39 replies to this topic

[Briz Vegas]

I started a thread about positive action on climate change some time ago, a long long time ago it seems.

Being a Queenslander we were recently treated to Clive Palmer's stupid comments about the Greens and the CIA, that he now admits were simply to confuse and mislead the public.

Then today in the media we get this.....


According to its policy document released a day before the election, the Newman government plans to abolish eight of Labor’s environmental funds, including the solar flagships program, the $300 million climate change fund and the $50 million renewable energy fund.
The other funds identified include Queensland Smart Energy Savings Fund, the Queensland Future Growth Fund, the Solar Initiatives Package, the Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund and Local Government Sustainable Future Fund
The document described the schemes as “redundant and a waste of taxpayer’s money in light of the federal government’s mandated Renewable Energy Target and the carbon tax.” And, therefore, any state-based scheme will simply mean Queenslanders will be paying for other states to emit more,” the document said. The carbon schemes are a “luxury Queensland just can’t afford.”
This is a similar rational to the one used in Victoria to kill off the 20% GHG reduction target (and to sell more brown coal no doubt).
Given that Julia will most likely get the chop at the next election (if Abbott can avoid imploding by saying something other than No), then the carbon tax itself is at risk of being deleted. Then we are left with the prospect of at least two terms without labour along the eastern seaboard, certainly in Queensland that is likely. Abbott's commitment to a 5% reduction in gases is dependant on there being money for direct intervention schemes, which there won't be of course, and the intervention isn't mandatory anyway.
So, it looks like inaction by government wins and we get to find out whether catastrophic climate change is real (at which point the "it ain't true" brigade will say "it was going to happen anyway due to sun spots etc").
I must admit that I was very depressed and angry after reading the above reports. Basically we had a chance to do something and decided, "no, too much bother" and "it probably would not have made a difference anyway". Some will say at least Newman had a mandate. You know and i know that 1 day before the election is when everyone has stopped listening. I voted suspecting it was on the cards but I read nothing about it before today.
So now we are at GHG levels not seen for 800,000 years. Homo sapiens only turned up 500,000 years ago, modern humans 200,000 years ago. Its a pretty big experiment and more recent science continues to say the risks of dire consequences are greater, not less. This could get ugly.
So we can either sit back and watch the ball of wool unravel (unless it's another Clive Palmer trick), or just maybe the average Joe will step up to the plate where government and general ignorance has failed.

[firefly0071]

I truly accept what you are saying.

There is no strong climate action movement/section of the Liberal Party (at least to the general public) and if there is, it is certainly a minority.

[proftournesol]

No surprise really, I doubt that even the most ardent Laberal backer would argue that the factions of the party put the interests of citizens above that of their financial masters

[Briz Vegas]

We don't push them hard enough. On average Australian's are exactly the same as our politicians, yet we scream blue murder when there is a flood or a drought or bushfire. We get the politicians that we deserve. This is not Syria or China.

Stop blaming others and have a good look at yourself. I put that strongly but I don't mean that in a nasty way, its a collective thing. We need to look long and hard at ourselves. I know I am.

I am referring more specifically to those that have confidence in the best science that we have. I think enough of the population get it, yet we don't demand effective action. We already have a resource boom and low unemployment. If one of the best placed nations in the world can't do anything about climate change then we deserve what we get for our complacency. All those folks with solar panels on their roofs and solar hot water that are doing their bit should be proud right now. They are at least half way to being low carbon.

Yeah, maybe all those too smart for their own good scientists are wrong. Maybe, or maybe not. Our economic fortunes can turn purely on the whim of international money markets, its up and down all the time. We don't get a second chance if the scientists have got it right. We don't get a second chance!

Meanwhile we dismantle what little we have done and are locked in to another decade of inaction at the most critical time. If we have to have a liberal government then so be it, but lets all get behind Malcolm Turnbull and demand action and a solution that makes sure no one loses a job over climate action, as opposed to compensating multi national mining companies that have so much money that they don't know what to do with it. Thats our resources they are digging up after all.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Rudd was the initiator of all the problems we see. He stated, unequivocally, that global warming was the most important issue we had to face. Yet he backed down on real action, preferring the soft options. This allowed Abbott and his ignorant mates air time to sprout their nonsense. The public was swayed by the anti-science rhetoric and Gillard got scared and promised not to implement a carbon tax. Abbott seized on this innocuous statement and has comprehensively destroyed the Labor Party by using his media and mining buddies to outspend the government on advertising.

