Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

You accuse me of that without a single shred of evidence. Irony?

And then all you do is cite a load of propoganda.


You haven't provided anything credible. Just biased links. A solar company is going to say what? That solar energy has huge potential. Hardly dripping academic credibility is it?

Dispove anything I've said. Try it.

It's not my role to prove you wrong to satisfy you own ego. That's petty and another example of your style. People can make up their own minds what they choose to believe.

Again you have provided no links to information that contends the bulk of the information I have referred to. Your opinion does not count I'm afraid. You lost what small credibility you may have had quite a while ago. The points you have raised with what little credibility you have brought with them, are issues among many that are part and parcel of the challenges this technology faces, as do most technologies. Do you think fossil fuels have not had their fair share of technical challenges ? Look at the terrible damage they have done to the environment over the last 100 years.

It's evident that the issues you have raised are not show stoppers and its clear can be overcome if they have not already been resolved. The mere fact that huge plans are underway already would indicated that much planning has since gone before over many years. We know this is the case from government research articles. NREL and Sandia in the USA.

There is plenty of suitable land in USA, China and India and Africa and the Middle East with sufficient insolation for Solar Thermal power generation. Another falsehood you try so unsuccessfully to contend by your distracting "best sites" nonsense. Second best is sufficiently good enough. That's approaching one third of the USA land mass, averaging 5.5 kwh of insolation per metre squared. Thus I think it's blindingly clear where the credibility vacuum exists.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Show one place where I suggested that the engineers would do those things.


[cough]grid stability[/cough]

You're missing the point. Well if you don't think the engineers will do those silly things you have raised ( like build near sand storms, or where there is no water, or where its dusty, or where the mad crowd exists and threatens energy security or they wont configure them properly to meet load commitments ) that for example seems to form the basis of your whole argument, then where is your argument ? There is none. You present no case, no substance.

I believe that the engineers will have considered most if not all of the negative issues you have raised and would likely have plans to deal with them effectively. The problems you identify and keep harping on are the problems I say have in all likelihood been thought of already and suitable plans would likely have been formulated to deal effectively with those problems.

Clearly it's up to each nation to formulate their own energy policy on matters of energy, grid stability, backup and overall risk management. If there is a primary source of Solar Thermal available to nations, if they so desire, they can utilize it and save their own energy reserves for that rainy day, when they really need them. I think the world needs to aggressively and heavily invest in clean renewable energy solutions, in light of what scientists are indicating about Climate Change and environmental pollution.

Much planning has to go into these costly projects. You have raised questions about technical hurdles and other issues. Well done, but that's where it ends. The problems you have identified are not difficult to appreciate. Engineers will likely work around such problems. You have nothing. No case. Nothing. Contrary to your own view, I think Solar Thermal energy has huge potential for this planet. This view is clearly shared by many.

Yes of course Solar Thermal companies have vested interest in their technology, so what. That does not mean the technology is not viable. On the basis of that irrational one sided argument you apply, one could ask does that not mean the fossil fuel industries have a vested interest ? And thus we should not believe them either ? Especially after all the damage pollution is doing to our environment and public health ?

You go on about nuclear energy as if to imply that somehow it's the solution and it's clear is isn't. There is no single solution to the worlds energy dilemma. Also as mentioned we can't plonk a nuclear power station in every nation on earth. That's fraught with problems alone and imagine the impact on global demand for uranium. We don't want them to burn more coal either. We thus need to provide sustainable clean energy solutions for the world. One needs to have a global perspective in all this, rather than being insular in outlook.

The viewers can make up their own mind as I'm sure they will, regardless of what you or I say and I hope they do. I'm presenting information for all to do with what they choose. I'm sure our fellow forumites have the ability to draw their own intelligent conclusions from that information against what little detail you have presented beyond your opinion. There is no good reason form people to think that what you or I have to say on the matter is gospel and I hope they don't

[debs]

I reckon the middle east could be a furtile area for solar. They have lots of sun, a whole lot of cash that they don't require immediate returns on, and the desire to diversify from oil.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You're missing the point. Well if you don't think the engineers will do those silly things you have raised ( like build near sand storms, or where there is no water, or where its dusty, or where the mad crowd exists and threatens energy security or they wont configure them properly to meet load commitments ) that for example seems to form the basis of your whole argument, then where is your argument ? There is none. You present no case, no substance.

