise that putting such a plant in the middle of the desert will impact on it. Does that bother you?

Show us you care, and try to work out what factors limit its expansion

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

re; Wobs views against Solar Thermal

Speaking about wishful thinking, its the thinking of industry and not mine that has strong belief that Solar Thermal energy can be a major energy player. Again you're shooting the messenger simply because you don't like the message.

Why wouldn't I like the message if I thought it had substance?

Anyone will find articles from key industry players that believe Solar Thermal energy can play a significant part of the global energy mix, not a small part as you suggest. There is nothing wrong with reporting what industry is saying.

It shows you're a tool.

I was not referring to the boiler water reuse aspect. I was clearly discussing the cooling aspect as were you, but you have again changed your track to make another case on another point I had never contended. I briefly mentioned the different cooling methods.

Apologies for the lack of clarity. We often call the boiler water, cooling water on our site (don't ask), but no matter, the key issue is the fact that the sites will consume the water, regardless of the recycling, as you need to bleed off and recharge eventually owing to deteriation. But there is a whole host of other issues that require water, and this is only part of it.

The deeper into the desert its situated, the large you'll need to build it to make it worthwhile, as you'll need to spend more on infrastructure. Therefore, it will require more water, in areas where there is less.

Also, the more deserty environment you put it in, the more dusty/sandy it will be, and will require more cleaning (or even completely unsuitable). Many of the sites that would otherwise be suitable maybe currently be used for so kind of agricultureal use (eg, grazing or orchards), or a delicate ecology being in such a dry area.

It's a nonsense to say Solar Thermal wont make a difference. It clearly will. If you look at Solar Thermal across the board you can clearly see a range of technologies both of commercial central distribution scale and also on a domestic level. On a domestic level approx 30% of energy consumption is used to heat water. Domestic solar thermal hot water systems alone can produce a 15% to 30% reduction in domestic energy consumption. 2020 at 20% could be met on the domestic electricity side just by people installing solar hot water systems, let alone implementation of other renewable energy technologies. Add Solar thermal heating, Add Solar PV, Solar Thermal CSP and Grid based Wind energy into the mix and that clearly increases. Application of renewable energy is always a combinatorial approach.

Solar thermal water heaters for domestic use are completely different issue. I'd have one if I thought it was worth it, but I don't use enough.

Apparently, solar PV won't work so good in areas where solar CSP would be appropriate, so you shouldn't really combine them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You still haven't addressed the grid stability issue. Well, not in any resalistic way anyway.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Whether one believes this to be true is one thing and entirely up to each individual. What however is fact, is my reporting of this information as accurate. You can make up your own judgments about the claims made by Ausra. You cannot however reliably claim these views to be mine, because they are not. They are Ausra's views.

Two views that are biased. Wow.

Thermal Energy Storage (TES) allows parabolic trough power plants to achieve higher annual capacity factors—from 25% without thermal storage up to 70% or more with it.

Thank you for demonstrating why it won't be suitable for baseload supply.

Here in the UK, we have wind energy, which has an average of about 25% capacity factor. However, this is much higher in certain areas. This is irrelevant though as its an intermittent supply, as is solar, and as such is suceptable to the whims of mother nature as I've already discussed. As a result, weather conditions can effect its output, which lead to grid instability, which limits its potential.

Even with storage, this will still be the case. They will still need same the fossil capacity for a stable grid.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Wrong again. Blindingly wrong. Relying on fossil fuels is leading to global economic instability, because increasing global consumption rates of fossil fuels are not sustainable. This is why we are getting price rises of oil and other fossil fuels. Global growth of in particular, China and India and Asia in general, is putting additional pressure on demand for both fossil fuels and natural resources. The world needs to get of relying on fossil fuels for very good economic reasons that pertain to long term economic growth. If we stay dependant on fossil fuels we are doomed economically.

Go talk to an economist. It's basic demand and supply. In fact I would go as far as to say, that if the world does not aggressively uptake renewable energy, the global economy will eventually collapse under the ever increasing demand for the diminishing supply fossil fuel and the increasing damage that fossil fuels are doing to the productive fabric of the environment, with regard to climate and environmental degradation all linked to rising prices.

Again in relation in base load storage for Solar Thermal obviously storage returns diminish incrementally, but again it's not the question of if fossil fuel prices rise, as they are already rising. It's not a hypothetical, it's a
fact. You are presenting fact as hypothetical. Fact ! Everyone knows fossil fuels are rising in price already and have been for some time. Even if Solar Thermal did not improve from here and costs remained the same, it's now reached sufficient development, that its economically feasible already.

And you complain about me misrepresenting your views. Wow.

Again you continue to make up representations that I have not made in regard to my views on your statement falsely suggesting that I think " any problem can be solved, that fossil fuels will destroy the environment, that costs in renewable will keep coming down in price." Statements I never made, but rather just another assumption formed by yourself based on your flawed perception and not based of fact of what I said. In this context, you presenting my views as "black and white" is grossly misleading. I again suspect this is because you have failed to present any strong case against Solar Thermal technology.

All you ever seem to do is talk of prices in renewables coming down in price and issues been solved. Read your own posts for a clue. Its your blinkered view, your ability to swallow 100% anything pro-renewable, and overly postive take on it that you are guilty of, no matter how much you deny it. The quantity and nature of the links you put up is a clue to that.

