Arthur
One of the best articles yet and comments are thought provoking.
I would like to see more from you soon.

Very thought provoking.

Arthur: an incomplete list of your hyperboles includes:"trumpeted", "rash","massive", "devastating","massive", "blatantly","large","immense","vast arrays","vast areas","horrific", "primitive", "mammoth". etc.

While OLO is not the medium for fully referenced, peer reviewed articles, some references or comparative data would give credibility to your assertions. You provide none, in what appears to be a conflation of several themes- the limitations of renewable energy, Chinese manufacturing prowess and Chinese OH&S. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that there is some substance to these issues, but adjectives imply comparison: "Vast" compared with what? "Massive" compared with what? "Immense thirst" compared with what? There has been massive investment in China in everything from plasma TVs to fluffy toys- how do they compare? Nuclear power plants are problematic because of their cooling water demands- how do they compare? I could go on.

My last post refers to a graph showing historic cost reductions of PVs. The downward path has been going on for 30 years- long before China got into the game, with the exception of the past few years where costs stabilised because of demand bottlenecks and a shortage of refined silicon. Bottlenecks are clearing and the prices are now trending down on their old path. That's a common phenomenon.

If economists are to believed, then comparative and competitive advantage are sovereign. We are exporting ores and importing PV panels- as well as plasma TVs and fluffy toys. Our cheap iron ore is undoubtedly helping to make cheap towers for wind generators as well as nuclear power plant structures.

Jobs in renewable energy are no different from any other jobs- unless the PVs and wind generators are net energy producers. That will happen if they are made efficiently- ie Chines labour and Australian raw materials.

I am familiar with the Desertec Concept- The Economist had an article several years ago- this is why Germany and Japan have provided such heavy subsidies to renewables- to build up their manufacturing competence for "the big game". Australia is too far behind now to hope to compete with the big guys. The best we can do is import wisely and export competitively.

I agree with Jedi about this article being pretty hard to take seriously. And I too would like some actual data instead of hyperbole.

And I suppose I should point out that photovoltaic solar panels do NOT consume water- at all- contradicting the rather generalized statements of solar panels needing huge amounts of water.
The only resources are in the initial creation of the device itself.

Seriously Arthur at least try to be subtle when implying that the only form of solar-electric generator is a steam turbine that uses heat from the sun instead of a nuclear energy generator.

And I don't really feel like commenting much on some of the other points about costing jobs (in an age where there is industry desire for a larger population to substantiate the workforce- as according to government reports)- or the "but you will mine for these materials doing environmental damage"- apparently only renewable energy generator materials (which do not need a constant supply of materials to generate their power) do damage to the environment around the mining sites.

All in all I'm baffled that so many people are impressed with this article- I'm not.

King Hazza
Power towers do use cooling water as do concentrating PV systems, and while closed or dry loops, where incorporated, do restrict cooling water demand, cost is often the limiting factor.

As for water demand for PVs. The ideal location for large-scale PV power generation is the areas of flat dry land with optimum solar conditions. These locations are also subject to windy conditions that deposit dust onto the collectors, reducing efficiency.

Water is crucial to maintain the efficiency of both concentrating and non-concentrating PV systems.

Mirrors and PV panels for power tower and PV systems require quality water for cleaning that leave no residues or smears on the surface that reduces generating efficiency.

While each collector may only use a few litres, these few litres become substantial when considering the area of collectors on major arrays.

BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah dry cooled system in California consumes 95,000 m3/yr of water primarily for mirror wash down.

Spain’s Abengoa Solar system, is a wet cooled system, half the size of Ivanpah, consumes 2.7M m3 a year for cooling and wash-down.

Germany's relatively small 5mW Leipzig plant incorporates 33,500 solar panels.

China is currently constructing PV arrays in the 100mW capacity range.

You may wish to research PV array projects rejected in the US for further information.

AT

Thankyou for the data- although I would like to point out that PVs can also be installed in any area and independently of traditional stand-alone power stations- including areas with less desert/grassland dust exposure and thus considerably lowering the need to clean off the panels- including suburbia and metropolitan.
The desert dust storms in Sydney illustrate the significant difference a location can make to the cleanliness of the outdoor equipment.

Jedi master
the hyperbole aside the article does raise some point that need consideration. Let,s not "baby and bathwater" yet.

KH
Your point is noted but
Locating a PV in or near cities merely changes the type of pollution that inhibits the power collection. Having said that more research is clearly needed.