This article is tantamount to heresy in some circles. People should recognise solar for what it does best.. providing affordable onsite power in the middle of sunny days. Somehow it got promoted to powering heavy industry around the clock. Enthusiasts say the world only needs a fraction of available sunlight, say 17 TW out out 173,000 TW. Then again it is technically possible to grow bananas in the Simpson Desert but it is clearly not practical.

With battery improvements no doubt ways can be found to improve solar PV's usefulness, say by helping charge electric cars. That then leaves the problem of those who can't afford the technology (eg the unemployed)and sustained high power applications (eg semitrailer trucks) for which battery power is unsuitable. Solar has a way to go yet but the limitations should be recognised.

Well, there are differences, and between solar voltaic and solar thermal. However, the fatal flaws seem to be in the Author's ability to rationalize, or remain factual?
Solar voltaic certainly has its limitations, albeit, the price is coming way down and the technology continues to improve, with some 150-160 watt solar panels now so thin, they can be mistaken for solar tint in glass!
Anyway, many of the early advocates, were persuaded by various power authorities, [worried about limited capacity,] to put panels on their roofs, and at considerable personal expense, in return for a feed in tariff.
That in many cases was/has been reneged on by incoming administrations!?
An example of solar thermal in California, is situated in a arid desert like region, and simply heats molten salt, which can then provide power, 24/7!
One square kilometre of arid desert land in central Australia, [where the unrelenting sun beats down, over 300 days every year,] if so equipped, would power all of Australia, 24/7!?
Mass production of the solar reflector arrays, would reduce the price to that comparable with the creation of a brand new coal fired power plant!
The difference would be, the fuel for the solar thermal power station is endless and free, while the coal just continues to progressively go up and up!
Yet we continue to prefer coal, with its gold plated delivery system and endless price gouging price hikes.
Other much cheaper alternatives, include thorium, feeding very local micro-grids, and virtually free biogas, which is also available and or produced 24/7!
Rhrosty.

The he said she said of solar means nothing to me, but what does matter is that we have installed two systems, in two location, one on the QLD cost, the other in the QLD bush. Both have not only reduced our power bill, they have actually made money for us and will most likely be paid for in about six years.

Putting aside the science, that works for me.

The other advantage of having solar is that the money we save is amplified as it's tax free dollars, leaving our after tax dollars, which would have been used to pay our power bill, for more enjoyable things.

Percentages mean nothing to me as we spend dollars and every dollar we save on power, is in fact $1.30 we have to spend elsewhere.

Finally, if power prices do rise to say $1 per KW, we will really clean up.

$1 per kwh grid electricity pricing may eventually happen but it will be a night time price. That same day the solar feed-in tariff could be as low as 5.5c meaning the roof jewellery will take years longer to pay off. At least the states that currently have a generous FiT are not talking about taxing solar like Spain.

Vert happy with my solar panels of four years regardless of what you are saying, install some yourself and enjoy not having to look at a very expensive electricity bill, the only time we have a bill is during winter, that also is a lot less than we would be paying normally
All things wear out including human beings, we cannot stop the ravages of time.

I have to say that Viv Forbes come across as a paid flack for big mining.
The coal fired power industry is hurting now from home installed rooftop solar and this article is an attack in the vain hope that it will slow or stop the inroads being made into their profits.
There is of course no comparison between solar thermal and PV solar .
Thermal solar is eminently suitable for industrial power supply especially in Australia, while home PV is already so successful that it is going to kill the old coal fired power stations eventually.
The trumped up failings of PV, i.e. failing in three years , needing to be washed and so on are so ridiculous that it is painful to read.
The last "fault" that they will cause environmental damage due to the huge amount of land required is another false fact. How can panels on roofs require all this land?
As for solar thermal. it can be set up in semi desert areas where the land is useless for other purpose.
I hope that he gets well paid by his backers for this type of article because the cash flow is going to dry up.

FWIW I've had PV since 2005 and thanks to feed-in tariffs I can avoid power bills for 9 months at a stretch. The problem is when the FiT stops in 2019. I also make a lot of my own car fuel from used frying oil and cook on a wood stove. However I can see that won't work for most people in the suburbs.

Solar thermal with molten salt storage is up to six times as expensive as electricity from already built coal fired power stations. See BREE's Australian Energy Technology Assessments. Solar thermal may also require a gas boost on short winter days or during prolonged rain. It is not a serious coal replacement.

I have to say that Robert LePage come across as a paid flack for {big mining}, for the solar rip off merchants who want billions in subsidies from the long suffering taxpayer, to keep their garbage on the market.

Why is it you flack in the ratbag green movement can't talk facts?

What right do you have to assume that those who don't agree with you have to be paid to do so? I guess when you have no logical argument, you are reduced to such name calling. It does scream I an a knowledge free zone you know.

I have yet to see anything sensible in a post of yours, so I have no trouble disagreeing with you for free.

At least you offer a bit of light relief when you post.

I can give you one....but we don't wish to insult you:)

Tally

First floor
“sunshine at any spot is always intermittent “
Solar panels can only deliver significant energy from 9am to 3pm

So what I don’t use a great deal of power in the middle of the night
Industry use most power between 9am to 3pm

Second floor
“Secondly, to be a stand-alone energy supplier, PV solar needs batteries”

Nobody is suggesting it should be, it should be part of a range of renewables such as
Hydro, wind, solar thermal, tidal, and a good many other possibilities.

Third floor
“Thirdly, solar energy is very dilute, so huge areas of land are needed to collect industrial quantities of energy”

If all the houses in Australia used ¼ of their roof space for PV panels it would produce 35% of our electrical needs. That’s according to my calculation. I couldn’t find a figure for the total roof space including factories sheds offices etc. so I left it out. We don’t need any extra land.

Fourth floor
“The fourth fatal flaw of solar energy is the pernicious effect of the dramatic fluctuations in supply.”

That wouldn’t be like the way everybody suddenly turns their air conditioners at the same time causing a spike in power demand. Shedding power is easier than meeting a sudden spike in demand.

Fifth floor
“Fifthly, large-scale solar power will create environmental damage over large areas of land”

You mean like the cities we have already built?

Your house of cards just fell down all five stories of it.

Taswegian, at present, we are receiving a generous 44c per KW fed into the grid. So in fact, taking before tax dollars into the equation, we are actually receiving aout 50cents.

Now, if governments (in QLD) do break the long term contracts, my back up plan will be to install a battery bank, along with a high output electric charger. Then, rather than sell my power for 5.5c, I will use it to charge my batteries, which will then power my house during the rest of the day.

So, although I may loose my feed in credits, my power will be next to free, so either way I win.

I never for one minute expected the high feed in offers to continue, but, I would also suggest that should these contracts be broken, you may well see a huge class action by those who loose their guarantees.

rehctub I should introduce you to my brother in law, an engineer, but of the practical type. He has recently moved onto a property he bought in the backblocks of Wyong. This was after about 10 years of living on one out from Upper Colo.

When asked, he admitted the commute was worse, but it had one main advantage. It is in the mains grid, & he can now get the hell away from solar panels, generating plants, & most of all supplying a home with batteries.

He reckons if he never again sees a battery in anything but a car or a boat, he'll be a happy man.

Of, when we moved ashore from the yacht to a "proper house", my 3.5 year old daughter, who had lived on the boat all her life wanted to know, "daddy, will our new house have real [elec]tricity, or will we still have the Mickey Mouse stuff like the boat"? Out of the mouth of babes.

I think you are right Hasbeen,
Those keen on off the grid are undertaking a major maintenance job.
I like the idea, but the cost of reliability is maintenance maintenance
and then more maintenance.

The push for alternative energy by increasing the amount of wind and/or
solar on the grid will be a reduction in percentage of up time.
This will be bad news for multistory buildings.
My brother-in-law lives on the 27th floor on the Gold Coast.

Hospitals etc will have no-break diesel backup which means having the
alternator running 100% of the time.

We all know that alternative systems could achieve 100% up time but
life being like it is things will always slip.
Anything less than 99.9% is unacceptable in CBDs and industry.
Actually that is one day every three months, perhaps 99.99% is needed.

