The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > RET time-bomb is ticking > Comments

RET time-bomb is ticking : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 17/4/2015

You know you have a dog of a policy when the government, opposition and various minor parties agree it should be reformed, but the Greens and their cheer squad think it’s great.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Bazz, I think YOU'D better read that last link yoiu posted. All of it. Particularly my April 19 comment that explains why their conclusions are erroneous.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 8 May 2015 1:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did read it all. The main objections are the boundaries.
I just do not see how you can ignore them.
Even if you restrict to the actual installation the result is not very good.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 8 May 2015 9:05:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Bazz, and add in buffering (storage) and the math tells us PV's are even more of a dud than than even the wishful thinkers believe, in the fight against CO2 (now tipping 400ppm worldwide) http://click.email.businessspectator.com.au/?qs=f953f411a11a0162cdae52767a19aee0aa794f611c6c6d06a18f503ab8f4952498ea7aa6350eeccb
Death to RET's, long live nuclear.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 8 May 2015 9:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, the main differences are indeed the boundaries. Money is not energy; it belongs outside the boundaries for EROEI calculations. If they want to calculate energy returned over energy and converted money invested, they should be open about it rather than pretending that the EROEACMI figure is the true EROEI. I don't see how you can ignore that fact.

If Prieto and Hall are at the top of the scale in their field, it shows that most good researchers probably haven't bothered with that field. Probably because most scientists and engineers realise that technology is improving all the time, and we've long passed the stage where we were putting more energy in than we got out. Even the calculations Prieto and Hall fudged with non-energy inputs show positive net energy.

As for thin film solar cells, they're certainly not going to always be 50 years away. They already exist. Now it's just a matter of making them sufficiently durable before they go to commercial production.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 8 May 2015 12:03:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Even the calculations Prieto and Hall fudged with non-energy inputs show positive net energy."

Even without factoring in storage, PV barely tips in a positive value. If inputs other than energy were valued as energy equivalents into nuclear plants in the way P&H have with PVs, they still smash the ball completely out of the park in meeting civilization's needs.
RE (hydro excepted) has no leverage by comparison. It's trying to use a see-saw, pivoted in the middle, to lift something massive.

Producing a modicum of positive nett energy (PNE) does not qualify an energy source as a viable solution to the problem at hand. Besides the PNE being unable to rise much in the real world even with major technological advancement(P&H), there is the the sheer financial scale involved in delivering RE infrastructure for both the growing energy needs of advanced civilization the the aspirations of developing civilization.

It is completely and utterly fanciful for resources required to build this energy nirvana to be diverted from virtually all other human need and endeavour for the time necessary, time we don't have. Simply, it is a political and financial impossibility.

But, no, we can't let that stand in the way of wishful thinking, can we now?! It is simply astonishing that worldwide, such thought holds sway, and we fiddle while Rome burns. RET's squander money needing devotion to the only real solution there is, nuclear. Those claiming to be trying to save the world have no realistic appreciation of the magnitude of the task, nor the resources or time it will take, by their chosen path. They are a block to our survival.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 8 May 2015 6:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, the "barely positive" value becomes strongly positive in any honest appraisal.

Producing a modicum of PNE does not disqualify an energy source as a viable solution to the problem at hand. But even a high EROEI doesn't qualify an energy source as a viable solution. Cadmium telluride solar cells have a much better EROEI than silicon ones, but the use of scarce (and expensive) tellurium and toxic cadmium means they're less practical. And nuclear power has a very high EROEI but high costs meaning that in many circumstances it's not the best solution.

It is completely and utterly fanciful to claim the resources needed to switch to renewable energy as our primary source would leave virtually all other human needs and endeavours unsatisfied. There's a huge amount of spare capacity in the global economy at the moment. And because wind and solar generally have very low running
costs, they can work out cheaper in the long run.

Nuclear is certainly a solution worth considering, but it's far from the only practical solution and Australia's low population density weakens the case for it here.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 9 May 2015 12:09:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy