SM,

"Your post is laughable...."

How's this for an explanation of wireless communication?

"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless telegraph is the same, only without the cat."

Sometimes minds who toy with the laughably absurd are the greatest of them all...just ask Einstein.

Shadow,

Just a query from an interested passer-by .

On “I can change your mind about climate change” the other night, there was a claim made/cited that the Indian, US & Chinese Departments of Energy (or the like) had predicted that by 2020 (?) solar power would be more economical than fossils fuels – what is your take on this?

If we adopt renewable energy production because current fossil fuels are causing catastrophic global warming, then the imperative changes to “doing something sooner than when current fuel supplies run out”.

This leaves us with the question, so how soon is soon? Well, very soon say some, others say it’s already too late. Then some say current fuel stocks will run out in 30 to 100 years, some say we are approaching peak oil, some say we have passed peak oil.

But we can use gas can’t we? Some say NO, because that also emits CO2. Some say we could use nuclear power, some say NO that is too dangerous, even though there are 1,000 reactors in service already say some and France is 84% nuclear?

Some say there is no evidence anywhere on the planet, of commercially/economically available renewable sources? Rubbish say others, there is the err….., then there is the err….., Oh! and don’t forget there is the err…., and don’t forget the erm, err …….

Well, if we just spent more money on research say some. Others say but we have been pouring public money into this for at least 40 years, surely they have an answer by now? Well they DO say some, it’s just that we can’t afford them.

So how can we make it cheaper? Well, say some, we just need to build more of it so that the economics of scale kick in. You mean we can pour even more money into something that is too expensive to build and use, so we can make it cheaper? But say others, this is silly and would mean that renewable energy would have to not only generate electricity, it would also have to generate profit in order to pay back the public funded capital costs?

Some say that all over the world, there are Countries abandoning wind farms and solar power as it is too expensive for the electricity they generate, maintenance costs are very high and inconsistent with austerity stressed economies. Many cannot even afford to dismantle or dispose of them.

Continued:-

Continued:-

Some say Germany is now generating more electricity from brown coal (Lignite) and that this is now their No1 fuel source, up 3.3%? That can’t be right?

Some say that Denmark is exporting most of its wind farm electricity at no cost to Sweden and Norway as it is generated when not needed? That can’t be right?

Some say that Spain has capped both electricity prices AND renewable subsidies because they can’t afford either, their energy funding debt is now E27bn. That can’t be right?

Some say the entire British on-shore wind farm fleet last winter, generated minus 0.6% of their electricity needs because they had to take power from the national grid to spin-up the static turbines. That can’t be right?

Some say that shale gas reserves in the USA will supply domestic needs for 650 years, with similar estimates in the UK and some eastern European countries. That can’t be right?

Some say yes we can, some say you must be joking. I personally think that all those who want renewables should pay for it. How about we run all the pilot programs in Tasmania?

The Chinese of course will not allow that, because their Chinese state owned coal industry now owns 75% of the two largest wind farms in Tasmania. Didn’t share that one with us did you Bob Brown? That can’t be right”

At some stage the liars and the bullshiffers will leave the field of play in disgrace, in the meantime we will just have to put up with them. But that can’t be right?

Enough already.

Poirot,

That technology has advanced in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so is not in dispute. However, this has all been within the bounds of the physical laws of nature. There is more than a subtle difference between the incredible and the impossible.

SPQR,

I heard a similar prediction in 1980 that this would be achieved by 2000. It also doesn't solve the problem of the sun not shining at night. The present cost of solar salt generation is still 10x that of fossil fuels. The cost of PV panels may make generation cheaper than reticulated power in the suburbs.

Actually and factually Shadow, I have tertiary qualifications in three separate disciplines, including medicine, law and science. My averaged passing marks in my final medicals averaged 98% and as such, broke a record that had stood un-assailed and unassailable for around seventy years, in the organisation that trained/taught me. I've had my IQ measured on no less than three occasions, which was met with incredulous disbelief on two occasions and recorded as third highest on the third.
I don't say this just to big note; given one's IQ is a gift from nature, which all to often is accompanied by lots of downside. Like other students trying to bring you down to size with physical or so-called intellectual bullying, which always seems to be very personal and very much your particular forte, Shadow?
Just as well you didn't place a real bet pal; given it would have cost you your house and everything else?
We have since the dawn of time; had "experts", who always knew all the disparaging reasons something couldn't be done or wouldn't work.
Personally, I prefer the other expert explanation, which goes, an X is an unknown quantity and a spurt is mere a very big drip under extreme pressure? Rhrosty.