Joe, it is indeed a foolish question to ask of someone who has already given you an answer. Asking the same question over and over expecting a different answer is what Einstein famously described as defining insanity.

Do you have any reason to believe that there will be a net carbon reduction through the use of renewables and if so, what is that reason based on? If not, why bother asking the question?

Luciferase, constantly referring back to inadequate sources from vested interests doesn't strengthen your argument. The first paper you refer to (non-peer reviewed, notably) is from people who all work in nuclear physics. The business spectator piece is all about the nature of the subsidy scheme and has nothing to do with the efficiencies of solar. I tend to agree with the conclusion that the solar power subsidy scheme was a stupid idea. It created a a false impression within the public that somehow solar power requires subsidy.

The scheme being run by solar city is much more sensible: the user pays nothing up front and repays the cost of purchase over 10 years through the energy generated

Still, at least you don't risk your reputation by promoting snake-oil, since nobody has any idea who you might be, although they do know your particular brand is especially smelly and ineffective.

Never mind, I'm sure you think you're important.

Hi Cfraig,

"Do you have any reason to believe that there will be a net carbon reduction through the use of renewables and if so, what is that reason based on? If not, why bother asking the question?"

I don't know sh!t about this, but if you're saying that there is no net reduction in CO2 production, then some might ask, what's the point of RE ? An answer might be: because there is less CO2, not none, being produced than would otherwise be produced. Okay, that's fair enough for me. Less in total, rather than none at all, that's okay.

Joe

Solar City, http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-much-do-solar-panels-cost#solarppa has a variety of plans that all suck heavily on the public teat, and for what ultimate purpose? With or without storage, AGW's progress will barely be affected.

Your fire lighting analogy, Minns, was a gem, thanks.

Elon Musk is a good enough businessman to know who butters his bread, and it won't be him whistling Dixie when the curtain comes down on the whole farce.

Snake-oil, indeed!

Forgot to mention re "The first paper you refer to (non-peer reviewed, notably) is from people who all work in nuclear physics.", the Weissbach et al. article in the reputable journal "Energy" is no less peer-reviewed than the rebuttal article by Raugei et al. (which you'd support no doubt), and subsequent articles on the matter of EROEI.

From http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy/ "Energy is an international, multi-disciplinary journal in energy engineering and research. The journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information for analyses..."

Throwing mud doesn't make you right.

Anonymous troll,
the link you posted was:
http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

if this was in fact accepted by Energy then why did you not link to that? I note that you have still not done so.

Regardless, the piece is an irrelevance, for several reasons, quite apart from the vested interest of the authorship. I won't waste my time pointing out why, any competent reader can do so for themselves. I suggest you find one who can be bothered and ask for an explanation.

On the subject of direct PV subsidy, I do not think it is a good idea, because it gives the weak-minded the idea that somehow PV cannot stand on its own and it creates an on-going inequity.

However, it is not correct to say that PV is unique in being subsidised. Coal power here in Australia and other generation sources, including nuclear, are routinely subsidised overseas. In India, for example, farmers in some regions are provided with power free of charge.

Never mind, Anonymase, I'm sure you've convinced yourself.

Joe, I am not saying there is no net reduction in CO2 production, I am saying that I cannot quantify the amount of that reduction. To use an example close to your own heart, this is like saying that I know that some Aboriginal people were murdered by white settlers and authorities, but I don't know how many.

I refer you back to Herr Einstein's comment quoted above.

"...if this was in fact accepted by Energy then why did you not link to that?" Because you'd only get the abstract, and the published paper is quite well known to exist, anyway. Oh but do scrape your barrel.

Your "vested interest" slur is just more throwing turds in the sand-pit, where I'll not join you. Everyone has mankind's best interests at heart, including wishful thinking RE zealots, so why bother with diversion?

"On the subject of direct PV subsidy, I do not think it is a good idea.....". Agreed, but you'd rather it was indirect support, I suppose, like pricing carbon-based electricity out of the way. PV can't stand up without crutches. Right now, with PV installation hardware prices considerably down, the crutches should be shortened commensurately, but we're still paying big subsidies through the nose. Crikey, I even thought of buying one myself, but the payback time for my needs is based on perfect laboratory system performance and no borrowing costs. There's a lot of BS in the market-place.

You go on about Indian farmers as if it matters whether it's nuclear, FF or hydro? The fact farmers are supported and not city-dwellers does not crush your point?

Well, this is my fourth post and that's it for this skirmish and anything more on the matter. I've no intention of further subjecting myself to more of your diversions, wishful thinking and witless jibe. You're not even entertaining.