What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[keithr]

On 11/07/2012 12:04 PM, terryc wrote:

On 11/07/12 07:50, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**People are funny (in a weird way). When petrol cracked the $1.00/Litre
mark, the sales of large 4WDs plummetted and the sales of economical
cars boomed. Recently, thanks in part to the strength of the AUssie
Dollar, petrol prices have been depressed. 4WD sales are booming again.

You can now buy 4WD from $25k instead of $50-80K.

That depends on what you call a 4WD, the $25K ones are road cars with
and extra bit of transmission and jacked up suspension. I wouldn't take
my Forrester seriously bush bashing, that's what Troopies are for and
they don't come at that price.

 

[terryc]

On 11/07/12 13:19, keithr wrote:

On 11/07/2012 12:04 PM, terryc wrote:
On 11/07/12 07:50, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**People are funny (in a weird way). When petrol cracked the $1.00/Litre
mark, the sales of large 4WDs plummetted and the sales of economical
cars boomed. Recently, thanks in part to the strength of the AUssie
Dollar, petrol prices have been depressed. 4WD sales are booming again.

You can now buy 4WD from $25k instead of $50-80K.

That depends on what you call a 4WD, the $25K ones are road cars with
and extra bit of transmission and jacked up suspension. I wouldn't take
my Forrester seriously bush bashing, that's what Troopies are for and
they don't come at that price.

Err, superroos come at a high price then that.
Bush bashing is what you do in old utes out shooting.
and the price of troopies illustrates my point exactly.
>

 

[keithr]

On 11/07/2012 7:09 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next
ten years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost
that is below the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean
that the equipment can be bought and installed without a
contribution from either the government or the suppliers(s) of
electricity. I'm also assuming that customers will be able to
net off their daytime electricity consumption by selling their
surplus solar power to the utility at the same price as they'd
buy it at that time of day. There are arguments about whether
such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to let
the consumer have electricity for less than the grid price
while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would anticipate a
move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the less
capital intensive, and less energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have to
wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved by having
the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of the
less efficient generators? The cost of this less efficiently
generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power during the
day will go up, thus further pushing the installation of solar
panels. Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels
with a simple net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason,
governments still want to help create the problem earlier than
it would otherwise occur by subsidising installation, and
forcing retailers to pay more for solar generated power than
it's worth to the retailer. I'm left wondering whether solar
power is a mirage. Is it
providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter
waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a
problem? Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver, your
driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests you will
never use anything but renewable energy to power your car. That
would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If several
million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than driving a
$500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the life of the
Volt and the solar array.


**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than the
life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously reduces
your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I
get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep
on the road.

**Prove it.




Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's language.

Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that remains a
fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which is,
in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.

In a diesel electric locomotive, the electric part is just the
transmission. It is simply used so that the diesel can run at a constant
speed for maximum efficiency. There are/have been diesel hydraulic
locomotives where the hydraulics did the same job as the generator and
motor in the diesel electric, but they needed more maintenance.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:


On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.

Sylvia.

Ohhh sorrrrry chops.. here pull my finger!

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 12:01 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On 11/07/12 06:37, Graham Cooper wrote:

They're hybrid so you can generate the massive power to charge the
battery!

Not really, they are basicaly ICE cars with a battery smoother.

If you really want an electric car, then you need the gnerator running
at optimum/most efficent ICE speed powering the generation part into the
battery pack, from which the electric wheel motors are driven. Cust fuel
consumption by about 50% suppossedly.

I think we're in agreement, the battery is nowhere near capacity to
run in electric mode independently.

More of a capacitor. Like the Wright Brother first "plane".

Some models are using solar cells on the roof so it doesn't kick in
the petrol engine every time you switch the car's air conditioner on!

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keep dreaming.  If you work very, very hard, you could get a window A/
C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.

Keep researching you mortgage payer you!

Monopoly level of wealth has a very high barrier to entry.

Business capital / expenditure / competitive edge is based on a all or
nothing system of increasing capital on credit.

I ate HOTDOGS for 2 WEEKS end of 2010, NO MARGARINE

but I secured CamAffiliate.com for $1000 while doing so.

It's major competitor AWEmpire.com another CAMGIRLS AFFILIATE PROGRAM

is in the top 1000 websites ALEXA.com Rank.

i.e about $1,000,000 per day profit.

Herc

 

[Bruce Varley]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:a62najFqo9U1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/07/2012 9:47 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:a5ne6kFqtbU1@mid.individual.net...
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years,
domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is below the
daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also assuming
that
customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity consumption
by
selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the same price as
they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised,
but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have electricity for
less
than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during the
day
when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the power plant.
In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined cycle (CCGT)
natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and less energy
efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is the
CO2
purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply tranferred
to
the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will go up,
thus
further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off
of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still want to help
create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by subsidising
installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar generated
power
than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.