We have mains power but I try to use as little as possible; I'm a light 'switcher-off' advocate and my progress through the house at night, when home alone, can be plotted by the lights that go on and off as I enter and leave rooms. The only lights that remain on are 12 volt supplementary lights that are battery powered and solar charged.

Our hot water system is solar and the mains booster is needed a couple of days a week during the middle of winter and then usually only for half an hour a day, or for a bit longer if we have family/friends staying.
There is a definite saving with the hot water system and a lesser saving with the lights which are more in the nature of being 'able to see lights' than ones to read or work by, batteries cost me nothing as I get them from a local trucking company that change their batteries after a certain life cycle so that they very rarely, if ever, suffer battery failure; there is lots of life left in them for my purposes.

I have friends who are way off the grid (some $30,000 off!) who are entirely dependent on solar power although their wood burning stove also boosts the hot (HOT!) water. They are on top of the Divide, east of Armidale NSW, so experience some cold weather.

Hasbeen, I hear what you say, but batteries are not what they used to be and now come with a ten to twenty year guarantee I believe.

I'm fortunate like many to have solar and mains. It's once to switch the lights on without wondering if the sun shone today.

After having no power for 5 days during the last flood, & being flood in I got sick of my 2 small generators.

I bought a 10 KVA 3 phase quiet running diesel gen set. Not only will it run the house without problems, it will run any of my equipment, any where I need to use it.

Trying to do that with solar power would be a huge joke.

It is optimistic to believe that the green ideologues would accept the obvious.

Hasbeen,

How does the diesel compare with the cost of mains power?
(What price certainty and continuity? Priceless when there's a flood).

I have a friend in New Zealand's South Island who uses a model steam engine to run a 12 volt alternator to charge his batteries.
His boiler is a small water-tube unit that he fires with chips.
Only operating costs are on lubricating and steam cylinder oil and a few dollars worth of each lasts a year or more.

Absolutely dreadful Is Mise. this one costs me about 1.2 liters of diesel an hour for normal house duties, & about double that if working hard.

I have a little Honda S800, which will run all day on just a couple of liters of petrol, but it can't handle the start up drain on the big fridge or freezer, & you would not trust it's voltage control to run TVs computers & other expensive gear. It was fine for lighting radios, & an old TV, the things you can do without no trouble.

I also have a 2 KVA, but it could not handle the combined fridge freezer start up. I've replaced that unit.

Expensive it may be, but much better than throwing out about $1000 worth of food, as we did last time

This article is wrong right from the second word of the headline they are not fatal flaws. What is fatal is Abbotts short sighted pandering to the big polluters.

Viv Forbes obviously couldn't care less about the future for his/her children and grandchildren and just wants to stick his/her head in sand and pass the problem on.

Hasbeen posted friday 25 in spite of you not including facts in your post I will. Abbott and (Morrison)have between them at least 121 spin doctors employed to mislead us at a cost to us of over 3 million (of our dollars) a year. Hasbeen they have to something for that amount of money.

Helga: Viv Forbes obviously couldn't care less about the future for his/her children and grandchildren and just wants to stick his/her head in sand and pass the problem on.

The man-made global warming alarmists are the ones who couldn't care less about the future of their children and grandchildren and just want to stick their heads in sand and pass the problem on.

There is no empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. Consequently, there is no scientific or economic justification for setting renewable energy targets or spending on schemes or measures to "control the climate". Yet, Labor and the Greens have wasted billions on such schemes, and the Libs look set to do the same if they do not abolish the RET.

Helga, you're just spouting religious ideology. What you need to understand is, not everyone else is as gullible as you.

All
Where I live electricity has gotten more and more expensive thanks in part to anti-human lunatics like Helga deliberately driving the price up, while stupidly dreaming of fine-tuning the weather.

But we've got no end of timber, and I'd like to have an on-site wood-powered electricity generating machine, just big enough to power a home and farm. Think coal-fired power station, only smaller and powered by wood. Must be do-able I'm thinkin?

Can anyone here give me a steer in the right direction as to where I could find one?

