The Future Of Solar Power

On Oct 13, 4:41 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"Ross Herbert" <rherb...@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.
Not handing the baby bonus out to certain people (and the welfare that
goes with it afterwards) would save an enormous amount of tax revenue.
 
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:37:31 +1000, Mr.T wrote:


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.
speaking of GHG's, does anyone have a url giving the details of how it is
calculated?
 
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.
Yes, it does. A relatively small additional capital investement at the
beginning of the reactor's life generates sufficient income to pay fo
the waste management indefinitely.

Sylvia.
 
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.
That's OK if that's the only time their power is used. But it's not, of
course, and using them that way would be absurdly expensive, rather than
just very expensive.

Sylvia.
 
"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a97ef6-c62b-455a-b06d-5b3305d3e353@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
We could start by being tougher on WHO gets the baby bonus too.
Same criteria as for adoption would be a good start.
No, there should be a "Childless" bonus instead! We need less people, so we
need to encourage people NOT to have kids.

MrT.
 
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:36:35 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

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.

Yes, it does. A relatively small additional capital investement at the
beginning of the reactor's life generates sufficient income to pay fo
the waste management indefinitely.
Dream on.
 
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:37:57 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

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.

That's OK if that's the only time their power is used. But it's not, of
course, and using them that way would be absurdly expensive, rather than
just very expensive.
Nope, their niche is is extremely sun response and they can be anywhere
they have the right solar aspect. Hydro requires sufficent water in
storage, heavy rainfall to replenish and has very limited location. Gas
requires a fuel source and unless it is running off a petroleum reserve
can be very tricky to maintain consistent outpout (not to mention the
decade+ to get the sucker to run in the first place, aka coal mine
methane).
 
terryc wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:36:35 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

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.
Yes, it does. A relatively small additional capital investement at the
beginning of the reactor's life generates sufficient income to pay fo
the waste management indefinitely.

Dream on.
Oh my! What an elegant refutation.

Sylvia.
 
terryc wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:37:57 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

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.
That's OK if that's the only time their power is used. But it's not, of
course, and using them that way would be absurdly expensive, rather than
just very expensive.

Nope, their niche is is extremely sun response and they can be anywhere
they have the right solar aspect.
Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand. It requires certain weather conditions as well.
This means the solar power generator either sits their doing nothing at
other times, or displaces other generating capacity. If it does the
latter, it's using that other capacity as free backup because the solar
power generator can only generate when the sun is shining, not when the
power is required. The result is that there has to be redundant capacity
in the system for those times when the sun isn't shining. But that
capacity could be used when the sun is shining, as well, thus better
spreading its capital cost. This wasted use of capital is the cost that
the solar power system imposes on the grid.

Sylvia.
 
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.
Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise that
comment of yours is a load of bullshit.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.
 
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.

Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise that
comment of yours is a load of bullshit.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009225.shtml

Perhaps the sun doesn't shine much in Perth.

Sylvia.
 
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.

Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise
that comment of yours is a load of bullshit.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009225.shtml

Perhaps the sun doesn't shine much in Perth.
Oh, but it does...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009034.shtml

Perth's yearly average of daily hours of sunshine... 7.9
And for the summer months the average is over 10 hours a day

And just 'cause you can't get your act together searching Google, doesn't
stop your stupid remark from being bullshit. Also, you (conveniently)
ignored my "Perth (or many other places)"

Surely even a pedantic, never wrong know-all like you should realise that
it's hotter when the sun is shining. When it's hotter, more
air-conditioning is needed.
Your backpedal on this should be interesting...

Why don't you go somewhere, take your clothes off and scare the locals...
<g>




--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.
 
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.

Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise that
comment of yours is a load of bullshit.
I thought the same thing.
 
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:11:20 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


This means the solar power generator either sits their doing nothing at
other times, or displaces other generating capacity.
Lol, solar will only displace other generators if it is cheaper.
 
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.

Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise
that comment of yours is a load of bullshit.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009225.shtml

Perhaps the sun doesn't shine much in Perth.

Oh, but it does...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009034.shtml

Perth's yearly average of daily hours of sunshine... 7.9
And for the summer months the average is over 10 hours a day

And just 'cause you can't get your act together searching Google, doesn't
stop your stupid remark from being bullshit. Also, you (conveniently)
ignored my "Perth (or many other places)"
Would seem by ordinary construction to mean that it includes Perth. If
you're using the Boolean construct OR, why mention Perth in the first place?
Surely even a pedantic, never wrong know-all like you should realise that
it's hotter when the sun is shining. When it's hotter, more
air-conditioning is needed.
Your backpedal on this should be interesting...
All the more so given that it's not going to be forthcoming. Did you
notice my use of the word "huge" up there? I didn't include it just
because I like it. It has relevance.
Why don't you go somewhere, take your clothes off and scare the locals...
g
How about in your back garden?

Sylvia.
 
terryc wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:11:20 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


This means the solar power generator either sits their doing nothing at
other times, or displaces other generating capacity.

Lol, solar will only displace other generators if it is cheaper.
Once built, it will only displace other generators if it has a lower
MARGINAL cost of generation. Which it pretty much always will, when the
sun is shining.

