On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power ?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Not in any practical sense.

History will be the judge of that. The impacts of CO2 emissions and lack of sustainability are not practical and evidently it's been decided we must do something about them. Solar thermal energy one of many approaches. It's clear the status quo is far more impractical.

Originally Posted by Wobs

At what environmental cost?

No such thing as a free lunch. How about a CO2 diet and oil slicks to go ?

Originally Posted by Wobs

And 80GW will never be available at any one time. At best they'll see 20GW available if the capacity is 80GW. But that is grossly optomistic given the whole range of limiting factors.

At best I suspect you're guessing. Obviously limited by capacity factor, like all forms of power generation. Thermal Storage will form a major part of the solar thermal solution, raising the capacity factor well beyond that. The technology will get even better over time. There is still considerable scope for improvement of solar energy technologies, particularly in terms of lowering costs.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

History will be the judge of that. The impacts of CO2 emissions and lack of sustainability are not practical and evidently it's been decided we must do something about them. Solar thermal energy one of many approaches. It's clear the status quo is far more impractical.

No. Increased costs in gas have prompted the increase in the technology.

No such thing as a free lunch. How about a CO2 diet and oil slicks to go ?

Issue dodging, and over simplifying the issue of environmental impact.

At best I suspect you're guessing. Obviously limited by capacity factor, like all forms of power generation. Thermal Storage will form a major part of the solar thermal solution, raising the capacity factor well beyond that. The technology will get even better over time. There is still considerable scope for improvement of solar energy technologies, particularly in terms of lowering costs.

Simply going by "what's going on the ground" as you would say.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity...tem_power.html

Knowing how opposed you are to speculation, I thought it better to look at actual performance.

Capacity factor is one issue, but you must realise that there is a limit to what storage by molten salt can acheive. If a system has a large storage capacity it could spend too much time supplying that rather than the grid. So capacity factors of 70% maybe ideals, but might not reflect reality.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

No. Increased costs in gas have prompted the increase in the technology.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Yes. That's history unraveling before your very eyes. Realization of true costs.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Issue dodging, and over simplifying the issue of environmental impact.

Again time will dictate truth and up till now, it's been fossil fuelled lies for the last 100 years or so, that's why the truth has caught up with the world. The very reason the world is now changing and Solar is booming. The world is waking up, to what some still refuse to accept.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Simply going by "what's going on the ground" as you would say.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html

Knowing how opposed you are to speculation, I thought it better to look at actual performance.

Best deal with the here and now and not ancient history. Clearly more recent data will more likely reflect even better performance.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Capacity factor is one issue, but you must realise that there is a limit to what storage by molten salt can achieve. If a system has a large storage capacity it could spend too much time supplying that rather than the grid. So capacity factors of 70% maybe ideals, but might not reflect reality.

Not if you design it so it doesn't. You simply make the ratio of collector array size and storage capacity appropriate for your requirements. You can build a doggy nuclear or any other power station just as much. The predominantly limiting factor is cost and the price dynamics are increasingly favoring renewables. That's just a fact. In 5 years this discussion will be history, because Solar Thermal will likely beat coal and gas on cost and in some cases it already does.

Near all the points you have raised here have already been raised by you before in one form or another and answered by me before in one form or another. It is rather repetitive. You surely must have new and more interesting things to discuss that have not yet been dealt with.

A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can replace coal, gas and oil

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Yes. That's history unraveling before your very eyes. Realization of true costs.

An increase in cost can be caused by a number of things. A lack of capacity increases costs for example.

Again time will dictate truth and up till now, it's been fossil fuelled lies for the last 100 years or so, that's why the truth has caught up with the world. The very reason the world is now changing and Solar is booming. The world is waking up, to what some still refuse to accept.

Fossil fuels lies? what are you on about?

Solar thermal expanding? Couldn't be happier, as I've repeatedly stated.

Best deal with the here and now and not ancient history. Clearly more recent data will more likely reflect even better performance.

And that's based on what exactly?

Not if you design it so it doesn't. You simply make the ratio of collector array size and storage capacity appropriate for your requirements. You can build a doggy nuclear or any other power station just as much. The predominantly limiting factor is cost and the price dynamics are increasingly favoring renewables. That's just a fact. In 5 years this discussion will be history, because Solar Thermal will likely beat coal and gas on cost and in some cases it already does.

Yes that's right, because "if you design it" it can do anything and costs will always fall for renewables. Oh wait, no it won't, and there are limits on what you can design. As we both know, there is a limit to how much storage capacity its worth installing. There will always be a limit to the system's capacity factor.