I feel like screaming at my fellow Australians, to tell them how they've been hoodwinked but it's all so damned futile.

BTW: This is not about the Labor Party. I could care less about them (or the Lieberals). They're all opportunistic scum. Neuman is a symptom, not the disease itself. Palmer, Rhinehart and the others are the disease.

I've almost reached the point of saying: "I don't care anymore about you morons (my fellow humans). I'll be dead in 30 years, so I won't notice the effects that will certainly affect those who are younger than me and those who come after us. I have no children, so my genes die with me."

However, I will not do that. I will fight to the very last breath, to educate the ignorant, whenever and wherever I am able.

[ayou2]

However, I will not do that. I will fight to the very last breath, to educate the ignorant, whenever and wherever I am able.

[MC240]

John Connor: We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean.
The Terminator: It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.
John Connor: Yeah. Major drag, huh?

Edited by MC240, 28 March 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[firefly0071]

Obviously that Julia Gillard and co represent an Islamic Party and the CIA have countered by funding the Greens Movement.

__________________

"Right-wing senator Cory Bernardi has called on conservatives to take action now to get rid of the Labor Government rather than "wait around another 18 months until the next election".
In a rhetorical call-to-arms, the South Australian frontbencher slammed the Greens party as being from another planet and the ALP Government as more interested in "proselytising" Islam than "the eternal truths of the Christian message".

[proftournesol]

Hmmm...'to influence the masses aim first for the least intelligent'. So that sounds like the first page from the strategy handbook of the mining/energy lobby:)

[proftournesol]

In fact the whole 'psychology book' is the denialists handbook.

[mikey d]

I'm afraid that way too many people are just too proud of their ignorance. Proud to be a fool. Whatever logic & reason you provide I will reject it, not because I know you are wrong, but because I don't like you. The people that I like are fools too & they are the company I keep. My mind won't be changed because that will show that I'm weak. Besides, I'm alright Jack.....

[ayou2]

Hmmm...'to influence the masses aim first for the least intelligent'. So that sounds like the first page from the strategy handbook of the mining/energy lobby:)

Maybe the masses have heard this kind of thing before ??

[Art Vandelay]

. If one of the best placed nations in the world can't do anything about climate change then we deserve what we get for our complacency. All those folks with solar panels on their roofs and solar hot water that are doing their bit should be proud right now. They are at least half way to being low carbon.

Those PV panels will never pay back the carbon deficit incurred in manufacture. Unfortunately our city grids are simply not designed to support PV solar and deliver an offset in non renewable generation. Rooftop PV solar was a scam and our state governments took the hook, line and sinker..

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Those PV panels will never pay back the carbon deficit incurred in manufacture.

Arty, I am very disappointed in you. Your claim has been comprehensively debunked many times, by many organisations. Energy payback for PV cells takes anywhere from a few months to around 4 years, depending on cell type and installed location. There is abundant information available to support this:

http://www.recgroup....rbon-footprint/

http://www.leonics.c.../faq/ecp_en.php


http://www.apollon-e...ild - final.pdf

In places like central Australia, the payback time can be as low as a scant few months, whilst in Northern Europe, it may take several years.

More recent cell types may shorten payback period substantially. If the researchers in Australia are not attracted to the better pay and conditions overseas, we may even be able reap the rewards of their research in this area:

http://www.pv.unsw.edu.au/research

http://indymedia.org...esearch-funding

http://solar.anu.edu.au/

Naturally, your mate, Tony Abbott will close all avenues of research in this area, because "global warming is crap". China and the US will buy our best and brightest (as they are already doing) and we will miss out on the rewards.

Unfortunately our city grids are simply not designed to support PV solar and deliver an offset in non renewable generation.

Dunno where you get this nonsense from, but I'll ask anyway: Prove it.

Rooftop PV solar was a scam and our state governments took the hook, line and sinker..

In what way is it a scam? Was too much paid to consumers for feed-in tarifs? Yep. Will all those PV arrays be generating power for the next 20 years? Yep. Will that power be used by those connected to the grid? Yes.

[MC240]

Those PV panels will never pay back the carbon deficit incurred in manufacture. Unfortunately our city grids are simply not designed to support PV solar and deliver an offset in non renewable generation. Rooftop PV solar was a scam and our state governments took the hook, line and sinker..