It's a dumb question. The inference is that one day, solar will become
'cheaper' so everyone will switch over. But things become cheaper when
people *don't* want them as well as when there's an abundant supply. The
situation already exists in places like Europe, where green generators
are
having to flog their power at knockdown prices because of the large
supply
variance.



Though there's a difference. If green generators are having to sell power
at knockdown prices, it's because they cannot externalise the cost of the
variance - the market factors it into the price.

With domestic PV cells, and with anything like the current way things are
regulated, consumers ARE able to to externalise the cost of the variance -
they get to force the retailer to buy power from them at a price
determined by the government for political reasons, and with the variance
not taken into account.

Sylvia.

Yes, just one of the legion of market failures that are endemic in the

energy market. It'll get squeezed out if renewables become more dominant.

 

[Clocky]

Gordon Levi wrote:

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:


It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow
anything... I'm waiting.

That's a truck, not a car.
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVZbqripkaI>

 

[Clocky]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the
next ten years, domestic solar power will have an
unsubsidised cost that is below the daytime domestic grid
tarrif. I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I
mean
that the equipment can be bought and installed without a
contribution from either the government or the suppliers(s)
of electricity. I'm also assuming that customers will be
able to net off their daytime electricity consumption by
selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the same
price as they'd buy it at that time of day. There are
arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to let
the consumer have electricity for less than the grid price
while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would
anticipate a move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the less
capital intensive, and less energy efficient, generation
plant. That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh
than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have
to wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved by
having the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of the
less efficient generators? The cost of this less efficiently
generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power during
the day will go up, thus further pushing the installation of
solar panels. Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar
panels with a simple net-off of consumption. For some
bizarre reason, governments still want to help create the
problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by subsidising
installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer. I'm left
wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it
providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and
utter waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
are a problem? Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver,
your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests you
will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2
emissions. If several million car owners did the same thing,
the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than driving
a $500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the life of the
Volt and the solar array.


**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than
the life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously
reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I
get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep on the road.

**Prove it.




Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's
language. Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that
remains a fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which
is, in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.



, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where
maximum torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

**Bollocks. Electric motors are quite unlike IC motors, in that
maximum torque is generated at zero RPM and continues all the way to
maximum, with virtually no fall-off.


Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.


Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-unveiled-with-4500nm-of-torque-video

4,500Nm or torque seems like quite a bit to me. Not enough for you?

The figure seems over-stated to me. 450Nm sound closer to reality.
Still, that's plenty of torque for pulling the skin off a rice
pudding.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

but you lap them up regardless.
Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my
breath.

**I note that Gordon has done just that.




The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything
like the range or performance out of the thing with a load like
that.

**I suggest you do some learning about electric motors. In any
case, I was simply addressing your claim:


I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?


"Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard."

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow
anything... I'm waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?

We were talking about cars, you know, vehicles designed to carry passengers.

A couple of minutes towing a load on the back of an electric truck might
impress you, but unless it can do that at speed for a couple of hours it's
just propaganda.

 

[Clocky]

keithr wrote:

On 11/07/2012 7:09 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the
next ten years, domestic solar power will have an
unsubsidised cost that is below the daytime domestic grid
tarrif. I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I
mean that the equipment can be bought and installed without
a contribution from either the government or the
suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also assuming that
customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the
utility at the same price as they'd buy it at that time of
day. There are arguments about whether such a framework is
really unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to
let the consumer have electricity for less than the grid
price while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would
anticipate a move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the
less capital intensive, and less energy efficient,
generation plant. That less efficient plant will produce more
CO2 per kWh than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have
to wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved
by having the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of
the less efficient generators? The cost of this less
efficiently generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on
to consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power
during the day will go up, thus further pushing the
installation of solar panels. Of course, that's based on
unsubsidised solar panels with a simple net-off of
consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still
want to help create the problem earlier than it would
otherwise occur by subsidising installation, and forcing
retailers to pay more for solar generated power than it's
worth to the retailer. I'm left wondering whether solar
power is a mirage. Is it providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is
it a complete and
utter waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
are a problem? Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver,
your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests
you will never use anything but renewable energy to power
your car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2
emissions. If several million car owners did the same thing,
the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than
driving a $500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the
life of the Volt and the solar array.


**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than
the life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously
reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options.
I get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep
on the road.

**Prove it.




Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's
language. Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that
remains a fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which
is, in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.

In a diesel electric locomotive, the electric part is just the
transmission. It is simply used so that the diesel can run at a
constant speed for maximum efficiency. There are/have been diesel
hydraulic locomotives where the hydraulics did the same job as the
generator and motor in the diesel electric, but they needed more
maintenance.

