Energy Harvested From Evaporation Could Power 70% Of The U.S.

ballpark maximum figure for insolation. As I said, multiply that by the low efficiency of pv panels and you see how hopelessly diffuse it is.

ut total power from photovoltaic solar, it's clearly not "hopelessly diffus e".

nd

Since he can't learn anything, this is the right choice for him. He's got a great deal he ought to learn, so it isn't a wise choice on his part, but w isdom isn't something that NT has to offer, or is likely to acquire.

to harvest & store diffuse power, and it will thus be used more. That does not mean it's ready to replace nuclear, coal, gas etc.

Actually, it is, but the fossil fuel extraction business doesn't feel any i nclination to go out of business, and isn't all that willing to accept that all their expensively acquired rights to dig up fossil carbon aren't worth what they paid for them, so they are spending a lot of money on deceptive propaganda, which gullible twits like NT can't recognise for what it is.

ly expert who has pointed out that the spot market has to generate occasion al very high prices to keep the less utilised generators profitable.

just

harge

able

nge a

your

n and

can

ut

ammed

That idea has been around for a while - it got spelled out in detail in 200

and got quite a lot of attention at the time.

isn't viable.

The problem of providing enough grid capacity to charge an all the electric cars in the USA if they were to replace all the gasoline-powered cars was discussed in the Proceedings of the IEEE many years earlier. The authors we ren't thinking in terms of solar farms as the appropriate source of grid ca pacity, but - as Friedman pointed out - the batteries in the cars provide e xactly the kind of storage you need to cover the gap between night-fall and sunrise.

One of the few occasions where NT supports his opinions with numerical data . The proposition that only one person in 100,000 would fail to agree with hi s silly ideas seems unlikely to be correct, but at least it's a number - if one obviously plucked out of thin air.

Hint: we don't run the grid on PV for a reason. See if you can figure out what it is - or maybe I should quit wasting my time with your missing brain cells. I think I will. Replonk.

just started getting as cheap as burning fossil carbon. If we tooled up to manufacture photo-voltaic generators on a scale that could generate 10% of our power needs (as opposed to the current 1%) we'd - incidentally halve th e price per unit.

and would divert manufacturing capacity that is currently used for other pu rposes.. So it isn't going to happen quickly.

your claim that it doesn't work.

h this guy?

That's not what I said. My claim was that it had only recently been shown t o be capable of flying on cost grounds - that is, hitting grid parity - and the consequent capital investment was going to take a while.

NT doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between running costs and capital investment. And - yes - the interest on the capital invested is part of th e running cost. For solar power generation it's most of the running cost.

The background information - that NT does seem to be totally blind to - is that burning fossil carbon and dumping the consequent CO2 in the atmosphere costs us all money in dealing with the consequent anthropogenic global war ming, which tilts the real-world economics heavily in favour of moving to r enewable energy - wind and solar - as fast as we can.

The economics of nuclear power generation are compromised by the fact that nobody has yet to properly figure in the costs of dealing with nuclear wast e, another example of the same problem.

In principle we know how to bury nuclear so that it stays buried, but in p ractice we haven't been able to sell the idea of burying it to the people w ho would have to live with it in their backyards, and we've got no idea how big the bribe would have to be to make that work.

Do you realize you've just said nothing at all? I don't know why you think the utilities want to lower your bills, they want to make more money by raising your bills just like every other business.

More importantly you didn't explain anything. What is "it's"???

What about that means it won't be cost effective? It's already cost effective. Solar hot water is the cheapest way to capture the sun's energy and PV is already cost effective. I found that by installing PV and changing my billing to one that charges a premium for peak power usage, I could *earn* money! If I didn't have to cut down trees to do it I'd already be contacting installers.

I have looked at the numbers. Solar PV is cost effective and can be cheaper than buying electricity from the utility. Certainly it is cheaper than nuclear which is also NOT dispatchable and requires other generating capacity for peak loads.

He is explaining that the process required to put PV in use as the dominant power source would be large, as with many investments, but would pay a dividend, again, like many investments.

Obviously YOU have not run the numbers or you would be sharing some with us.

Oh. Did you miss the bit where I answered his question?

They want to reduce their generating costs. Is that not obvious to you?

Ah. So you criticised what you don't even understand.