Well just maybe if we used a very large chunk of the mining profits and invested it in finding an efficient way to produce pv cells that convert and store the suns energy. Plants managed to work it out ages ago with zero technology ,funny how a simple bunch of cells have successfully exploited the suns energy since the year dot and we are still debating if can be done.

Think long term.

Edited by MC240, 28 March 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[kdoot]

Well just maybe if we used a very large chunk of the mining profits and invested it in finding an efficient way to produce pv cells that convert and store the suns energy. Plants managed to work it out ages ago with zero technology ,funny how a simple bunch of cells have successfully exploited the suns energy since the year dot and we are still debating if can be done.

Think long term.

As I said on the other thread, the problem with solar isn't energy quantity, it's energy density. Not enough energy falls on my car, even on the sunniest of days, to power the kinds of motions I expect of it. Much less a 747 flying through the night, or trying to take off on a rainy day.

It's a useful technology, and it will continue to make a contribution in the future (I have a PV array on my home roof), but by itself it's just not enough for our needs.

[MC240]

As I said on the other thread, the problem with solar isn't energy quantity, it's energy density. Not enough energy falls on my car, even on the sunniest of days, to power the kinds of motions I expect of it. Much less a 747 flying through the night, or trying to take off on a rainy day.

It's a useful technology, and it will continue to make a contribution in the future (I have a PV array on my home roof), but by itself it's just not enough for our needs.

Agreed with today's thinking and technology its not likely to be a solution.

So lets stop thinking in the same old way about pv or more sustainable solutions if we invested the same amount of time, money, effort and resources into renewable energy as much as we do say in the global war machine or continuing to subsidising the fossil fuel based high polluting industry's I believe that would go along way to making pv more viable in the future.

[Art Vandelay]

In places like central Australia, the payback time can be as low as a scant few months, whilst in Northern Europe, it may take several years.

More recent cell types may shorten payback period substantially. If the researchers in Australia are not attracted to the better pay and conditions overseas, we may even be able reap the rewards of their research in this area:

http://www.pv.unsw.edu.au/research

http://indymedia.org...esearch-funding

http://solar.anu.edu.au/

Naturally, your mate, Tony Abbott will close all avenues of research in this area, because "global warming is crap". China and the US will buy our best and brightest (as they are already doing) and we will miss out on the rewards.




Dunno where you get this nonsense from, but I'll ask anyway: Prove it.



In what way is it a scam? Was too much paid to consumers for feed-in tarifs? Yep. Will all those PV arrays be generating power for the next 20 years? Yep. Will that power be used by those connected to the grid? Yes.

You miss my point ZB, but firstly please be aware that I'm all in favour of seeking out cost effective renewable energy solutions. Whether there's catastrophic AGW or not there are still many other valid reasons for moving away from coal to generate power. I'm sure that 99% of the community also supports the green energy concept.

My point (which I've made several times before) is that the primary base-load energy source for our major cities is still coal, As you know, coal fired power stations cannot dynamically respond to load conditions. They need to be run at peak demand output 100 percent of the time. This means that every subsidised PV solar installation in Sydney or ,Melbourne can never actually reduce the amount of coal that's burnt because PV solar output is not aligned with peak demand. So, sure, PV solar is viable in many rural areas and it's viable in countries and cities that rely more on gas for baseload but that's not the case here in our major cities.

Now if the (NSW, VIC, QLD) states had significantly migrated from coal to gas a very high percentage of PV solar could be fed into the grid during daylight hours for real consumption. The important fact in 2012 is that the spare money for PV subsidies is now all spent, so when the grid is finally upgraded and gas generation is a significant baseload source, the government will be unable to offer any incentives for domestic PVS. Worse than that will be the reality that many PV solar systems will be nearing the end of their usable life span right at the time they might have been able to make a very positive contribution.

Edited by Art Vandelay, 28 March 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[brumby]

To answer the original question by the OP, I can only say I sincerely hope so.

There will not be any fundamental progress towards efficient and non-polluting electricity generation until the antiquated idea of an electricity "grid" is superceded by a cost effective means of generating and storing electricity on site. I am not holding my breath for that to happen. There are too many vested interests in the way.

Anybody read Robert Heinlein? Somebody should invent a "Shipstone".

[kdoot]

Agreed with today's thinking and technology its not likely to be a solution.