Trevor buys into hype a little too readily.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/07/2012 4:27 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keep dreaming. If you work very, very hard, you could get a window A/
C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.


Keep researching you mortgage payer you!

Monopoly level of wealth has a very high barrier to entry.

Business capital / expenditure / competitive edge is based on a all or
nothing system of increasing capital on credit.

I ate HOTDOGS for 2 WEEKS end of 2010, NO MARGARINE

but I secured CamAffiliate.com for $1000 while doing so.

It's major competitor AWEmpire.com another CAMGIRLS AFFILIATE PROGRAM

is in the top 1000 websites ALEXA.com Rank.

i.e about $1,000,000 per day profit.

Herc

That's all very well, but you've been making these sorts of claims

for... well, it seels like years.

No doubt you can always find a rationalisation to explain why the huge
wealth hasn't reached your bank account quite yet, but doesn't it seem
odd to you that you have to keep finding rationalisations?

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/07/2012 8:39 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:03 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 4:27 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:


On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keep dreaming. If you work very, very hard, you could get a window A/
C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.

Keep researching you mortgage payer you!

Monopoly level of wealth has a very high barrier to entry.

Business capital / expenditure / competitive edge is based on a all or
nothing system of increasing capital on credit.

I ate HOTDOGS for 2 WEEKS end of 2010, NO MARGARINE

but I secured CamAffiliate.com for $1000 while doing so.

It's major competitor AWEmpire.com another CAMGIRLS AFFILIATE PROGRAM

is in the top 1000 websites ALEXA.com Rank.

i.e about $1,000,000 per day profit.

Herc

That's all very well, but you've been making these sorts of claims
for... well, it seels like years.

No doubt you can always find a rationalisation to explain why the huge
wealth hasn't reached your bank account quite yet, but doesn't it seem
odd to you that you have to keep finding rationalisations?

Sylvia.

Ahh no. See the movie MIDDLEMEN about the Adult Business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gcb_9Q10E

Get in. Get rich. Get out!

These guys spent $20M with Paramount Studios, movie flopped. VISA
cancelled 5,000 webmaster credit cards overnight, my pay skipped for 2
weeks (hence the hotdogs just after paying $1000 for CamAffiliate...)
haha

$5000 a week fully automatic is not bad for a $30 ad budget.

It wouldn't be, if you were actually getting it. But I predict that in a
couple of months, when I enquire after the $40,000 you should have
earned, there will be yet another reason offered for its nonexistence. I
expect you don't believe that. I'll post citing this posting when the
time comes. When that happens, perhaps you'll finally start to wonder
how I could have predicted this so accurately.

Perhaps. But you probably won't.

Sylvia.

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:03 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 4:27 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:


On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keep dreaming. If you work very, very hard, you could get a window
A/ C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.

Keep researching you mortgage payer you!

Monopoly level of wealth has a very high barrier to entry.

Business capital / expenditure / competitive edge is based on a all
or nothing system of increasing capital on credit.

I ate HOTDOGS for 2 WEEKS end of 2010, NO MARGARINE

but I secured CamAffiliate.com for $1000 while doing so.

It's major competitor AWEmpire.com another CAMGIRLS AFFILIATE
PROGRAM

is in the top 1000 websites ALEXA.com Rank.

i.e about $1,000,000 per day profit.

Herc

That's all very well, but you've been making these sorts of claims
for... well, it seels like years.

No doubt you can always find a rationalisation to explain why the
huge wealth hasn't reached your bank account quite yet, but doesn't
it seem odd to you that you have to keep finding rationalisations?

Sylvia.

Ahh no. See the movie MIDDLEMEN about the Adult Business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gcb_9Q10E

Get in. Get rich. Get out!

These guys spent $20M with Paramount Studios, movie flopped. VISA
cancelled 5,000 webmaster credit cards overnight, my pay skipped for 2
weeks (hence the hotdogs just after paying $1000 for CamAffiliate...)
haha

$5000 a week fully automatic is not bad for a $30 ad budget. I can
scale it up more when I'm not at risk of tipping off the 'too much
sudden income' anti-fraud detection with my backend provider.

I spent 2 years getting a 300x250 banner that people clicked!

Most banners get 1 click for 2000 page views.

CAMGIRLS BANNERS get 1 in 20 clicks! 5% CTR!

That's using an animated GIF! 80s Video Compression! I've got one of
the top Adult Graphics Compayies working of the Flash Banners this
week! Not for ME TO ADVERTISE... I have to "sell" these banners to
other Adult Webmasters.. at CamAffiliate.

I've spent about $6000 on CamAffiliate.com the last 2 months... it's
hard to organise 5 different businesses to all work together.. for the
peanuts I pay most of them anyway! haha

Herc

You're getting scammed. Any money you are paying is money lost to a scam,
you're not employing anyone, they are milking you.