NT

ballpark maximum figure for insolation. As I said, multiply that by the low efficiency of pv panels and you see how hopelessly diffuse it is.

ut total power from photovoltaic solar, it's clearly not "hopelessly diffus e"..

ind

at

point is no less stupid.

ys to harvest & store diffuse power, and it will thus be used more. That do es not mean it's ready to replace nuclear, coal, gas etc.

gy

At the risk of stating the obvious once again, what you pay or earn is not the utilities' costs of generation.

ly expert who has pointed out that the spot market has to generate occasion al very high prices to keep the less utilised generators profitable.

t just

charge

iable

ange a

r your

wn and

t can

out

nd

rammed

g isn't viable.

per

Great. So you'll be disconnecting from the utility then.

nuke's a winner for baseload. The fact that neither nuke nor solar are disp atchable does not make them in any way comparable.

. I'm not here to waste my time with your trolling and/or retardation. Hint : we don't run the grid on PV for a reason. See if you can figure out what it is - or maybe I should quit wasting my time with your missing brain cell s. I think I will. Replonk.

just started getting as cheap as burning fossil carbon. If we tooled up to manufacture photo-voltaic generators on a scale that could generate 10% of our power needs (as opposed to the current 1%) we'd - incidentally halve th e price per unit.

and would divert manufacturing capacity that is currently used for other pu rposes.. So it isn't going to happen quickly.

your claim that it doesn't work.

ith this guy?

nt

ah, half a clue there! But 'large' doesn't really cover it.

us.

I have. It's how I know it's just not doable. You're free to tell us your e stimate of capital investment required, acreage of ground to be covered wit h PV panels, extra costs of long distance cabling & storage, and footprint of said storage. Go for it, you won't need my comments to see where the pro blems are.

NT

Oh, that's an easy question to answer. A: Because the government is involved. ...but you knew that.

no-one would be even considering building more nuclear. Even if you get you r *peak* watts at a bit less per watt,

ecade

nna.

t to

erview.cshtml

be

nt

n so

they

ation

n.

But - granting the economics of nuclear power generation, it isn't actually going to happen. The privatisation of the electricity generation system wa s a right-wing lunacy, and its "regulation" wasn't well done. Remember Enro n?

In Australia, the power distributors got away with "gold-plating" the distr ibution network, spending a lot more money than was strictly necessary, and recovering all of it from the consumers. One quixotic consumer did sue, an d won in the lower courts, but the decision got reversed on appeal. The pol iticians should have stepped in at that point, and sorted out the regulatio ns, but the party in power had advocated the privatisation in the first pla ce, and weren't willing to admit that they hadn't done it right.

We did. You posted what you seem to think is answer, but isn't.

Since you've given us nothing to understand, what we are criticising is the inadequacy of your purported explanation, rather than whatever it is that you think you've explained.

It's clear you don't want to have a discussion based on the facts. So I'll let you continue with Bill.

NT doesn't seem to know the facts, and certainly isn't listing the sources from which he got the facts that he seems to think exist (or existed back when he formed his opinion).

I see you're making it up again.

He's kfed. Bye.

NT

NT does seem to be our local master of confectionery. He gets upset when it's pointed out that his confections have passed their sell-by date.

Of course. NT doesn't like being shown up as out of touch. He can't do anything to prevent it - getting in touch is quite beyond him - but he can isolate himself from the direct embarrassment.

LOL!

NT says you are killfiled, so I'll reply so he can read your posts.

NT says you are killfiled, so I'll reply so he can read your posts.

why waste the time.

Because he knows what you need better than you. Progressives always do.

lol. He's one of those classic people that's a little smarter than the average, but think he's smarter than everyone, even though he plays the fool over & over.

NT

That's NT's thinking for you. I do happen to know that I am quite a bit smarter than average, but I run into people who are even smarter on a regular basis, and learn from them.

NT isn't one of them.

ote:

aper no-one would be even considering building more nuclear. Even if you ge t your *peak* watts at a bit less per watt,

ast decade or

Anna. Of

ant to keep

ar/overview.cshtml

is regulated

s approve it.

which is

he permit

ed to be

Clearly this

do consumers

hich is in

happen.

ney by

you?

So I'll

ources from which he got the facts that he seems to think exist (or existed back when he formed his opinion).

NT does need to revise the facts on which he bases his arguments. What he t hinks is clearly out of date. "progressives" are called that because they t hink that society can be moved forward by paying attention to what we know now.

Conservatives work on the basis that what we have been doing is pretty good , and probably can't be improved, and are consequently less interested in f inding out about recent developments. Progressive don't always know better than conservatives, but they are inclined to try harder.

In this particular case, NT seems to be arguing that what he knew about the economics of solar photovoltaic power generation some twenty years ago is still correct. On this point you don't have to be all that "progressive" to know better than he does.