So lets stop thinking in the same old way about pv or more sustainable solutions if we invested the same amount of time, money, effort and resources into renewable energy as much as we do say in the global war machine or continuing to subsidising the fossil fuel based high polluting industry's I believe that would go along way to making pv more viable in the future.

One last try to convey a new idea to you. This is something you apparently haven't considered before, so please hold off on the reflex reaction and ponder, just for a moment, the possible empirical truth of what I'm saying.

You can't extract from sunlight any more energy than the sun provides you. I'm having trouble finding figures as detailed as I'd like them, but in full sun in the middle of the day the sun provides on the order of 1kW of instantaneous energy flux per square metre. If I had 100% perfect solar panels covering a big car, say 6m x 2m, I would have a best case of approx 12kW power available to my car, in the middle of a full sunny day.

Perfect solar technology. 12kW car engine. How many people do you know would be happy with a family car that had a 12kW engine? And if it only worked in the middle of the day in full sun.

My relatively efficient VW diesel engine (below 5L/100km on long drives) offers TEN TIMES as much power.

That's why I say that the problem with solar isn't that there's not a lot of energy available, but that it isn't dense enough. It's spread out over such a large area that it's really hard to collect enough of it to do the things we like to do, especially in transport. It's much more useful for stationary electricity use but even if we could get perfect energy capture we have no really feasible large scale options when it comes to storing that energy for use at a time of our choosing.

The average "full sun hours" rating for Brisbane is 5.4. If we wanted a gigawatt of energy output constantly (replacing a generic coal power station), ignoring weather variations but just considering day/night variation, we'd need to have solar capture capacity of 24/5.4 = roughly 4.5MW. At a rough estimation of 1kW per square metre (averaged over the 5.4 "full sun hours"), that means 4500 square metres of perfect solar capture technology. At today's efficiencies - let's be generous and say we get 20% - that becomes 22,500 square metres. It's huge. AND THEN you need a perfectly efficient energy storage and recovery system capable of holding at least 43 gigajoules (12 hours worth) of energy.

Solar is wonderful, and we should continue to take advantage of it where we can, but it is just not suitable as a direct replacement for all our fossil fuel dependencies.

[bruce108]

Why construe the argument as coal v solar? There are wind, tide, geo-thermal . . . No one technology at present will do the job, but a large-scale coordinated program over the medium-term would surely do a lot to fix the problem.

But as others have said, it's not going to be fixed. It's not really a technical argument, it's a political one, and while we have populists (on both sides) driven by media cycles and short-term electoral goals we're just not going to do it. (The Greens are no solution, because their idea of politics is to force everyone to conform.) That's why I'm pessimistic. We have developed a political system incapable of dealing with long-term, large-scale problems, of which global warming is a spectacular example.

[Briz Vegas]

Amory lovins of the Rocky Mountain institute keeps pointing out that cars are too heavy for their purpose.

Your car needs lots of energy because you are moving too much mass. The only thing you ultimately need to move is the person. Light weighting is being introduced to the masses through Mazda's Skyactive designs but this is only the start. Carbon fibre can be used and prices/barriers for manufacture are dropping rapidly. Reduce the vehicles weight to that of a golf cart and the problem starts to evaporate. Energy efficiency is a big part of the solution once you start looking outside the square. At least in the medium term we already have most of the solutions to our energy problems without needing coal, gas, or nuclear. I have posted the video link before but here it is again.

[kdoot]

Why construe the argument as coal v solar? There are wind, tide, geo-thermal . . . No one technology at present will do the job, but a large-scale coordinated program over the medium-term would surely do a lot to fix the problem.

Mostly for the same reason. Dispersed, intermittent. Geothermal is a special case, being highly location-specific but reasonably high capacity, longevity and with little variability. We should make use of all of them where it makes sense to do so, but even if we do they're still not enough for the world as a whole. Or probably even for our own transport energy needs. We need much more.

But as others have said, it's not going to be fixed. It's not really a technical argument, it's a political one, and while we have populists (on both sides) driven by media cycles and short-term electoral goals we're just not going to do it. (The Greens are no solution, because their idea of politics is to force everyone to conform.) That's why I'm pessimistic. We have developed a political system incapable of dealing with long-term, large-scale problems, of which global warming is a spectacular example.