What a numpty you are.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 8:03 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 11/07/2012 4:27 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:


On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keep dreaming.  If you work very, very hard, you could get a window A/
C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.

Keep researching you mortgage payer you!

Monopoly level of wealth has a very high barrier to entry.

Business capital / expenditure / competitive edge is based on a all or
nothing system of increasing capital on credit.

I ate HOTDOGS for 2 WEEKS end of 2010, NO MARGARINE

but I secured CamAffiliate.com for $1000 while doing so.

It's major competitor AWEmpire.com another CAMGIRLS AFFILIATE PROGRAM

is in the top 1000 websites ALEXA.com Rank.

i.e about $1,000,000 per day profit.

Herc

That's all very well, but you've been making these sorts of claims
for... well, it seels like years.

No doubt you can always find a rationalisation to explain why the huge
wealth hasn't reached your bank account quite yet, but doesn't it seem
odd to you that you have to keep finding rationalisations?

Sylvia.

Ahh no. See the movie MIDDLEMEN about the Adult Business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gcb_9Q10E

Get in. Get rich. Get out!

These guys spent $20M with Paramount Studios, movie flopped. VISA
cancelled 5,000 webmaster credit cards overnight, my pay skipped for 2
weeks (hence the hotdogs just after paying $1000 for CamAffiliate...)
haha

$5000 a week fully automatic is not bad for a $30 ad budget. I can
scale it up more when I'm not at risk of tipping off the 'too much
sudden income' anti-fraud detection with my backend provider.

I spent 2 years getting a 300x250 banner that people clicked!

Most banners get 1 click for 2000 page views.

CAMGIRLS BANNERS get 1 in 20 clicks! 5% CTR!

That's using an animated GIF! 80s Video Compression! I've got one of
the top Adult Graphics Compayies working of the Flash Banners this
week! Not for ME TO ADVERTISE... I have to "sell" these banners to
other Adult Webmasters.. at CamAffiliate.

I've spent about $6000 on CamAffiliate.com the last 2 months... it's
hard to organise 5 different businesses to all work together.. for the
peanuts I pay most of them anyway! haha

Herc

 

[kreed]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:58:13 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/9/2012 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:> On 9/07/2012 2:55 PM, Trevor
Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:49 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 1:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 6:39 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is
below
the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that
the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from
either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also
assuming
that customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the utility at
the
same price as they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the
consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have
electricity for
less than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that
receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during
the
day when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the
power
plant. In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined
cycle
(CCGT) natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and
less
energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the
plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the
solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is
the
CO2 purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply
tranferred to the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than
that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will
go up,
thus further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still
want
to help create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by
subsidising installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for
solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing
any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power
supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power
your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to
have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.


**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array
would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be
another
electric car).


I still don't see that changes anything unless you are willing to forgo
the use of your car when you've used up the charge, or run it on its
petrol engine.

**Your initial comments (correctly) centred on the ramifications of
using PV cells and their usefulness WRT grid connected power. My
suggestion was to not bother with connecting the PV cells to the grid at
all, but to, instead, use the PV cells to keep an electric vehicle
charged. This would have several benefits:

* Reduce CO2 emissions from the vehicle.
* Have no impact on the grid.
* Reduce demands on the grid.


You might be willing, but if so I can't see most people being like you.
Most will charge it from the grid if there's no sunlight, and that
causes the problem discussed in this thread.

Sylvia.


**No one suggested that PV cells were a panacea, but there are other
ways to skin a cat.



One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

**When fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre, you will likely see a lot of
innovative ideas.


The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

**Regardless, we are facing a number of issues that threaten our present
lifestyle. These are:

* Dwindling supplies of cheap oil.
* Increasing demand for oil.

* An increasing need to deal with CO2 emissions.

None of the solutions will be without cost. Intelligent thinking can
reduce those costs.

You made the point that PV cells were not a nett benefit for the grid. I
accept that POV as valid. Given the cost reductions of PV cells, the
rise in prices of fossil fuels (both supply related and taxation
related), then alternative forms of personal transport will likely be
more common. Electric vehicles are ONE, viable form of personal
transport. Marry PV cells and electric vehicles and several problems can
be dealt with efficiently.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:58:13 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/9/2012 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:> On 9/07/2012 2:55 PM, Trevor
Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:49 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 1:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 6:39 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is
below
the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that
the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from
either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also
assuming
that customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the utility at
the
same price as they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the
consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have
electricity for
less than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that
receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during
the
day when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the
power
plant. In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined
cycle
(CCGT) natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and
less
energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the
plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the
solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is
the
CO2 purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply
tranferred to the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than
that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will
go up,
thus further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still
want
to help create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by
subsidising installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for
solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing
any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power
supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power
your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to
have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.