[Wobs]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The pros and cons of solar power
"Saharan plants

An ambitious plan to build massive plants in the Sahara desert using concentrated solar power (CSP) was unveiled by German engineers last year.


Energy from the plants could be exported to northern Europe
The Desertec organisation supported by Prince Hassan of Jordan wants to use giant parabolic mirrors in the desert to track the Sun and absorb heat in a central receiver which is cooled with water to produce steam. The steam drives a turbine and produces electricity.

Hang on, you're thinking, there is no water in the Sahara desert. True, but the plants are to be placed near the Mediterranean coast so water can be pumped in and be desalinated in the process."

And:
"But he is wary of the costs of establishing a European "supergrid" and concerned about energy security. Could it be that we would simply be trading our dependence on the Middle East for oil for a dependence on sunshine? "

For Europe, as it says, there is the political stability issue.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I repeat myself because you ignore it. You gloss over the most basic of issues.


So you've just demonstrated that you take no notice of such issues, and just like to celebrate it expanding. Nice one.


Again, the nature of those numbers eludes you.

So the people who are behind the technology say it has huge potential. What else are they going to say?

This is the crux of your failing. You cite page after page of solar websites claiming it proof that such technology will be huge in the near future, and the slightest criticism is met with insults. Such sites are going to say nothing but try to sell their technology. Journalists love them, as they make great stories. You've only ever provided one sided stories, and have no balance at all. Meanwhile, I've repatedly stated that I think they're fab, but think that their expansion has limits owing to a variety of factors. I'd love it to be otherwise, but there you go.

You must realise that putting such a plant in the middle of the desert will impact on it. Does that bother you?

Show us you care, and try to work out what factors limit its expansion

As I said before look around and see what's happening. That's what I'm reporting. People can make up their own mind as to what is viable. What you think is viable is just your opinion, backed by nothing else. It's not my responsibility to defend your case. Find articles of credibility that prove otherwise and put them up for all to read ! You give no credible reason for anyone to believe you. Your arguments are not backed up by any substance.

Also again you seem to twist the truth on near every occasion. I never said plants would go in the desert. The journalistic style of articles is not my charter or responsibility. So again you spin another untruth to represent me unfavorably, in a feeble attempt to bolster your very weak case, that has absolutely no substance and no support.

It seems you just cant help yourself. For the record, of course they would not be building plants right in the desert where they are going to be covered in sand and dust and all that crap you talk about. This is just another example of how you twist the truth, presenting arguments against ideas that I have not put forward.

You continue to shadow box because you have nothing but an opinion to offer the audience and no external evidence of any substantial nature. The reason you show no external evidence of any substance, is because you know very well that the arguments you are making simply do not apply, in the representations being made in the articles. The representations I'm simply reporting. There is no reason that you should be believed over anyone else in this forum.

In fact there is very good reason you should be disbelieved, because you have shown time after time, a style of twisting the truth and manufacturing statements, that you falsely infer others have made.

You also misrepresent information in articles to build a case. Classic example is the insolation deception you spin, not recognizing that secondary sites are suitable for Solar Thermal and that secondary sites form a significant land mass around the world. In doing this you have effectively destroyed what little credibility you did have.

Thus I suggest you show us all, that you care by being responsible and not misleading the audience and spreading falsehoods about others, namely in this instance myself. But of course, its quite clear that you don't care, because you are continuing to post false and misleading remarks about the comments I have made.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The pros and cons of solar power
"Saharan plants

An ambitious plan to build massive plants in the Sahara desert using concentrated solar power (CSP) was unveiled by German engineers last year.


Energy from the plants could be exported to northern Europe
The Desertec organisation supported by Prince Hassan of Jordan wants to use giant parabolic mirrors in the desert to track the Sun and absorb heat in a central receiver which is cooled with water to produce steam. The steam drives a turbine and produces electricity.

Hang on, you're thinking, there is no water in the Sahara desert. True, but the plants are to be placed near the Mediterranean coast so water can be pumped in and be desalinated in the process."

And:
"But he is wary of the costs of establishing a European "supergrid" and concerned about energy security. Could it be that we would simply be trading our dependence on the Middle East for oil for a dependence on sunshine? "

For Europe, as it says, there is the political stability issue.

Yes read the article. Everything has pros and cons. Would you prefer more CO2 ? to breath and Climate Change ? The world is already dependant on oil. Nobody has to buy the electricity they produced by the super grid, if they don't want to. Governments obviously will do whatever they see as being in their national interest. That does not preclude the benefits of Solar Thermal energy. Get real.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

In fact there is very good reason you should be disbelieved, because you have shown time after time, a style of twisting the truth and manufacturing statements, that you falsely infer others have made.

Take these words and make a well known phrase:
Copper....kettle......black.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Thus I suggest you show us all, that you care by being responsible and not misleading the audience and spreading falsehoods about others, namely in this instance myself. But of course, its quite clear that you don't care, because you are continuing to post false and misleading remarks about the comments I have made.

I've replied to you directly where appropriate, without twisting anything. I can't help you don't like it, but then I never said you would.