This discussion has roamed far and wide from Ross's original post and ends up being the same old same old.

There is no substitute here for policy that gives security to the RE industry for investment in functional technology. Let the R&D go on of course but we need industrial change NOW.

I'll comment on HDR. There is another well established but dormant aspect of geothermal heat. In WA, a group of licences have been issued for geothermal companies. These companies have secured leases over ground much like the petroleum industry. This is all HDR but heat extraction from shallower depths. The University of Western Australia is interested in this as a business to provide energy for air-conditioning. In times past the Perth Zoo used use geothermal heat as did others.

HDR may have significant technical issues with corrosion - any comment?

The Hot Rocks method seems very promising.
I was surprised at the comment bout saline solution.
Stainless steel piping might help but expensive. Plastic pipe could be
an alternative.

Solar thermal seems to be very attractive as it should be possible to
retrofit to existing power stations as at Liddel.

Bazz,

I have worked on a mine site in the Murchison and seen groundwater bore renovation work, 316 stainless steel pipes from 1kilometre down looking like Grannies lace curtains...

renew says:

"This discussion has roamed far and wide from Ross's original post and ends up being the same old same old.

There is no substitute here for policy that gives security to the RE industry for investment in functional technology. Let the R&D go on of course but we need industrial change NOW."

It would appear that formulation of such a policy is exactly what the Federal government has taken in hand in its establishment of the Renewable Energy Fund, along with that fund's little brother, the Energy Innovation Fund. Applications by players within the renewable energy industry are now being called for with a very short fuze with respect to time within which such applications for scale-up funding must be made, and, presumably, then be decided upon by government. 'Winners' are about to be picked. My concern as a consumer and taxpayer is that any such 'winners' truly represent a win for the people who are funding the scale-up and will pay the ultimate bill as customers for the renewable energy that legislation, rather than the market's present dictates, says we all should have.

It is always refreshing on OLO to receive feed-back from an article author. I'm embarrassed, however, that on this thread I appear to have hogged all that feed-back. I do try to keep the ego-driven paranoia off the article discussion threads, but if it must come into the credibility equation a far better example of it can be found here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#55024 Anyone reading the ego-driven paranoia in this post, and other posts earlier and later in the thread, should heed the warning given that fact may well be mixed with fiction therein. Its sort of like a blog on renewable energy.

I thank renew both for the link to 'withouthotair' and the mention of shallow geothermal. That, together with a blog entry on the sciam site linked to by Fractelle (of the Cysterhood), has shown me how to use my bore for airconditioning.

"There is no substitute here for policy that gives security to the RE industry for investment in functional technology. Let the R&D go on of course but we need industrial change NOW."

My own words. These then from ForrestGump

"It would appear that formulation of such a policy is exactly what the Federal government has taken in hand in its establishment of the Renewable Energy Fund, along with that fund's little brother, the Energy Innovation Fund. ........... 'Winners' are about to be picked."

I disagree. Creating a "fund" is a discretionary process and subject to political whims. Maybe I wasn't specific enough - policy in my view must lead to legislation. A national feed in tariff would be an example. MRET another. The renewable energy industry and its R&D support have said we need to quit the stop start. Picking winners? So be it. If one technology is pulled through to win it is usually because the costs of goods, of installation etc are down far enough to make it viable in the market. But if a technology is say just beyond proof of concept but not yet commercial, the pulling effect of sound legislation may be beneficial.

renew's post of Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 8:13:17 AM says: "what happened at the last election is that the spin doctors on both sides saw political value in "solar panels". We got the message in the neck without any proper analysis and moreover without any real policy by either side."

Grim's post of Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 9:55:30 AM says: "..., I would have to say the most attractive thing about PV is no moving parts."

RawMustard's post of Friday, 20 February 2009 at 9:47:34 PM mentions roof-mounted parabolic dishes in conjunction with small solar thermal power conversion using ORC engines.

Forrest Gumpp's post of Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 11:20:18 AM says: "... pyrolysis of wood, either self-fueled or using solar thermal energy, with its by-product of biochar used as a soil-improver, will actually start removing CO2 from the atmosphere!

How to build a tracking flat mirror array solar concentrator:

See: www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/JF/431/A%20-%20Teton%20-%20Focussing%20Solar%20Collector.pdf

Used to pyrolyse wood, one of its products would be wood gas, which is simply stored in a small gasometer over water. This gas can be used at any time, day or night, to power a conventional IC engine generator. If, in association with the pyrolysing chamber a thermo-electric generator is incorporated to utilize waste heat, the unit will also generate low voltage DC power with no moving parts, that can charge conventional lead-acid batteries.

In the context of RawMustard's suggestion, see this link: http://www.katrix.com.au/news-events_detail.aspx?view=8

"This [Australian invented] core component of a solar thermal microCHP system, will become an enabler of such systems with power outputs of 1 – 10kW, with expected efficiencies greater than PV systems at a significantly reduced capital cost per kW."

The petition, sponsored by a firm dealing in VARIOUS types of renewables, asks for a FiT for PV panel power ONLY. Why?