I know what you mean, but I'm not ready to give up on life yet. Modern nuclear is really the middle path: high energy output, minimal direct and indirect environmental impact. Everybody ought to get behind it.

[kdoot]

Amory lovins of the Rocky Mountain institute keeps pointing out that cars are too heavy for their purpose.

Your car needs lots of energy because you are moving too much mass. The only thing you ultimately need to move is the person. Light weighting is being introduced to the masses through Mazda's Skyactive designs but this is only the start. Carbon fibre can be used and prices/barriers for manufacture are dropping rapidly. Reduce the vehicles weight to that of a golf cart and the problem starts to evaporate. Energy efficiency is a big part of the solution once you start looking outside the square. At least in the medium term we already have most of the solutions to our energy problems without needing coal, gas, or nuclear. I have posted the video link before but here it is again.

I love Amory's work on efficiency - though like just about everybody he's guilty of overstating how good it is. I just wish he wouldn't write off how incredibly beneficial it is to also have massively powerful, comparatively cheap technologies like the cutting edge nuclear stuff. We need it all in order to minimise the cost of the transition off fossil fuels.

[MC240]

Amory lovins of the Rocky Mountain institute keeps pointing out that cars are too heavy for their purpose.

Your car needs lots of energy because you are moving too much mass. The only thing you ultimately need to move is the person. Light weighting is being introduced to the masses through Mazda's Skyactive designs but this is only the start. Carbon fibre can be used and prices/barriers for manufacture are dropping rapidly. Reduce the vehicles weight to that of a golf cart and the problem starts to evaporate. Energy efficiency is a big part of the solution once you start looking outside the square. At least in the medium term we already have most of the solutions to our energy problems without needing coal, gas, or nuclear. I have posted the video link before but here it is again.

Exactly if we keep thinking like we need to push one person around on 4 wheels in 1.5 tonnes of steel, then we are never going to make it work. We need to change our whole concept, about housing, industry, heating, cooling, transportation that is based on old school thought processes and technology's which are not sustainable.

[ayou2]

Exactly if we keep thinking like we need to push one person around on 4 wheels in 1.5 tonnes of steel, then we are never going to make it work. We need to change our whole concept, about housing, industry, heating, cooling, transportation that is based on old school thought processes and technology's which are not sustainable.

The UN has been on the case. Look up 'Agenda 21'

Edited by ayou2, 28 March 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[MC240]

The UN has been on the case. Look up 'Agenda 21'

Will do I seen your thread and had a quick glance over your link, I'll have a closer look tomorrow cheers

[Art Vandelay]

Well just maybe if we used a very large chunk of the mining profits and invested it in finding an efficient way to produce pv cells that convert and store the suns energy. Plants managed to work it out ages ago with zero technology ,funny how a simple bunch of cells have successfully exploited the suns energy since the year dot and we are still debating if can be done.

Think long term.

It can be done. We have the option of storing electrical charge directly or storing heat. Plants are able (through photosynthesis) to convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen (endothermic) and yes this creates potential energy but the process requires a vast surface area. To Invent high efficiency photosynthesis is probably more difficult than perfecting stable nuclear fusion and far more pointless.

Right now the only options for storing energy require huge amounts of space and the processes incur large carbon debts or large amounts of highly toxic waste products. Realistically, the best (approaching infinite) source of renewable energy is still locked up in MC squared.

[davidsss]

Rudd was the initiator of all the problems we see. He stated, unequivocally, that global warming was the most important issue we had to face. Yet he backed down on real action, preferring the soft options. This allowed Abbott and his ignorant mates air time to sprout their nonsense. The public was swayed by the anti-science rhetoric and Gillard got scared and promised not to implement a carbon tax. Abbott seized on this innocuous statement and has comprehensively destroyed the Labor Party by using his media and mining buddies to outspend the government on advertising.

I feel like screaming at my fellow Australians, to tell them how they've been hoodwinked but it's all so damned futile.

BTW: This is not about the Labor Party. I could care less about them (or the Lieberals). They're all opportunistic scum. Neuman is a symptom, not the disease itself. Palmer, Rhinehart and the others are the disease.

I've almost reached the point of saying: "I don't care anymore about you morons (my fellow humans). I'll be dead in 30 years, so I won't notice the effects that will certainly affect those who are younger than me and those who come after us. I have no children, so my genes die with me."

