The Future Of Solar Power

[Bruce Varley]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4ad2ca38$0$5419$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Bruce Varley" <bxvarley@weastnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:AomdnQ4EvISWOE_XnZ2dnUVZ8iCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
A reasonable question, if you were going to spend money on saving the
planet, what would you spend it on?

That's a nobrainer. Population control.

They are doing that already with the baby bonus. Oh wait, you mean
*reducing* the population. Nah, doesn't suit the *politicians* needs
unfortunately.

That's where he money comes in...

 

[KR]

On Oct 12, 5:23 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"KR" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:52217712-1036-4f28-b8ab-9eda2d6dec12@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Generator can be fired up if you need larger wattages, for water
boiling, cooking, power tools etc.

Why on earth would you fire up a generator to boil water or for cooking??
An LPG stove is cheaper than a generator.

MrT.

OOPS !
You are indeed correct.

Some kitchen items that don't operate on gas like microwaves,
toasters, and other gadgets may be an exception however, if you
consider them to be vital.

Though if things got that bad, I'm sure that electric kitchen gadgets
would probably not be a large priority.

 

[KR]

On Oct 12, 5:34 pm, Davo <D...@gmail.com> wrote:

KR wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:23 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"KR" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:52217712-1036-4f28-b8ab-9eda2d6dec12@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Generator can be fired up if you need larger wattages, for water
boiling, cooking, power tools etc.
Why on earth would you fire up a generator to boil water or for cooking??
An LPG stove is cheaper than a generator.

MrT.

OOPS !
You are indeed correct.

Some kitchen items that don't operate on gas like microwaves,
toasters, and other gadgets may be an exception however, if you
consider them to be vital.

Though if things got that bad, I'm sure that electric kitchen gadgets
would probably not be a large priority.

I've heard you can get solar powered clothes driers now.

you can even roll your own on the cheap, length of rope, couple of
screws, nails whatever, and a packet of pegs

 

[Swanny]

Davo wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Davo wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
3ndy wrote:
Go Green Create Your Home Solar Power
Save your Money Today for Bill!

Just do the sums carefully first, before you conclude it will save
you money.

Sylvia.

Don't save money, save the planet.

The promotion related to saving money.

But if you want to save the planet, there are more efficient ways of
spending the money. Solar power is nothing more than a wasteful
feel-good technology.

Sylvia.

A reasonable question, if you were going to spend money on saving the
planet, what would you spend it on?

The planet is perfectly capable of looking after itself.

 

[Davo]

terryc wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:35:59 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

Of course, nuclear is cheaper still.

Obviously doesn't take into account the centuries of waste management.

He's just goading you, you don't have to bite at every troll that passes
you. If you respond to his goading it means he's won. Leave him alone
and he'll go looking for someone else to stir up.

 

[Davo]

Swanny wrote:

Davo wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Davo wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
3ndy wrote:
Go Green Create Your Home Solar Power
Save your Money Today for Bill!
Just do the sums carefully first, before you conclude it will save
you money.

Sylvia.
Don't save money, save the planet.
The promotion related to saving money.

But if you want to save the planet, there are more efficient ways of
spending the money. Solar power is nothing more than a wasteful
feel-good technology.

Sylvia.
A reasonable question, if you were going to spend money on saving the
planet, what would you spend it on?

The planet is perfectly capable of looking after itself.

Best answer! You win.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:35:59 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

Of course, nuclear is cheaper still.

Obviously doesn't take into account the centuries of waste management.

 

[KR]

On Oct 12, 5:19 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message

news:hauajh$9e8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Condoms for the third world, by the plane load.

And you would make them use them, how exactly?

MrT.

Agree.

Condoms are bloody awful to use, and too often break.

Not much alternative to them for STD prevention, but in a stable
relationship/marriage,
where STD's aren't a issue, it wouldn't be good to have to use them
all the time.

Offer them free sterilisations instead.

 

[David L. Jones]

Davo wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Davo wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
3ndy wrote:
Go Green Create Your Home Solar Power
Save your Money Today for Bill!

Just do the sums carefully first, before you conclude it will save
you money.

Sylvia.

Don't save money, save the planet.

The promotion related to saving money.

But if you want to save the planet, there are more efficient ways of
spending the money. Solar power is nothing more than a wasteful
feel-good technology.

Sylvia.

A reasonable question, if you were going to spend money on saving the
planet, what would you spend it on?

A few extra bucks to track rogue asteroids and comets might be well worth
our while.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Sylvia Else]

KR wrote:

You could, but running it all day, for small loads would be
inefficient, and the fuel costs could
be substantial over time?

Of course, the solar costs are substantial initially, and this would
have to be calculated into things, depending on how often and for how
long you would need emergency power.

Thing is, when you do the sums, it turns out that it's always cheaper to
use a generator for backup purposes. The capital cost of solar power is
so high that it's better to put the money in the bank, and use the
interest to buy fuel for the much lower capital cost generator. Solar
power just doesn't work in this role.

(Off Grid, I think solar would be cost effective, especially with the
governmant incentives.)

I don't like including government incentives in these calculations. OK,
it's rational for an individual to do so, but they don't actually reduce
costs, merely transfer them to the long-suffering tax payer.

