Day by DayNo man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne.
|
|
I've said it before on these pages, and I'll say it again. I agree that global warming is a reality. I agree that coal fired power stations are a major contributor to the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. I do NOT agree that coal fired power stations can be replaced by solar energy. Why? Mainly because solar energy is NOT available 24/7/365, and can NOT be stored in sufficient quantities to provide 24/7/365 electricity supply. And that is an undeniable fact that many solar proponents just choose to ignore. And by doing so, they give a free kick to the global warming sceptics and various fossil fuel lobbyists when it is pointed out that solar just can't deliver. The technology just isn't there. I don't say this because I have any vested interest in coal or nuclear energy suppliers. I don't. It isn't because I am not concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases. I am. But wishing solar to be the answer when I know it isn't, doesn't achieve anything. The unpalatable choice is that we are stuck with coal or nuclear. There is a possibility that clean coal can deliver lower greenhouse emissions. Until it is shown that it can't, then we have to stick with coal. Otherwise, we have to go with nuclear, and we all know the consequences of going down THAT path. Excepting little lapdog Johnny, of course. And that's just the way it is. I wish it were different too, but wishing isn't going to deliver. It never did, and never will. This professor of physics agrees. |
| :: Send to a Friend! |
16/1/2007 - And one other thing...
| Posted by RealTart |
| ...Snowy, did you read this comment about the book by the scientist? It's illuminating, pardon the pun:
The amount of solar radiation that reaches us is equal to 10 000 times the annual global energy consumption. On average, 1 700 kWh per square meter is insolated every year. Even assuming terrible efficiency in conversion there is more energy than we could ever need. The fossil fuels that we are burning today are the results of plant and animal matter that ultimately got their energy from the sun. Using finite resources makes no sense. This is typical of the arrogant attitude in the U.S. towards energy. |
| Permanent Link |
16/1/2007 - Well no, it isn't defeatist, Realtart.
| Posted by snowy |
| It's fact. Fifty years in the electricity industry did teach me a few things about electricity generation, after all.
And you make a very common mistake by assuming that most electricity is used in the home. It isn't. Most of it is used in industry. You might ask your mate how he would run a 1,000 hp motor 24/7/365 on solar. Or you may care to ask him how solar would power the Boyne Island Aluminium smelter. The reality is that it can't, and all the huffing and puffing in the world won't alter that. Solar isn't the answer, and those who say it is really do need to get a reality check. |
| Permanent Link |
16/1/2007 - And as for the other thing
| Posted by snowy |
| That was refuted in a comment. Who was right? I don't know. Neither do you, so there really isn't any point in quoting it, is there.
What I do know is that the sun does not shine 24 hours a day. It doesn't even shine every day. I wonder why some people can't accept that sad reality. |
| Permanent Link |
16/1/2007 - Why does it have to be just one thing?
| Posted by petermcc |
| Hey Snowy, I have no arguement with solar not being a total replacement but I can't see why this is so annoying for you.
Surely the answer is to use a basket of solutions and to clean up the coal footprint too. It seems like you are responding to someone who is calling Solar the total solution but I haven't seen that claim. I work at Alcoa who I would guess put the biggest drain on the Victorian power grid but as a work place we look to be a good environmental citizen and investigate ways to reduce the load. On the production end of things you only have to compare Point Henry with the Portland site to see what 20 years of advances have done for efficency. I don't think we can ever be powered by a cottage industry but developing a suite of alternatives to coal can certainly reduce the load. If you are responding to a Total Solar claim, post the link up so we can have a read. |
| Permanent Link |
16/1/2007 - I'm not responding to a specific claim, Peter
| Posted by snowy |
| But it isn't unusual to see the solar solution trotted out as a total solution. And I don't buy the basket of renewable solutions either. That would mean duplication or triplication of generating capacity with still no guarantee that a rainy, windless day would see sufficient power being generated.
I want to see the issue out there in the public arena for discussion by an informed public. To me, proposing an all renewable solution is just as irresponsible as proposing an all coal, or all nuclear solution. I believe the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes of all coal, or all renewable. |
| Permanent Link |
17/1/2007 - Never say never, Snowy
| Posted by tinacee |
| Once upon a time we thought it was impossible to fly... 50 years ago we thought that reaching the moon was unattainable... 25 years ago mobile phones were the size of bricks, and today it's common to see them the size of a credit card... who knows what will happen in the next 10 years? Do you think we should all be defeatest and give up on trying to find an alternative? What was it that Albert Einstein said?... "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
Wouldn't it be a shame if we spent all those millions on building nuclear reactors only to find that in another 20 years we could store a year's worth of solar power in one battery pack? And if we built all of those nuclear reactors? How much energy do you think would go into developing a safer alternative... really? What would happen to all of that research that has already been done? Would they try as hard, do you think... or would it come back to the amount of money that the govt has spent on bringing in nuclear energy. You know as well as I do that the almighty dollar rules when it comes to both governments and businesses. Now, I also know that solar power stations (to run big businesses, etc) do not currently have the ability to work as effectively as coal-burning stations. But a station is not the only way to deliver power to the masses... if it could be augmented by personal home solar systems much of the country could manage quite well. I've seen solar power work on a home scale... a couple of solar panels and some batteries to store the excess. It does work on a single household scale... fairly well, actually... and that's without extra power being obtained from the grid. If every house had one and didn't need to drain the grid, wouldn't there be a hell of a lot more power to go around? I don't know exactly how much power the country needs, but if that's still not enough, augment the solar power with conventional power until a better technology is born. Yes, coal is dirty but at least it's relatively safe. Safe enough, at least, to be used as a part-time thing... sort of a transition period until safe power alternatives can be developed properly. NUCLEAR SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED... shame, Snowy. Oh, by the way, I've seen generators run by solar (Ok, I don't know the size or scale that you're talking about). I've also seen things such as those big wood saws (that slice trees into planks), water pumps, pressure pumps, spotlights (and many more things) run by solar power... a home system. And yes, technology has improved majorly just in the last couple of years. Should we give up on solar power now, after all the work and effort that's been put into it? That's like giving up on a baby that's just learning to crawl... it doesn't make sense. And one final point... you said... "wishing isn't going to deliver. It never did, and never will." Well, once upon a time someone wished that they could fly... then they went out and thought of a way that it could be done. Sometimes wishing is the push that you need to make something deliver the desired results. It's a dangerous thing to tell the masses that something can't be done... especially when it comes to something as important as this. If everyone were to believe that, who would be left to do the research? Who would even want to try? NO NUCLEAR POWER. IT IS NOT THE ANSWER. BTW... check out my blog... you've inspired me :o) |
| Permanent Link |
17/1/2007 - Check out my comments on your blog
| Posted by snowy |
| I think you'll find that we substantially agree.
I really must be mellowing... |
| Permanent Link |
|
Entry 193 of 745 Last Page | Next Page |
16/1/2007 - Well...