Also, remember that when planning a solar (or wind) plant, one must plan for worst case not the average performance. Storage can only account for a certain percentage of the down time in energy production of such a system.

Beat coal and gas? What, you mean when its got gas to keep it going? How about when its own limiting factors (many of which can figured out here and now) kick in? The more limiting factors and advantages one realises about a technology, the more realistic projection one will get about how successful it will be. Saying "its got a bright future" is simplistic at best.

Near all the points you have raised here have already been raised by you before in one form or another and answered by me before in one form or another. It is rather repetitive. You surely must have new and more interesting things to discuss that have not yet been dealt with.

A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can replace coal, gas and oil

Yes it is rather repetitive, but then you never seem to come up with anything of any substance other than some propagandic report. If you were able to discuss such technologies without being so defensive about them, you might enjoy a more fulfilling discussion, but you won't take notice of that, as I've pointed it out before.

I try offer a balance to your views, offer factors that will limit such technology's expansion, but you've shown every reluctance to discuss, which is ironic when you constantly talk of how it will have a bright future. How much of a bright future and what would limit it would seem reasonable things to discuss, but you've never come up with a reason not to discuss it.

I've listed a great deal of issues in the past, and most can be taken in combination with one another. Something we can all appreciate I hope.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

An increase in cost can be caused by a number of things. A lack of capacity increases costs for example.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Obviously, everything has a price in this world. Some even dare to say CO2 emissions have a price.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Yes that's right, because "if you design it" it can do anything and costs will always fall for renewables. Oh wait, no it won't, and there are limits on what you can design. As we both know, there is a limit to how much storage capacity its worth installing. There will always be a limit to the system's capacity factor.

Again some tend to neglect, at what price Climate Change ? Let the people decide and in fact the people will decide. Wobs Vs the people.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Also, remember that when planning a solar (or wind) plant, one must plan for worst case not the average performance. Storage can only account for a certain percentage of the down time in energy production of such a system.

Obviously. Nobody said otherwise. All power generation technologies need backup. Nothing is fail safe in this world.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Beat coal and gas? What, you mean when its got gas to keep it going? How about when its own limiting factors (many of which can figured out here and now) kick in? The more limiting factors and advantages one realises about a technology, the more realistic projection one will get about how successful it will be. Saying "its got a bright future" is simplistic at best.

Saying "its got a bright future" has nothing to do with the notion of simplicity at all. As I have said before if not one thousand times, all power generation technologies need backup. Nothing is fail safe in this world. Many besides me are of the view that Solar Thermal energy has a bright future, obviously that does not include you. So be it.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Yes it is rather repetitive, but then you never seem to come up with anything of any substance other than some propagandic report. If you were able to discuss such technologies without being so defensive about them, you might enjoy a more fulfilling discussion, but you won't take notice of that, as I've pointed it out before.

The fact that you don't believe in the reports is your choice. Many would disagree with you though, even state and government policy makers.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I try offer a balance to your views, offer factors that will limit such technology's expansion, but you've shown every reluctance to discuss, which is ironic when you constantly talk of how it will have a bright future. How much of a bright future and what would limit it would seem reasonable things to discuss, but you've never come up with a reason not to discuss it.

There is little to discuss. Your arguments are repeated and have been dealt with before.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've listed a great deal of issues in the past, and most can be taken in combination with one another. Something we can all appreciate I hope.

Indeed you have and it changes very little. You will have to convince people far more important than me, if your doubting views are to be taken seriously. May you have every success you deserve in any such efforts to bring change to the world, in your mind for the better.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

May you have every success you deserve in any such efforts to bring change to the world, in your mind for the better.[/font][/size]

I knew you liked me really. Come on give us a hug

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I knew you liked me really. Come on give us a hug

I thought you knew, that's why I dont need to. Will you settle for a glass of carbon on the rocks ?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Obviously, everything has a price in this world. Some even dare to say CO2 emissions have a price.

Kind of reminds me of people that justify attrocities- "everthing has a price". Its a weak argument, and lacks balance.

Again some tend to neglect, at what price Climate Change ? Let the people decide and in fact the people will decide. Wobs Vs the people.

I wonder sometimes which planet you are on. Since when did the "people" decide such things. I think you'll find the market will be a major part in such decisions.

You seem to be trying to portay some kind of conflict. Again, this reaks of projection.

Obviously. Nobody said otherwise. All power generation technologies need backup. Nothing is fail safe in this world.

Other power generations don't need backup for the whole of the resource. Prolonged inappropriate weather will impact on a larger portion of the grid capacity the more capacity is installed.

The fact that you don't believe in the reports is your choice. Many would disagree with you though, even state and government policy makers.

What you believe is anything positive you read about such technology.