However, I will not do that. I will fight to the very last breath, to educate the ignorant, whenever and wherever I am able.

Totally agree, I will continue to argue the case for climate change because it is a huge problem we face as a species and internationally.

I will also continue to expose the lies of the nuclear industry. It is not cheap, it is not safe and the waste produced cannot be safely stored. KDoot, you want to get behind nuclear? Ok, get about 30cm behind a nice nuclear waste dump and see how small the environmental effect is.

DS

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

One last try to convey a new idea to you. This is something you apparently haven't considered before, so please hold off on the reflex reaction and ponder, just for a moment, the possible empirical truth of what I'm saying.

You can't extract from sunlight any more energy than the sun provides you. I'm having trouble finding figures as detailed as I'd like them, but in full sun in the middle of the day the sun provides on the order of 1kW of instantaneous energy flux per square metre. If I had 100% perfect solar panels covering a big car, say 6m x 2m, I would have a best case of approx 12kW power available to my car, in the middle of a full sunny day.

Correct, in as far as it goes.

Perfect solar technology. 12kW car engine. How many people do you know would be happy with a family car that had a 12kW engine? And if it only worked in the middle of the day in full sun.

There's a few little facts that you need to take into account. They're quite important facts, so please try to follow me.
* Electric motors are very efficient. Around 90 - 95% efficient, in fact. Modern, electronic commutation systems allow good speed control with very little loss.
* Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero RPM. That means an electric powered automobile can accelerate very rapidly, with what seems to be a fairly small motor.
* Electric motors can tolerate huge overloads, for short periods. 240% is not unusual.
* Large amounts of power are required for acceleration purposes. Constant speeds required vastly less amounts of power.
* The average Australian car is driven around 40km/day. Source: http://www.bitre.gov...iles/is_015.pdf
* Many cars are stored under cover (carports, garages, etc).

Where does that leave us?

An average automobile can get by with a 30kW electric motor, which can provide adequate acceleration to keep up with all traffic conditions. The GM Volt uses a 45kW electric motor and can accelerate to 100kph in under 9 seconds (yes, I know it uses an IC engine to recharge batteries - that is not the point). My 1,000kg Ford Telstar cannot manage that, with 88kW of IC power. The Tesla Roadster uses a 225kW electric motor and can accelerate to 100kph in 3.7 seconds. That's almost as quick as a Ferrari 458, which uses a 420kW IC engine. And yes, I know top speeds are lower with the electric vehicle, but, for all practical purposes, that point is purely academic.

The best IC engines are less than 45% efficient, though I readily acknowledge that petrol/Diesel is one of the best energy storage systems for automobiles. Batteries are and will remain a problem. Again, an academic point.

The GM Volt is rated to operate over around 64km, before the IC motor cuts in. For an 'average' Australian automobile, this is plenty of range. The Volt may never need petrol under day to day conditions. The battery is rated at 16kWh.

My garage has a large, 40sq Metre, flat roof. With 20% efficient PV cells, I could, in theory, collect 48kWhr/day of power (assuming sunny days, of course). That would be sufficient to charge my GM Volt (if I owned one) plus at least one more Volt. In theory. Naturally, things aren't so simple in the real world, but you get the idea. Electric vehicles can be practical, quick, economical and very efficient.

My relatively efficient VW diesel engine (below 5L/100km on long drives) offers TEN TIMES as much power.

Well, your VW NEEDS at least double the power. Often three times the power is required. IC engines are spectacularly innefficient at low and high RPM (in general). They need to operate over a 'sweet spot' which varies from engine to engine. In the case of your VW, that is probably around 1,500 ~ 2,000 RPM. Below that figure, fuel economy suffers. Above that figure and fuel economy suffers. Electric motors are just as efficent at 1 RPM as they are at 10,000 RPM. There's a very good reason why the Diesel/electric locomotive was developed many decades ago. A Diesel engine operating at constant RPM is the most efficent IC engine available. This allows highly efficient conversion of fossil fuel to electical energy and then to drive electric motors. The electric motors can be varied in speed, with very little loss. Modern electronic control systems have now allowed this technology to migrate to automobiles. Even better, electric cars are able to recover much of the wasted energy used in braking (regenerative braking). This can be a considerable number under stop-start driving conditions.

You should note that VW have announced an SUV using Diesel/electric technology that can deliver better than 2L/100km economy.

