>> BSing at best.
>
> Yours is pig ignorance at best.
> The only real problem is that its significantly more expensive than both.
>> Or in winter when the days get short. Send people home?
>
> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.
> You still save some energy when its still sunny.
>> but reliable 7x24xcloudy days without wind is 10 cents per kwh or more.
>
> Thats wrong too. Power from brown coal in australia doesnt cost anything
> like that.
>> But like a herd of buffalo, we are heading for the cliff all right.
>
> Bet that doesnt last forever.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>>>> Actually Mike is quite incorrect, as usual. The real solar
>>>> advantage is in areas with abundant sunlight, and installing large
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>> need for more transmission lines and the elimination of the
>>>> capital costs of new generating stations.
>>> It can't really work that way. You can't store power by day for
>>> use at night, cloudy days and the like on a commercial large scale.
>> Corse you can. Some countrys have been doing
>> that for decades using pumped water storages.
> Do you have the foggiest idea of how much land and how much water it takes to power a city of say a million people?
It aint supplying all the power, its just used as a load leveller.
> Obviously not very good at science and math.
You dont have a f.cking clue what load levelling using pumped water is about.
Australia does it with the entire SE grid which is a hell of a lot more than 1M people.
>>> Or at least no one has done it yet in a way that could supply more than 1% of the nations needs.
>> Wrong again. NZ does a lot more than that.
> Cite, BS is cheap.
Have a look at the percentage NZ gets from hydro. Hell of a lot more than 1%
Tasmania in spades.
> You still need a conventional full capacity grid nearby.
No you dont.
> Even dams being as efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.
Tell that to the countrys that have a hell of a lot more than 1% of their power from hydro.
>>> BSing at best.
>> Yours is pig ignorance at best.
> Ah, resorting to rehtoric.
Corse you never ever did anything like that yourself, eh ?
> Sign of lower intelligence union rat.
Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be able to
check whether I am a union anything using groups.google.
>>> Be it carbon or nuke based, you need a system that can supply peek power, used during the day or not, it has to do
>>> peek load.
>> Yep, but its perfectly possible to have peak power from coal or
>> nukes and supplement that with other power generation as well.
> Going to cost more.
Sure.
And still burning lots of carbon.
Nope, not with nukes.
>> The only real problem is that its significantly more expensive than both.
> You mean to have both,
No, thats not what I meant. I JUST meant that all the other sources of
power except hydro are significantly more expensive than coal or nukes.
> agreed.
>>>> The utilities love the distributed solar installations because they
>>>> reduce the peak load generating demands, enabling them to use less
>>>> fossil fuel during the day, generating as much as possible with
>>>> solar and hydro, yet not requiring costly new transmission lines.
>>> What do you do on a cloudy dark rainy day?
>> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.
> Yep.
>>> Or in winter when the days get short. Send people home?
>> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.
> Yep.
>> You still save some energy when its still sunny.
> Some, yes, but do you save money?
It aint about saving money. Those who want that approach
want it because it saves CO2 production when its sunny.
> Nope, as you have to buy the plant
> and equipment for the altenative form.
But dont consume the fuel when its sunny.
> Best just to buy a pair of big nukes for the major cities.
Sure. And it makes a lot of sense to stop wasting natural gas
heating houses and to heat them with electricity from nukes instead
and use the natural gas in cars to cut the cost of oil imports etc.
>>>> Unfortunately, the utility doesn't pay homeowners for any excess
>>>> (over monthly use) that they generate, so there is no need to cover
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>>> heating oil for heat, not running the pool pump as much, and not
>>>> running the A/C.
>>> Reliability is the issue.
>> Nope, not when you have baseload nukes or coal fired power stations.
> Yep. My whole point is no windmill nor solar cell is going to any time soone replace the burning of carbon.
You mangled the reliability story tho. I didnt comment on your basic
point because there wasnt any problem with the basic point.
>>> Unreliable power is cheap, say 1 cent a KWH,
>> Its nothing like as cheap as that when the capital cost is included.
> And that is why more of it is not done unless convenient. Heck, if you haul in a train of wood ever 2 hours you get
> lots of bark, and burning it makes sense as it is cheaper in ash form to dispose and you can use the power to keep the
> machinery going to clip the peak loads. But still puts tons of carbon in the atomosphere.
Yes, nukes leave the rest for dead carbon wise.
>>> but reliable 7x24xcloudy days without wind is 10 cents per kwh or more.
>> Thats wrong too. Power from brown coal in australia doesnt cost anything like that.
> Don't know "brown coal", so no comment.
Its a very low grade coal thats no use for anything except power generation.
>>> You only save on the raw fuel,
>> But that can be a significant saving, particularly in remote areas not on the grid.
> Yep, but that is a drop in the bucket.
Sure, but relevant for them.