No you're missing the point. All I've ever tried to discuss are the limiting factors for this technology. I've also said more than once that I'd like to see more of it, and that there will be expansion. If you have a problem with that....well you need to think about that.

I believe that the engineers will have considered most if not all of the negative issues you have raised and would likely have plans to deal with them effectively. The problems you identify and keep harping on are the problems I say have in all likelihood been thought of already and suitable plans would likely have been formulated to deal effectively with those problems.

Again, you state clearly that these problems can be dealt with. What I'm saying is that many (not all) are limiting factors.

Clearly it's up to each nation to formulate their own energy policy on matters of energy, grid stability, backup and overall risk management. If there is a primary source of Solar Thermal available to nations, if they so desire, they can utilize it and save their own energy reserves for that rainy day, when they really need them. I think the world needs to aggressively and heavily invest in clean renewable energy solutions, in light of what scientists are indicating about Climate Change and environmental pollution.

Grid stability cannot be ignored. What you're saying here is basically that such countries can switch off all (or nearly all) their fossil fuel and rely on solar thermal for the majority of their energy needs. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that this is practical. Infact every indication suggests otherwise.

If you want me to put up a link to support that, consider that you said such issues are basic knowledge.

Much planning has to go into these costly projects. You have raised questions about technical hurdles and other issues. Well done, but that's where it ends. The problems you have identified are not difficult to appreciate. Engineers will likely work around such problems. You have nothing. No case. Nothing. Contrary to your own view, I think Solar Thermal energy has huge potential for this planet. This view is clearly shared by many.

Read that paragraph again. You acknowledge that I've raised good points, and then claim I have no case. Mull that one over. Many of these factors are limitations to the technology, not just a problem that can be solved. Sometimes you just have to work with what you've got.

Yes of course Solar Thermal companies have vested interest in their technology, so what. That does not mean the technology is not viable. On the basis of that irrational one sided argument you apply, one could ask does that not mean the fossil fuel industries have a vested interest ? And thus we should not believe them either ? Especially after all the damage pollution is doing to our environment and public health ?

I never said it wasn't viable.

And why do you think I actually want fossils fuels to be used more? I'd like to see less coal/gas used without the harm to people's standard of living. Anything wrong with that?

You go on about nuclear energy as if to imply that somehow it's the solution and it's clear is isn't. There is no single solution to the worlds energy dilemma. Also as mentioned we can't plonk a nuclear power station in every nation on earth. That's fraught with problems alone and imagine the impact on global demand for uranium. We don't want them to burn more coal either. We thus need to provide sustainable clean energy solutions for the world. One needs to have a global perspective in all this, rather than being insular in outlook.

Again, where did I say nuclear was the only solution? And where did I say we should deploy nuclear energy on every nation on Earth?

We want sustainable energy, but as a result we must realise the limitations of all technologies.

The viewers can make up their own mind as I'm sure they will, regardless of what you or I say and I hope they do. I'm presenting information for all to do with what they choose. I'm sure our fellow forumites have the ability to draw their own intelligent conclusions from that information against what little detail you have presented beyond your opinion.

Indeed. You've accused me of twisting your views, of providing no substance, when I've shown I've done no such thing, and then done exactly that yourself.

There is no good reason for people to think that what you or I have to say on the matter is gospel and I hope they don't

Couldn't agree more.



Bit more info on the water issue:
The following countried have the following ranking of water availability (out of 182):
Algeria - 163
Egypt - 156
Morocco - 155
Jordan - 170
Libya - 174
http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/ENVIRONME...ion05water.pdf

Many of these countries use more than 100% of their renewable water supply, so we can clearly see that before we start exporting energy to Europe, we must ensure they have:
a. Sufficient energy for desalination for their own needs and the plant's needs (which will increase coming any development).
b. Sufficient energy for their own electricity (which will increase if they develop, which they should do, otherwise they will develop resentment towards the countries that benefit from them).

b isn't going to be easy, as we've seen elsewhere with energy exporting.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Second best is sufficiently good enough. That's approaching one third of the USA land mass, averaging 5.5 kwh of insolation per metre squared. Thus I think it's blindingly clear where the credibility vacuum exists.

If you think a third of the USA is suitable for this technology, then you're showing yet more signs that you are overly optomistic.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you think a third of the USA is suitable for this technology, then you're showing yet more signs that you are overly optomistic.