That's why I say that the problem with solar isn't that there's not a lot of energy available, but that it isn't dense enough. It's spread out over such a large area that it's really hard to collect enough of it to do the things we like to do, especially in transport. It's much more useful for stationary electricity use but even if we could get perfect energy capture we have no really feasible large scale options when it comes to storing that energy for use at a time of our choosing.

I believe you've both misunderstood what is needed and what can be achieved. Certainly, the system is not suitable for all uses and all conditions, but many could take advantage of the technology.

The average "full sun hours" rating for Brisbane is 5.4. If we wanted a gigawatt of energy output constantly (replacing a generic coal power station), ignoring weather variations but just considering day/night variation, we'd need to have solar capture capacity of 24/5.4 = roughly 4.5MW. At a rough estimation of 1kW per square metre (averaged over the 5.4 "full sun hours"), that means 4500 square metres of perfect solar capture technology. At today's efficiencies - let's be generous and say we get 20% - that becomes 22,500 square metres. It's huge. AND THEN you need a perfectly efficient energy storage and recovery system capable of holding at least 43 gigajoules (12 hours worth) of energy.

Which is where Solar/thermal power stations begin to look interesting.

Solar is wonderful, and we should continue to take advantage of it where we can, but it is just not suitable as a direct replacement for all our fossil fuel dependencies.

It never will. Land transport is not a major problem. Electric vehicles could, pretty much, supplant what we are using now. Sea vessels could switch to nukes. Aeroplanes are, however, a major problem. Fossil fuels are extremely energy dense. There is little that can be used (outside synthesis from bio-fuels) that can be used.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 29 March 2012 - 06:08 AM.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

You miss my point ZB,

I don't believe I did. Here is what you stated:

"Those PV panels will never pay back the carbon deficit incurred in manufacture."

That is an incorrect statement. I provided several cites to prove it.

but firstly please be aware that I'm all in favour of seeking out cost effective renewable energy solutions. Whether there's catastrophic AGW or not there are still many other valid reasons for moving away from coal to generate power. I'm sure that 99% of the community also supports the green energy concept.

Tony Abbott, apparently, does not. Turnbull does. Turnbull is a smart guy. Abbott is a moron. The sooner The Lieberal jettison Abbott, the more acceptable they will be to the majority of the population.

My point (which I've made several times before) is that the primary base-load energy source for our major cities is still coal, As you know, coal fired power stations cannot dynamically respond to load conditions. They need to be run at peak demand output 100 percent of the time. This means that every subsidised PV solar installation in Sydney or ,Melbourne can never actually reduce the amount of coal that's burnt because PV solar output is not aligned with peak demand. So, sure, PV solar is viable in many rural areas and it's viable in countries and cities that rely more on gas for baseload but that's not the case here in our major cities.

Never in dispute. However, there are other forms of power generation, like gas-fired, that are more flexible and less CO2 emissive. Let me state that, IMO, grid-interactive Solar systems are a con-job. They should never have been allowed to exist. Solar PV systems should be used with battery systems, to provide a standalone power generation, where drawing power from the grid is a last resort. Then power companies could better guage what capacity will be required. However, grid interactive systems, along with subsidies have achieved a few positive outcomes, inasmuch as familiarity with the systems and concepts have established an industry and driven costs down substantially, such that Solar PV power generation costs will soon be less than coal fired power. That can only be regarded as a good thing. And let's be generous and pay homage to John Howard who got the ball rolling on those things.

Now if the (NSW, VIC, QLD) states had significantly migrated from coal to gas a very high percentage of PV solar could be fed into the grid during daylight hours for real consumption. The important fact in 2012 is that the spare money for PV subsidies is now all spent, so when the grid is finally upgraded and gas generation is a significant baseload source, the government will be unable to offer any incentives for domestic PVS. Worse than that will be the reality that many PV solar systems will be nearing the end of their usable life span right at the time they might have been able to make a very positive contribution.

As you well know, the 25 year lifespan is completely arbitrary. PV cells may well have a virtually indefinite life-span.

[The Fez]

..now hang on just a minute here -- if we are using energy generated by the sun -- aren't we using nuclear energy. Isn't the sun "powered" by a massive hydrogen fusion at its core? That will eventually stop? Is that considered ironical? -- Not sure..

And as Arj Barker says -- with all this global warming going on - "has anyone thought -- something might be wrong with the sun!!"