**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array
would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be
another
electric car).


I still don't see that changes anything unless you are willing to forgo
the use of your car when you've used up the charge, or run it on its
petrol engine.

**Your initial comments (correctly) centred on the ramifications of
using PV cells and their usefulness WRT grid connected power. My
suggestion was to not bother with connecting the PV cells to the grid at
all, but to, instead, use the PV cells to keep an electric vehicle
charged. This would have several benefits:

* Reduce CO2 emissions from the vehicle.
* Have no impact on the grid.
* Reduce demands on the grid.


You might be willing, but if so I can't see most people being like you.
Most will charge it from the grid if there's no sunlight, and that
causes the problem discussed in this thread.

Sylvia.


**No one suggested that PV cells were a panacea, but there are other
ways to skin a cat.



One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

**When fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre, you will likely see a lot of
innovative ideas.


The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

**Regardless, we are facing a number of issues that threaten our present
lifestyle. These are:

* Dwindling supplies of cheap oil.
* Increasing demand for oil.
* An increasing need to deal with CO2 emissions.

None of the solutions will be without cost. Intelligent thinking can
reduce those costs.

You made the point that PV cells were not a nett benefit for the grid. I
accept that POV as valid. Given the cost reductions of PV cells, the
rise in prices of fossil fuels (both supply related and taxation
related), then alternative forms of personal transport will likely be
more common. Electric vehicles are ONE, viable form of personal
transport. Marry PV cells and electric vehicles and several problems can
be dealt with efficiently.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:58:13 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/9/2012 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:> On 9/07/2012 2:55 PM, Trevor
Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:49 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 1:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 6:39 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is
below
the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that
the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from
either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also
assuming
that customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the utility at
the
same price as they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the
consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have
electricity for
less than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that
receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during
the
day when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the
power
plant. In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined
cycle
(CCGT) natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and
less
energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the
plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the
solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is
the
CO2 purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply
tranferred to the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than
that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will
go up,
thus further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still
want
to help create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by
subsidising installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for
solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing
any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power
supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power
your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to
have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.


**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array
would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be
another
electric car).


I still don't see that changes anything unless you are willing to forgo
the use of your car when you've used up the charge, or run it on its
petrol engine.

**Your initial comments (correctly) centred on the ramifications of
using PV cells and their usefulness WRT grid connected power. My
suggestion was to not bother with connecting the PV cells to the grid at
all, but to, instead, use the PV cells to keep an electric vehicle
charged. This would have several benefits:

* Reduce CO2 emissions from the vehicle.
* Have no impact on the grid.
* Reduce demands on the grid.


You might be willing, but if so I can't see most people being like you.
Most will charge it from the grid if there's no sunlight, and that
causes the problem discussed in this thread.

Sylvia.


**No one suggested that PV cells were a panacea, but there are other
ways to skin a cat.



One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

**When fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre, you will likely see a lot of
innovative ideas.


The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

**Regardless, we are facing a number of issues that threaten our present
lifestyle. These are:

* Dwindling supplies of cheap oil.

Especially once big oil finishes raping the rest of the oil
producing countries, Iran etc, they will have monopoly
world wide - which you pay for by providing the tax to pay
the armies to steal the resources. - orchestrated by the same
people that brought you the carbon dioxide scam.

Once that happens, selective supply, fake shortages, ie total
control will be the go, and you will pay big time for oil.

* Increasing demand for oil.

* An increasing need to deal with CO2 emissions.

Even if there was once perceived to be a need to deal with these
harmless "emissions", its decreasing, not increasing, thanks to an
increasingly awake and aware public.

None of the solutions will be without cost. Intelligent thinking can
reduce those costs.

And that will never come from a government, paid off scientists, or
environmentalists, so for a start take all the above out of the
equation, or things will just get worse

You made the point that PV cells were not a nett benefit for the grid. I
accept that POV as valid. Given the cost reductions of PV cells, the
rise in prices of fossil fuels (both supply related and taxation
related), then alternative forms of personal transport will likely be
more common. Electric vehicles are ONE, viable form of personal
transport. Marry PV cells and electric vehicles and several problems can
be dealt with efficiently.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:58:13 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/9/2012 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:> On 9/07/2012 2:55 PM, Trevor
Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:49 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 1:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 6:39 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is
below
the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that
the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from
either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also
assuming
that customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the utility at
the
same price as they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the
consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have
electricity for
less than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that
receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during
the
day when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the
power
plant. In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined
cycle
(CCGT) natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and
less
energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the
plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the
solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is
the
CO2 purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply
tranferred to the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than
that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will
go up,
thus further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still
want
to help create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by
subsidising installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for
solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing
any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power
supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power
your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to
have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.


**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array
would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be
another
electric car).