It will only get built with huge public subsidies, because those who
actually want to build the thing - s/build/get paid for building/ - know
only too well how much they cost.

Sheesh! It shouldn't be necessary to explain basic economics.

Sylvia.
 
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.

Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise
that comment of yours is a load of bullshit.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009225.shtml

Perhaps the sun doesn't shine much in Perth.

Oh, but it does...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009034.shtml

Perth's yearly average of daily hours of sunshine... 7.9
And for the summer months the average is over 10 hours a day

And just 'cause you can't get your act together searching Google,
doesn't stop your stupid remark from being bullshit. Also, you
(conveniently) ignored my "Perth (or many other places)"

Would seem by ordinary construction to mean that it includes Perth. If
you're using the Boolean construct OR, why mention Perth in the first
place?
Still the pedant I see. So, I typed "or" instead of "and". Big deal, this
isn't an algebra test. I'm quite sure, though, you knew *exactly* what I
meant.
I mentioned Perth for two reasons.
Firstly, because that's where I live and I am familiar with its
air-conditioning needs.
Secondly, I'm told Perth has the highest average daily hours of sunshine of
any of the state capitals.

Surely even a pedantic, never wrong know-all like you should realise
that it's hotter when the sun is shining. When it's hotter, more
air-conditioning is needed.
Your backpedal on this should be interesting...

All the more so given that it's not going to be forthcoming. Did you
notice my use of the word "huge" up there? I didn't include it just
because I like it. It has relevance.
Bullshit, that's a typical back-pedal of yours.
Places (like Perth) with lots of sunshine do have "huge" demands for
electricity for air-conditioning.
We have problems with our local electrical supplier (Synergy) keeping up
demand for power during hot sun shining days, particularly in summer. They
blame that on the increase need to supply energy for air-conditioning during
these times.

Why don't you go somewhere, take your clothes off and scare the
locals... <g

How about in your back garden?
Spew...
You'd probably want to come inside into the air-conditioning to cool down,
and I'm fussy who I let into my house.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.
 
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:02:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

It will only get built with huge public subsidies,
Name a form of power generation that hasn't received similar?
 
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Most of the time when the sun is shining, there is not a huge
airconditiong demand.

Come and live in Perth (or many other places), you'll soon realise
that comment of yours is a load of bullshit.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009225.shtml

Perhaps the sun doesn't shine much in Perth.

Oh, but it does...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009034.shtml

Perth's yearly average of daily hours of sunshine... 7.9
And for the summer months the average is over 10 hours a day

And just 'cause you can't get your act together searching Google,
doesn't stop your stupid remark from being bullshit. Also, you
(conveniently) ignored my "Perth (or many other places)"

Would seem by ordinary construction to mean that it includes Perth. If
you're using the Boolean construct OR, why mention Perth in the first
place?

Still the pedant I see. So, I typed "or" instead of "and". Big deal, this
isn't an algebra test. I'm quite sure, though, you knew *exactly* what I
meant.
You can't have it both ways. If you intended to include Perth then you
can't pretend the stats I pointed to aren't relevant.

I mentioned Perth for two reasons.
Firstly, because that's where I live and I am familiar with its
air-conditioning needs.
Secondly, I'm told Perth has the highest average daily hours of sunshine of
any of the state capitals.

Surely even a pedantic, never wrong know-all like you should realise
that it's hotter when the sun is shining. When it's hotter, more
air-conditioning is needed.
Your backpedal on this should be interesting...

All the more so given that it's not going to be forthcoming. Did you
notice my use of the word "huge" up there? I didn't include it just
because I like it. It has relevance.

Bullshit, that's a typical back-pedal of yours.
Places (like Perth) with lots of sunshine do have "huge" demands for
electricity for air-conditioning.
We have problems with our local electrical supplier (Synergy) keeping up
demand for power during hot sun shining days, particularly in summer. They
blame that on the increase need to supply energy for air-conditioning during
these times.
The fact that there are times when there is a huge demand for
airconditioning is not disputed, and was not the point. The fact that
the sun is usually shining at such times is also not disputed, and is
also not the point.

The issue is whether that huge demand generally exists when the sun is
shining. That is, that the sun shining is a strong predictor of the
existence of a huge airconditioning load. Clearly, it isn't. So there is
a lot of time when the sun is shining and the huge airconditioning load
does not exist. At such times the solar power generators would either
have to be idle, or be displacing other generation capacity.

Why don't you go somewhere, take your clothes off and scare the
locals... <g

How about in your back garden?

Spew...
You'd probably want to come inside into the air-conditioning to cool down,
Only if it's hot.

Sylvia.
 
terryc wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:02:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

It will only get built with huge public subsidies,

Name a form of power generation that hasn't received similar?
Coal, gas. These generators are expected to pay for themselves.
Governments that have paid for them routinely extract revenues from them.

Don't confuse the use of public money to capitalise a generator with a
subsidy. They are different things. A subsidy occurs when the investment
cannot yield a return sufficient to justify it. Solar power is a good
example.

Sylvia.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top