[davidsss]

Fez, yes the sun is a giant fusion reactor and it is nicely about 96 million miles away. Note also the word fusion, not fission. If they can get fusion to work then we may have a nuclear technology without the problems of toxic nuclear waste and all the other problems. But fusion is still on the drawing board, they can't seem to get it to work yet, and not for want of trying for decades either.

Ah, the argument that climate change is caused by the sun. Good to hear it is coming from a comedian, because it really is funny. Why? Because it flies in the face of all the evidence. My understanding is that the sun is currently going through a cool phase so it's actually helping to mitigate the effect of our actions to some extent.

DS

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

..now hang on just a minute here -- if we are using energy generated by the sun -- aren't we using nuclear energy. Isn't the sun "powered" by a massive hydrogen fusion at its core?

Correct.

That will eventually stop?

Yep. In about 4.5 billion years. Sometime before that, the Sun will have reached a point where life on this planet will be impossible. So, sometime between 4 billion and 4.5 billion years in the future, humans had best think about being somewhere else, other than the third rock from the Sun.

Is that considered ironical? -- Not sure..

Not really. 4.5 billion years is a pretty long time. Long enough for plans to be made.

Whoops. What was I thinking? Humans, making plans to save themselves from disaster? Silly me. It'll never happen.

And as Arj Barker says -- with all this global warming going on - "has anyone thought -- something might be wrong with the sun!!"

The IPCC (and others) have taken into account Solar flux variability. Calculations have shown that Solar variability is responssible for approximately 20% of the temperature rise noted. The other 80% is down to CO2.

[MC240]

Correct.

Yep. In about 4.5 billion years. Sometime before that, the Sun will have reached a point where life on this planet will be impossible. So, sometime between 4 billion and 4.5 billion years in the future, humans had best think about being somewhere else, other than the third rock from the Sun.


Not really. 4.5 billion years is a pretty long time. Long enough for plans to be made.

Whoops. What was I thinking? Humans, making plans to save themselves from disaster? Silly me. It'll never happen.

ZP I've little hope we'll make the next 10,000 years.Considering the way man kind has trashed the planet since the industrial revolution. We are a liability to the planet, sooner or later mother nature is going put us on the naughty mat big time.

Edited by MC240, 30 March 2012 - 10:05 AM.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

ZP I've little hope we'll make the next 10,000 years.Considering the way man kind has trashed the planet since the industrial revolution. We are a liability to the planet, sooner or later mother nature is going put us on the naughty mat big time.

10,000 years is hugely optimistic, IMO. Monckton, Pell, Abbott, Plimer, Carter et al are proof that humans have an insatiable desire to fool themselves. I doubt that society will survive another 50 years. Then it will be every man (or nation) for himself (or itself). CO2 reduction will be something that people will be unable to afford to even think about.

[Briz Vegas]

The Fez was kidding me thinks.

I probably worry too much, but I am concerned that the federal government will kill off their funding for the big solar projects using the same excuse as Newman, too expensive.

There is a blind imperative to be in surplus before the next election. I am guessing that they will kill off the funding for solar plants. Inwould argue that government funding is the only thing that will speed up the process of introducing solar, that and sorting out the retail electricity market that is a barrier to the current attempts to get things kicked off.

On top of that it appears I will be paying carbon tax on my power bill unless then fix the loophole that the suppliers have found. I should explain that I have been buying 100% renewable power for about 10 years now. My bill tells me each quarter that I generate no carbon, yet some retailers think they can make you pay anyway. I will be happy to take them on if they want to try and charge me twice. After al, you could argue that I have been paying a voluntary " no carbon tax" for 10 years.

It's funny how creating any sort of change is so hard. I guess that nature dictates that we change when we hit a dead end, or when Apple suggests that we will be left behind if we don't have a retina display. If only Steve Jobs used his powers for good and not for Kaos.

[MC240]

And as Arj Barker says -- with all this global warming going on - "has anyone thought -- something might be wrong with the sun!!"

Can this Arj fellow cite any evidence, I mean that statement is absolutely laughable.

Edited by MC240, 31 March 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[The Fez]

..Well Arj is a stand up comic...and bloody brilliant...

[MC240]

..Well Arj is a stand up comic...and bloody brilliant...

Yeah his Balls show was on TV last week he's a funny guy.

Edited by MC240, 01 April 2012 - 07:13 PM.