.....This article is wrong right from the second word of the headline they are not fatal flaws. What is fatal is Abbotts short sighted pandering to the big polluters.

Viv Forbes obviously couldn't care less about the future for his/her children and grandchildren and just wants to stick his/her head in sand and pass the problem on.

Helga, just like the likes of you want to pass our problems on to the generators, because after all, if we didn't use the stuff, they wouldn't have to generate it, would they!

It's like charging the retailer a tax so they can serve us, so we, the consumer can have our tax free purchases.

Any form of carbon tax should be a user pays system, then you would see some serious emissions reductions, because the user can't simply pass the costs on.

Hasbeen:
You can run your diesel with biogas.
All you need do is shove some steel wool into the intake manifold, to permanently reduce the airflow, fuel air mix.
You can make continuous biogas, by passing all your family's biological waste through, a simple two tank digestor.
For household use, something around the size of two (part buried) five thousand gallon tanks, should be large enough?
You need to aerate the first tank to introduce maximum oxygen, to the first stage process, which heats up to around 32C.
A small (man high) windmill, pushing a small diaphragm pump, would be my first choice.
Once thoroughly aerated, the material is augured, via another similar windmill, into tank two, which is completely sealed with a simple U bend water trap, sealing everything except the escaping gas, which can then be stored in a simple bladder and used on demand; adding food scraps (other biological) increases the gas output.
Again a very slow turning auger, removes the final waste product from the very bottom of the sealed tank. Which is thoroughly sanitized and a very useful, organic, high carbon fertilizer, high in both nitrates and phosphates.
A conveniently positioned plastic lined trailer, is enough to remove the waste, and put it where it can be useful?
Water is bled off, about three quarters of the way up tank two, (self heating to around 55C) and is siphoned off via a simple u bend, to reduce the risk of any gas escaping.
If you build a glass house around the tanks, (or visa versa) the naturally produced heat would be very useful, during the cooler winter months!
Another windmill and diaphragm pump, should be enough to move the waste water to storage?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

If the only thing we worried about, was long term hip pocket pain!
Then climate change real, man made or imagined, would take care of itself, as would our energy dependent economy!
Rhrosty.

Jardine,

For a closer to home source of steam plant see:
http://www.strathsteam.com/

A useful steam engine can be made by converting a petrol or diesel engine to run on steam and if you can do the conversion yourself then the cost of the engine could virtually nil as old IC engines can be got for nought.

Raycom Jardine rehctub your grandchildren are going to say one day, faced with all the evidence how stupid and selfish our grandparents were, they might let you off and say perhaps they were senile.

Rhosty, from the sounds of your off it all system, the cost to build
it would be very substantial.
I think a large bank of ground mounted solar cells and a bank of Nickel
Iron cells which will last for 30 to 50 years and will suffer all
sorts of mistreatment such as overcharging or standing for years fully
discharged without any damage or problem would be the no fuss way to go.
I think it would be a lot cheaper also as there are no replacement costs.

I have a vague memory of seeing nickel iron batteries in glass jars in
a signal box that had been there since the signal box was built in the
1920s when the suburban network was electrified.
They are available for high reliability usage.
They are only 1.2 volts a cell but they sell them by individual cells so you buy as many as you need.

http://ironcorebatteries.com.au/

The 1.2 volt cells that are used in submarines are about a metre in height with a very high capacity; the new cost would probably be prohibitive but if they are available after having done their stint in a sub, then they might be a proposition for home use.

The company I gave the link for has capacities from 10a/hr to I think
500a/h was the largest.
The 10a/hr looked to be like a small motor cycle battery.
Anyone contemplating an off grid or backup system ought to give them
serious thought as while they are more expensive you may never have to
replace them, and you can refurbish them yourself if you get a failed
cell by replacing the alkaline.

and if you are using a 12 v system and one of the cells and one cell really fails then only that cell needs to be replaced, unlike composite batteries where a cell failure usually means replacement of the battery.

Helga: Raycom Jardine rehctub your grandchildren are going to say one day, faced with all the evidence how stupid and selfish our grandparents were, they might let you off and say perhaps they were senile.

Your emotive argument fails to convince.