No I don't think that. I wasn't born yesterday. What I have indicated is that there are plenty of sites for Solar Thermal, contrary to what you have implied. Obviously blind Freddy can appreciate that 1/3 of USA would not be suitable, but in terms of insolation, 1/3 of the USA gets around 5.5 kWh per day. Thus one third of the USA can be deemed to have the insolation suitability for Solar Thermal energy. They are clearly not the best sites, but under the right economic environment, they are clearly sufficient to yield meaningful contribution of Solar Thermal energy.

It clearly would not take 1/3 of the USA to power the grid. The example given by industry is 92 miles squared being around 10% of the state of Nevada alone. Clearly this is conceptual and I'm sure most people with half a brain, can clearly see that.

The USA example gives and indication of scale and potential of Solar Thermal at a conceptual level. Again though you continue to twist the meaning of what's posted, to suit your argument, which nobody is buying. Again you have failed in trying to create an point out of nothing. You are nit picking on aspects and there is no point for you to make on this. Anyone can see its conceptual and yet still appreciate it.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No I don't think that. I wasn't born yesterday. What I have indicated is that there are plenty of sites for Solar Thermal, contrary to what you have implied. Obviously blind Freddy can appreciate that 1/3 of USA would not be suitable, but in terms of insolation, 1/3 of the USA gets around 5.5 kWh per day. Thus one third of the USA can be deemed to have the insolation suitability for Solar Thermal energy. They are clearly not the best sites, but under the right economic environment, they are clearly sufficient to yield meaningful contribution of Solar Thermal energy.

So why imply it?

It clearly would not take 1/3 of the USA to power the grid.

I never said it would.

The example given by industry is 92 miles squared being around 10% of the state of Nevada alone. Clearly this is conceptual and I'm sure most people with half a brain, can clearly see that.

The USA example gives and indication of scale and potential of Solar Thermal at a conceptual level. Again though you continue to twist the meaning of what's posted, to suit your argument, which nobody is buying. Again you have failed in trying to create an point out of nothing. You are nit picking on aspects and there is no point for you to make on this. Anyone can see its conceptual and yet still appreciate it.

Still trying to use those false claims against me I see, without the slightest bit of substance.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

No you're missing the point. All I've ever tried to discuss are the limiting factors for this technology. I've also said more than once that I'd like to see more of it, and that there will be expansion. If you have a problem with that....well you need to think about that.

Again, you state clearly that these problems can be dealt with. What I'm saying is that many (not all) are limiting factors.

.

Yes there limiting factors to everything in life. I indicated that evidence suggests that issues you have raised have likely been considered and the engineers would likely have ways to work around such issues.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Grid stability cannot be ignored. What you're saying here is basically that such countries can switch off all (or nearly all) their fossil fuel and rely on solar thermal for the majority of their energy needs. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that this is practical. Infact every indication suggests otherwise.

Yes a challenge. Again though you are twisting the argument and suggesting I have said things I never have said. I never said countries can switch off anything. Again you have falsely mislead the audience. Of course each nation requires a reserve. I have already mentioned backup and risk management being each nations responsibility. The vast majority of your points have been about things I have never said and you have dreamt up in your own head assumptions of what you think I might be thinking. Deal with the facts of what said rather than speculate about things I have not said and the falsely present those speculations as my remarks. You have done this all the way through and nothing has changed in that regard.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you want me to put up a link to support that, consider that you said such issues are basic knowledge.

Just show us that others in industry think the way you are thinking. To date there is no indication of that. Many of the arguments you make are not against points, I have raised but against points that you have falsely and misleadingly speculated about my position. Near every post you make seems to missrepresent my remarks.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Read that paragraph again. You acknowledge that I've raised good points, and then claim I have no case. Mull that one over. Many of these factors are limitations to the technology, not just a problem that can be solved. Sometimes you just have to work with what you've got.


I never said it wasn't viable.

And why do you think I actually want fossils fuels to be used more? I'd like to see less coal/gas used without the harm to people's standard of living. Anything wrong with that?


Again, where did I say nuclear was the only solution? And where did I say we should deploy nuclear energy on every nation on Earth?

We want sustainable energy, but as a result we must realise the limitations of all technologies.


Indeed. You've accused me of twisting your views, of providing no substance, when I've shown I've done no such thing, and then done exactly that yourself.

Couldn't agree more.