Nukes make more sense but its not that easy to get
adequately qualified operators for such remote places.
>>> not on plant and equipment as peek power is needed and it needs to be manned the same at 25% as it is at 100%
>>> capacity.
>> That last is just plain wrong too. Trivial to completely automate it.
> How so? Do you have a battery to store say 500 mwh time say 14 hours over the night?
Nope, you use grid wide pumped water for that.
> And running a power plant at 25% or 100% only varies in fuel costs. Workers, capitalization, legal BS, HR, fat
> management is all the same.
Thats not true of completely automated solar and wind etc.
>>>> Furthermore, electric vehicles with a range of 60 miles will be
>>>> mainly charged at night when demand is low and rates are lower
>>>> (included with every new solar installation is a time-of-use meter
>>>> so there is a big incentive to use less electricity during the day
>>>> and more at night).
>>> Ok, on a still dark night, what is generating the power? Coal & NG carbon based fuels. LOL.
>> You still save those fuels when the sun is shining.
> But going to cost a lot more.
Sure. But the fools care about the CO2 production.
> And eco nuts also overlook the fact that putting 100 hectars of land under a solar grid is going to adversely affect
> the environment.
Not enough to matter.
> Might even alter the earths atomosphere
Nope.
> because the sun will not hit the ground. Even the worms will not like it as there will be no food.
They're most sited in deserts for the longer sun times so the
worms are irrelavant, there are no worms even without the solar.
>>> If we were serious we would forget trillion dollar wars and pork-corruption debt spend budgets and invest in Thorium
>>> and Uranium reactors.
>> Sure. And use the power from those to heat our houses so we dont
>> waste natural gas on heating houses, and use it to power cars instead.
> Why not just off the human and really save on CO2 output?
For some odd reason that doesnt appeal to many of the voters.
> Which is really the crux of the problem, more people is more CO2.
You're always welcome to hang yourself any time you like.
>>> But like a herd of buffalo, we are heading for the cliff all right.
>> Bet that doesnt last forever.
> I would not bet against you.
>>> Einstien had it right,
>> Nope, not ever, except with some aspects of relativity.
> No one has proved he is wrong.
He was just plain wrong with that stupid claim that 'god does not play dice with the universe'
God may well not, but something clearly does with radioactive decay.
> Many have tried, some even thought so until someone showed them the error in the math.
> Einstein was truly brilliant like no other.
Thats just plain wrong with some of his sillier pontifications.
>>> the only two things that are infinite is mankinds stupidity and the universe, and I am not sure of the later.
>> Your problem.
> Not really. I will be long dead before the reconing.
There will be no reckoning.
Whatever happens, we can always change to nukes if that becomes
necessary and CO2 production does turn out to be a real problem.
> I figure we are on the dawn of the information revolution, and it is going to leave many people behind.
Sure, but that always happens with any revolution.
> Going forward, a few hundred years the information revolution is going to stimulate the human mind.
Yes.
> Many will die, some will survive.
Everyone will die, you watch.
> We will, despite our feable attempts to stagnate, will evolve by the unstopable force of nature.
We've been doing that for millennia now.
> Because to resist, we will join the dinasources and the meek cockroaches will inherit the earth if we do not
> intellectually and socialogically evolve.
How odd that they didnt manage to do that already.
> And knee jerk junk science or political BS isn't the evolution I am
> talking about. Hive evolution, the labour workers, disposable like
> drones in a bee hive. Elite and royals with knowlege and control.
We've already disposed of the royals.
> It has already began. Increasingly more people have lesser value in a modern society, thus become expendable.
They always have been.
> In fact many countries are loaded with masses of people that are a liability.
You're always welcome to hang yourself any time you like.
> For most, the future is going to be about basic survival in a informationa age.
Nope, human society aint been about basic survival for millennia now.
Clive - 04 May 2009 01:16 GMT
>> Even dams being as efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.
>
>Tell that to the countrys that have a hell of a lot more than 1% of their power from hydro.
I understand that Egypt generates more than 90% of it's electricity from
three enormous dams, the biggest , the Aswan High dam. The Americans
wouldn't let Egypt have the technology, so they just got the Russians to
build it. A beautiful structure and at least ten times the size of the
Hoover dam.

Signature
Clive
Rod Speed - 04 May 2009 09:42 GMT
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Even dams being as efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.
>> Tell that to the countrys that have a hell of a lot more than 1% of their power from hydro.
> I understand that Egypt generates more than 90% of it's electricity
> from three enormous dams, the biggest , the Aswan High dam.
That is just plain wrong. Try 12%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Egypt/Electricity.html
> The Americans wouldn't let Egypt have the technology,
Thats a lie too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_High_Dam#Construction_history
> so they just got the Russians to build it.
Its much more complicated than that.
> A beautiful structure and at least ten times the size of the Hoover dam.