If its for a few days a year during routine blackouts because of
storms, maintenance etc, the generator wins hands down - If you can't
handle having power off occasionally.

In my OP, I was more suggesting a "real" reason to have a solar panel
installed,
since environmental benefits and cost savings have been ruled out, for
normal home use, in comparison to current grid power prices, and
current high reliability of supply.


If the grid price takes a big hike, which is always on the cards -
then its time to re-calculate the cost benefits. (if any)

I don't see why grid prices should take a big hike. The moment they
start to rise above the true cost of power generation, new investment
flows in. You may see some medium term variation, but not enough to make
private solar power system (which is by its nature a long term
investment) viable.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0030a2d2$0$24412$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
But if you want to save the planet, there are more efficient ways of
spending the money. Solar power is nothing more than a wasteful
feel-good technology.

Not so, large GRID connected solar arrays are *far* better than the stupid
roof mounted ones the government was throwing $8k a piece at!
Of course IF the electricity companies had not been sold, the government may
have seen that as a better option, but I doubt it. :-(

MrT.

Large grid connected solar arrays face the same problem that they have a
high capital cost. I also to harp back to my oft-repeated comment that
they use the rest of the grid as a free backup. That is, they're not
properly costed.

Sylvia.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:18:14 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

:
:"Bruce Varley" <bxvarley@weastnet.com.au> wrote in message
:news:AomdnQ4EvISWOE_XnZ2dnUVZ8iCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
:>> A reasonable question, if you were going to spend money on saving the
:>> planet, what would you spend it on?
:>
:> That's a nobrainer. Population control.
:
:They are doing that already with the baby bonus. Oh wait, you mean
:*reducing* the population. Nah, doesn't suit the *politicians* needs
:unfortunately.
:
:MrT.
:


But that is how the capitalist system works. There must be continual growth in
all areas concerning capital - including population growth to to grow taxes.

 

[Davo]

terryc wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:27:24 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


Large grid connected solar arrays face the same problem that they have a
high capital cost. I also to harp back to my oft-repeated comment that
they use the rest of the grid as a free backup. That is, they're not
properly costed.

Yawn, another non-thought from Sylvia. It is horse for courses. Since
they respond to incoming solar, they are thus suitable for responsding to
demands caused by increased solar exposure, like air con, etc.

Your non-thought also applies to gas, hydro, etc.

.

I also have to add my usual comment that solar power reduces the need
for expensive peak load supplies. Coal fired stations like a nice steady
load, there's nothing more annoying than putting mills in and out of
service.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:27:24 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

Large grid connected solar arrays face the same problem that they have a
high capital cost. I also to harp back to my oft-repeated comment that
they use the rest of the grid as a free backup. That is, they're not
properly costed.

Yawn, another non-thought from Sylvia. It is horse for courses. Since
they respond to incoming solar, they are thus suitable for responsding to
demands caused by increased solar exposure, like air con, etc.

Your non-thought also applies to gas, hydro, etc.

..

 

[Mr.T]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:86ac83d4-ec59-4317-800c-0c79256fb5ab@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Offer them free sterilisations instead.

As long as we start at home (instead of baby bonuses) so we don't look like
the big hypocrites our politicians obviously are!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xHMAm.2731$cL1.2364@newsfe20.iad...

A few extra bucks to track rogue asteroids and comets might be well worth
our while.

Since we can do nothing if we find one, why bother?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Davo" <Dave@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ad40d96_3@news.peopletelecom.com.au...

Large grid connected solar arrays face the same problem that they have
a
high capital cost. I also to harp back to my oft-repeated comment that
they use the rest of the grid as a free backup. That is, they're not
properly costed.

Yawn, another non-thought from Sylvia. It is horse for courses. Since
they respond to incoming solar, they are thus suitable for responsding
to
demands caused by increased solar exposure, like air con, etc.

Your non-thought also applies to gas, hydro, etc.

I also have to add my usual comment that solar power reduces the need
for expensive peak load supplies. Coal fired stations like a nice steady
load, there's nothing more annoying than putting mills in and out of
service.

Exactly, a mix of technologies works best. The aim is to simply reduce coal
use, but considering Australia's total output of GHG, any reduction is so
negligible to the overall problem as to be meaningless other than a symbolic
gesture in any case.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ndn7d5hql90i79u08spgk4l677l36tvp79@4ax.com...

But that is how the capitalist system works. There must be continual
growth in
all areas concerning capital - including population growth to to grow
taxes.

Not at all. Taxes need to increase to cover extra services for the increased
population. Since the vast majority of Australia's wealth comes from mining,
any increase in population simply *reduces* the overall tax revenue *per
person*!
Politicians know this, but it does not suit them to admit it.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:50:13 -0700, KR wrote:

(Off Grid, I think solar would be cost effective, especially with the
governmant incentives.)

The major incentive to off grid is the initial cost of getting the grid
connected

 

[KR]

On Oct 13, 4:30 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"KR" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:86ac83d4-ec59-4317-800c-0c79256fb5ab@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Offer them free sterilisations instead.

As long as we start at home (instead of baby bonuses) so we don't look like
the big hypocrites our politicians obviously are!

MrT.

Agree.

We could start by being tougher on WHO gets the baby bonus too.
Same criteria as for adoption would be a good start.