I still don't see that changes anything unless you are willing to forgo
the use of your car when you've used up the charge, or run it on its
petrol engine.

**Your initial comments (correctly) centred on the ramifications of
using PV cells and their usefulness WRT grid connected power. My
suggestion was to not bother with connecting the PV cells to the grid at
all, but to, instead, use the PV cells to keep an electric vehicle
charged. This would have several benefits:

* Reduce CO2 emissions from the vehicle.
* Have no impact on the grid.
* Reduce demands on the grid.


You might be willing, but if so I can't see most people being like you.
Most will charge it from the grid if there's no sunlight, and that
causes the problem discussed in this thread.

Sylvia.


**No one suggested that PV cells were a panacea, but there are other
ways to skin a cat.



One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

**When fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre, you will likely see a lot of
innovative ideas.

Likely see a revolution, or if that doesn't happen, or fails, a certainty will be us living in 3rd world lifestyle.

The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

**Regardless, we are facing a number of issues that threaten our present
lifestyle. These are:

* Dwindling supplies of cheap oil.

More like faked shortages to push the price up. Once the big oil monopoly on oil is complete (thanks to fake corporate wars in the middle east - that the public is forced to pay for), you will see massive price rises, and other nasties. It will not be from oil shortages though.

* Increasing demand for oil.

* An increasing need to deal with CO2 emissions.

Now that we have an awake and educated public who sees through this scam

this is anything but "increasing" and it is about as much of a "need" (except for bankster profit)to the public as a hole in the head.

None of the solutions will be without cost. Intelligent thinking can
reduce those costs.

You will NEVER find this from government bodies, politicians, paid off scientists, big business or anyone involved or even sympathetic to the "greenie" movement.

Common sense thinking, you wont find that in any of these places either
basically what you are saying is "we are stuffed"

You made the point that PV cells were not a nett benefit for the grid. I
accept that POV as valid. Given the cost reductions of PV cells, the
rise in prices of fossil fuels (both supply related and taxation
related), then alternative forms of personal transport will likely be
more common. Electric vehicles are ONE, viable form of personal
transport. Marry PV cells and electric vehicles and several problems can
be dealt with efficiently.

Until you can get a battery supply that can be "refilled" as fast as current fuel, (including at the roadside, if the battery runs out), can go a similar distance with a similar vehicle weight and carrying capacity as current fuels, last as long as current engine technologies before needing battery replacements, and cost similar amount, as well as lower or similar running costs, you are well and truly in dream world.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 10:37 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:03 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 4:27 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:32 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keep dreaming. If you work very, very hard, you could get a window
A/ C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.

Keep researching you mortgage payer you!

Monopoly level of wealth has a very high barrier to entry.

Business capital / expenditure / competitive edge is based on a all
or nothing system of increasing capital on credit.

I ate HOTDOGS for 2 WEEKS end of 2010, NO MARGARINE

but I secured CamAffiliate.com for $1000 while doing so.

It's major competitor AWEmpire.com another CAMGIRLS AFFILIATE
PROGRAM

is in the top 1000 websites ALEXA.com Rank.

i.e about $1,000,000 per day profit.

Herc

That's all very well, but you've been making these sorts of claims
for... well, it seels like years.

No doubt you can always find a rationalisation to explain why the
huge wealth hasn't reached your bank account quite yet, but doesn't
it seem odd to you that you have to keep finding rationalisations?

Sylvia.

Ahh no.  See the movie MIDDLEMEN about the Adult Business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gcb_9Q10E

Get in.  Get rich.  Get out!

These guys spent $20M with Paramount Studios, movie flopped.  VISA
cancelled 5,000 webmaster credit cards overnight, my pay skipped for 2
weeks (hence the hotdogs just after paying $1000 for CamAffiliate...)
haha

$5000 a week fully automatic is not bad for a $30 ad budget.  I can
scale it up more when I'm not at risk of tipping off the 'too much
sudden income' anti-fraud detection with my backend provider.

I spent 2 years getting a 300x250 banner that people clicked!

Most banners get 1 click for 2000 page views.

CAMGIRLS BANNERS get 1 in 20 clicks!  5% CTR!

That's using an animated GIF!  80s Video Compression!  I've got one of
the top Adult Graphics Compayies working of the Flash Banners this
week!  Not for ME TO ADVERTISE... I have to "sell" these banners to
other Adult Webmasters.. at CamAffiliate.

I've spent about $6000 on CamAffiliate.com the last 2 months... it's
hard to organise 5 different businesses to all work together.. for the
peanuts I pay most of them anyway!  haha

Herc

You're getting scammed. Any money you are paying is money lost to a scam,
you're not employing anyone, they are milking you.

What a numpty you are.

Nope! Clientele include Playboy and Hustler the artists I'm hiring.