What I believe is a balance of certain aspects of such reports, but I also note what critics say and take a balanced view of both. You don't seem to appreciate that.

There is little to discuss. Your arguments are repeated and have been dealt with before.

Your idea of dealing with the issues I've raised (note: not actually arguments), is "LALALALALALALALALA".

You describe them as either "obvious" despite not raising yourself, or just dismissing them out of hand (or ignoring them). I fing it ironic that you accuse me of arrogance when you claim to have "dealt with" such issues.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Kind of reminds me of people that justify attrocities- "everthing has a price". Its a weak argument, and lacks balance.

No it's a fact of life. Whether you agree with that price is a matter of subjective opinion. CO2 and other oil and petrochemical pollutants a far greater price we are already paying for and have been for many decades. The ultimate price that will kill species if it becomes unmanageable. That's the contextual perspective we are facing, a perspective that you seem to lack.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I wonder sometimes which planet you are on. Since when did the "people" decide such things. I think you'll find the market will be a major part in such decisions..

Earth I'm afraid. People make up the market, if you hadn't realized. Consumers like you me and every other Joe. The buck stops with people. You get to choose. The helpless defeatists tend to blame it on someone or something else.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You seem to be trying to portay some kind of conflict. Again, this reaks of projection..

Ahh, your imagination seems overly active today. The conflict lies within your own mind.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Other power generations don't need backup for the whole of the resource. Prolonged inappropriate weather will impact on a larger portion of the grid capacity the more capacity is installed.
.

Yes is that about the 100th time you have indicated something along those lines ? We can still use fossil fuel for backup and load balancing purposes and still have major emissions reductions by adopting renewables, like Solar Thermal with storage. Wake up. We can make maximum advantage of what it has to offer.

Originally Posted by Wobs

What you believe is anything positive you read about such technology.
What I believe is a balance of certain aspects of such reports, but I also note what critics say and take a balanced view of both. You don't seem to appreciate that.
.

What I believe is what I believe and not what you say I believe. Every technology has drawbacks. That's been acknowledged time on time again and you are just repeating the same arguments that have been dealt with, even though you don't accept they have. You really are coming up with nothing new.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Your idea of dealing with the issues I've raised (note: not actually arguments), is "LALALALALALALALALA" .

Not at all. The issues you have raised have been duly noted and I have indicated no technology is perfect. What more is there to say. It's the overall imperative that must drive priorities. Sacrificing some land to help solve very big problems seems like a very good idea. I suspect the problems it can help solve will likely dwarf the problems it creates. No existing energy technology is perfect and many far from it and it's costing the world and its the very reason for this discussion, so change is what's required and is what's happening, whether you like it or not, so best we prepare for that change, because it's happening in front of us.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You describe them as either "obvious" despite not raising yourself, or just dismissing them out of hand (or ignoring them). I fing it ironic that you accuse me of arrogance when you claim to have "dealt with" such issues.

Yes blindingly obvious, driven by the priority of imperative of sustainable renewable clean energy. An imperative of such magnitude of consequences if we fail to meet it, that these consequences pale the costs of dealing proactively to relative insignificance. From there you can hopefully work out the rest for yourself.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No it's a fact of life. Whether you agree with that price is a matter of subjective opinion. CO2 and other oil and petrochemical pollutants a far greater price we are already paying for and have been for many decades. The ultimate price that will kill species if it becomes unmanageable. That's the contextual perspective we are facing, a perspective that you seem to lack.

That's the sort of scaremongering that gives the environmental movement a bad name. Editas I've said before).

Earth I'm afraid. People make up the market, if you hadn't realized. Consumers like you me and every other Joe. The buck stops with people. You get to choose. The helpless defeatists tend to blame it on someone or something else.

So when such technology continues to only makes up a small percentage of the world's energy, you'll blame the people.

Ahh, your imagination seems overly active today. The conflict lies within your own mind.

Read your own posts. That is where the conflict lies.

What I believe is what I believe and not what you say I believe. Every technology has drawbacks. That's been acknowledged time on time again and you are just repeating the same arguments that have been dealt with, even though you don't accept they have. You really are coming up with nothing new.

Don't believe you

Not at all. The issues you have raised have been duly noted and I have indicated no technology is perfect. What more is there to say. It's the overall imperative that must drive priorities. Sacrificing some land to help solve very big problems seems like a very good idea. I suspect the problems it can help solve will likely dwarf the problems it creates. No existing energy technology is perfect and many far from it and it's costing the world and its the very reason for this discussion, so change is what's required and is what's happening, whether you like it or not, so best we prepare for that change, because it's happening in front of us.

The world isn't about to end.