Bit more info on the water issue:
The following countried have the following ranking of water availability (out of 182):
Algeria - 163
Egypt - 156
Morocco - 155
Jordan - 170
Libya - 174
http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/ENVIRONME...ion05water.pdf

Many of these countries use more than 100% of their renewable water supply, so we can clearly see that before we start exporting energy to Europe, we must ensure they have:
a. Sufficient energy for desalination for their own needs and the plant's needs (which will increase coming any development).
b. Sufficient energy for their own electricity (which will increase if they develop, which they should do, otherwise they will develop resentment towards the countries that benefit from them).

b isn't going to be easy, as we've seen elsewhere with energy exporting.

One might reasonably expect that planners have had this discussion about water, among other important matters. If you have raised this basic issue, then they probably have also. I think its reasonable to conceive that planners from a range of organizations, government and industry would have crossed this matter and many more matters you have not mentioned.

I have been talking about a global potential of Solar Thermal. You have made points that apply to most power generation technologies and suggested that the contribution that Solar Thermal can make will not be huge. I disagree with you on that point. Notwithstanding the points you have made and continue to make, I believe the technical know-how exists, to allow these issues to be successfully overcome. The issues you have raised are very understandable issues. It's not rocket science. Joe Blow can appreciate the issues you have raised and Joe Blow could see ways around them. They are not show stoppers.
The potential of Solar Thermal is so huge, that these issues are well worth solving. Many of the issues you have raised I suspect have already been solved in well evolved planning, design and implementation strategies. Again I would expect the planners, architects and engineers to be well capable of successfully dealing with the very understandable issues you have raised. We have put a man on the moon, built a Space Shuttle, built extremely complex machinery and technological infrastructure that drives our planet. This is achievable. The solar resource is so valuable to this planet, that the benefits of solar energy of all kinds is such that its long term pursuit is well worth while and will pay for itself many times over once the technology is more fully matured.

That is the crux of the issue. The rest is just repetitive, because you are raising issues that might exist, and points that I don't discount, but with all points you have raised, that does not negate my view that it's clearly evident, by a range of indicators, that Solar Thermal has huge potential and can have a significant impact on global energy production in future.

Looks like the Israel is also going forward with Solar Thermal also as ore others around the world. Deny it all you like, its BIG and this is just the beginning.

1,000 Acres of Giant Solar Mirrors to Rise in Israel's Desert, Finally

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080408/1-000-acres-giant-solar-mirrors-rise-israels-desert-finally

Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet

Ausra - Press Releases: Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So why imply it?


I never said it would.

Still trying to use those false claims against me I see, without the slightest bit of substance.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you think a third of the USA is suitable for this technology, then you're showing yet more signs that you are overly optomistic

Now why would I think that ? Doh. What I indicated was that 1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal. This is to give an indication of solar radiation suitability of the country. Obviously that whole land segment is not suitable, in terms of installation locations. Selected segments of significant size, within that 1/3 of USA land mass however would be suitable. I suspect most reasonable people, can see what context I was referring to.

You just keep misrepresenting what I have indicated. Your remarks such as these, seem largely distracting from the core context. What you are doing is playing on words, to try to make a point about something that isn't. These remarks you have made seem rather mischievously frivolous and a bit of a time waster. Again though, this seems like the general theme that you ply, to make a very week case, go a very long way. You appear to be making your own arguments weaker by taking that line.

To satisfy you though, no I did not intend to mean 1/3 of the USA's land mass could be used. I intended to demonstrate the solar radiation levels of around 5.5 kwh per day hit around 1/3 of the USA, thus meaning that from in isolation perspective a significant part of the USA receives sufficient solar radiation for Solar Thermal. Within that third, there is more than sufficient land that could equate to the conceptual 92 miles squared, that has been said to be sufficient to meet USA power grid needs. Triple this land amount to conservatively allow for lower output per metre squared and there is still likely more than sufficient land for application of Solar Thermal energy.

The mere thought of 1/3 of the USA ever being needed for Solar Thermal, is a thought that should not even come to fruition, especially when it's been clearly indicated, that just around 10% of Nevada ( approx 92 miles squared ) land mass, has been said by industry to be of sufficient land mass. Your statement appears further misleading, seemingly not unusual.

[Deathridesahorse]

All that really needs to be said is that Australia has turned on a dime.

The opposition(Liberal party) who got kicked out of government last Nov 24 is now hoping for Australia to become a "solar continent" which is a total backflip to the course that John *that little poison gnome* Howard had them on.

He dared say the words "Nuclear Power" down under and was only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat because of it: AND IT WAS GOOD!

Coalition calls for 'solar continent' | The Australian