Amazing job on CamAffiliate.com logo.. like the T2 movie metal style
lettering..

Herc

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:26:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.

Try breathing them and let us know; nitrous acid in the
lungs might be quite amusing. But that's irrelevant; your
claim has been refuted.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:18:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:


On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust!  It's clean!

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds.  It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.

Ohhh sorrrrry chops.. here pull my finger!

Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/11/2012 7:40 PM, Clocky wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the
next ten years, domestic solar power will have an
unsubsidised cost that is below the daytime domestic grid
tarrif. I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I
mean
that the equipment can be bought and installed without a
contribution from either the government or the suppliers(s)
of electricity. I'm also assuming that customers will be
able to net off their daytime electricity consumption by
selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the same
price as they'd buy it at that time of day. There are
arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power
systems. Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I
would envisage business moving in to install and lease the
equipment to the consumer, because it will be possible to let
the consumer have electricity for less than the grid price
while providing a profit to the lessor. So there should be
solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity
during the day when the sky is overcast. This affects the
economics of the power plant. In particular, I would
anticipate a move away
from combined cycle (CCGT) natural gas generation to the less
capital intensive, and less energy efficient, generation
plant. That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh
than
the plant that it replaces, but will produce less energy
overall (since the solar panels are producing some). I have
to wonder how that pans out. Is the CO2 purportedly saved by
having the
solar panels actually simply tranferred to the outputs of the
less efficient generators? The cost of this less efficiently
generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to
consumers, it means that the unit cost of grid power during
the day will go up, thus further pushing the installation of
solar panels. Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar
panels with a simple net-off of consumption. For some
bizarre reason, governments still want to help create the
problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by subsidising
installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer. I'm left
wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it
providing any benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and
utter waste of money, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
are a problem? Sylvia.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two.
Then you buy yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug
your Volt into the power supplied by the PV array. Given the
fact that you are (in theory) a typical Australian driver,
your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That suggests you
will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2
emissions. If several million car owners did the same thing,
the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar
array required to power it would produce more CO2 than driving
a $500 20 year old Commodore (for instance) for the life of the
Volt and the solar array.


**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well
documented. Driving an existing car that is already older than
the life expectancy of the typical electric/hybrid obviously
reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I
get your point.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable
to keep on the road.

**Prove it.




Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's
language. Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that
remains a fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which
is, in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.



, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where
maximum torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

**Bollocks. Electric motors are quite unlike IC motors, in that
maximum torque is generated at zero RPM and continues all the way to
maximum, with virtually no fall-off.


Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.


Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-unveiled-with-4500nm-of-torque-video

4,500Nm or torque seems like quite a bit to me. Not enough for you?

The figure seems over-stated to me. 450Nm sound closer to reality.
Still, that's plenty of torque for pulling the skin off a rice
pudding.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

but you lap them up regardless.
Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my
breath.

**I note that Gordon has done just that.




The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything
like the range or performance out of the thing with a load like
that.

**I suggest you do some learning about electric motors. In any
case, I was simply addressing your claim:


I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?


"Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin
off a custard."

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow
anything... I'm waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?

We were talking about cars, you know, vehicles designed to carry passengers.

**Like the Tesla Roadster? You have still not explained how a vehicle
with no torgue (like the Tesla) is able to accelerate a 1.2 Tonne car to
100kph in 3.7 seconds.

A couple of minutes towing a load on the back of an electric truck might
impress you, but unless it can do that at speed for a couple of hours it's
just propaganda.

**It shows that an electric automobile can possess excellent towing ability.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/11/2012 1:16 PM, keithr wrote:

On 11/07/2012 7:50 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 7:19 PM, keithr wrote:
On 10/07/2012 5:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 4:43 PM, keithr wrote:
On 10/07/2012 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 7:49 PM, keithr wrote:
On 9/07/2012 2:21 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 2:02 PM, terryc wrote:
On 09/07/12 06:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you
plonk a
dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power
supplied
by the PV array.

Umm, what is the point of having the Volt?

**You would need to ask the people who the Volt that question. For
many
owners, no petrol will be required, except under unusual
circumstances.

Is this for people who are at home during the day?


**I merely supplied a scenario where the Volt could be charged,
with no
extra burdens placed on the grid and at no cost to the owners. Many
vehicles are garaged during the day and used to (say) drop the
(lazy)
kids at school, do the shopping, etc.

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.



**Now, that is true. Do you imagine that it will always be the case?

In 1908, the average US automobile cost US$3,000.00. In 1909, Henry
Ford
introduced mass production techniques to the US auto industry and
lower
the price to $850.00. Further refinements and economies of scale
allowed
Ford to reduce the price of the Model T to $550.00.

Right now, electric automobiles represent a miniscule proportion of
production. Witness the Telsa Roadster. It's performance approximates
that of a cheap(?) Ferrari. It is priced similarly. It is built in
similar numbers. It is reasonable to accume that, when EVs are
built in
huge numbers, that costs will fall.

What do you think people will be driving when fuel hits 5 Bucks a
Litre?

Australian fuel prices have not gone up that much over the years
compared to the rest of the world. In 1998 petrol was about 85c per
litre, I moved to the US that year and was paying 90c/US gall. Now,
even
here 500Km from Sydney we are paying $1.40/litre less than double,
meanwhile the yanks are now paying $3/US gall more than 3 times the
price. That's still significantly cheaper than here, but the
differential is closing.



**Perhaps I should ask:

When do you think petrol will hit 5 Bucks a Litre?

Over the last 12 years it has gone up an average of 6% per year $5/litre
is roughly 260% more than the current price so work it out.

**The problem is that there will not be a linear relationship of petrol
price rises over time. There are many factors in play. Petrol may
languish at present levels for some years. Or it could go through the
roof next month. I certainly cannot predict it.


A Golf Blue Motion which is reckoned to do less than 4l/100Km will cost
you about $29K. At $5/litre even that means that you would have to do
155000Km before you're up to the basic price for the Volt, and that
isn't counting the cost of the solar panels.

**People are funny (in a weird way). When petrol cracked the $1.00/Litre
mark, the sales of large 4WDs plummetted and the sales of economical
cars boomed. Recently, thanks in part to the strength of the AUssie
Dollar, petrol prices have been depressed. 4WD sales are booming again.
It will not always be like this. Eventually, petrol prices will trend up
and people will start looking for more economical vehicles. The choice
may not be logical. IOW: A purchaser may opt for a (say) Holden Volt,
not because it will be a viable economical alternative, but because it
uses less fuel. That is human nature.

Hybrids are too expensive to compete unless the price of petrol goes way
above the present level, look at Europe and Japan where petrol is double
the Australian price, Europe is full of diesels and Japan is full of
small capacity petrol engined cars, Hybrids and electric vehicles have
made little inroads despite the high cost of petrol.

**Certainly. Hybrids and EVs are expensive, when compared to IC engined
cars. It may not always be the case. As production increases, then costs
may fall. Hence my example of the Model T Ford. Whilst Hybrids will
always be more expensive that IC only cars, there will ultimately be a
point reached where oil is so expensive, that hybrids may make sense.
Oil is a finite resource. It is also, far and away, the best, presently
available, energy storage system for automobiles.

At the headquarters of my employer in the US, they use hybrid vehicles
as shuttles around the campus, but I think that it is more of a gesture
than a sound economic move.

**Certainly.

With specific reference to the Blue Motion, I should point out a few
issues:

* It is available in a manual transmission only. That is not likely to
concern you or me, but people like my 84 year old mother would be
bothered.
* The claimed fuel consumption figures for the Golf are not stop-start
motoring ones. In this area, electric and hybrids may offer superior
results. For long distances, at constant speeds, a straight Diesel may
be the best choice. This is not necessarily the case for Sydney traffic,
nor for those who drop the kids off to school each day. IC engines
(particularly Deisels) do not operate at optimum efficiency until the
engine is warm. Electric motors operate at maximum efficiency when cool.

No reason (apart from cost) that cars of this class cannot be fitted
with a modern efficient auto gearbox. Modern engines warm up fast, the
ECU changes the mixture and timing to promote this, my Forrester (a not
particularly frugal car) is up to working temperature not much more than
500 metres after backing out of the drive.

**I don't know the Forrester, but I've never seen an engine reach
operating temperature that quickly (in cool weather). I feel compelled
to doubt your claim. I would expect several km would be about right. The
Blue Motion engine would likely warm up faste, due to it's small block
mass.

I am not totally convinced by some of the technology used in this type
of vehicle. Stopping the engine when you come to a halt for instance is
fine when you stop at the traffic lights, but how does it hold up when
you are trying to turn right across heavy oncoming traffic?

**Good point. Perhaps the indicator cancels the engine management in
this area? Those whacky Germans are pretty good at ensuring stupid
mistakes are not made when releasing new techology. Mostly.

BTW: I do not hold the Volt up as the ultimate solution to an
alternative powered vehicle. It is simply ONE possible solution. As I
have stated before, a small Deisel/electric vehicle makes more sense
IMO. VW's experience in this area would suggest an impressive result.

Another cost consideration with electric or hybrid vehicles is the
lifetime of the Lion batteries, they are very expensive, and, as any
laptop owner knows, their capacity diminishes with use. This is
exacerbated by high ambient temperatures such as we experience in
Australia.

**Indeed. Nonetheless, given the rising cost of oil, research is likely
to continue. Hybrids, in their present form, may not represent the
answer to the problems. Standard IC engines are unlikely to represent
the future either.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au