Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

grahamc2003

celerity wrote: »

Nice rejoinder :T.

I also like this quote:

"The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined."

/\dam

Why is it a nice rejoinder? The question I would ask is if there is all that energy about (and there is), why does man have so much difficulty in harnessing it? Afterall, it's not new information - the solar energy hitting the earth has been known about for hundreds of years.

Man is pretty puny compared to Nature - the energy in the seas, the wind, the atmosphere and even every object is simply vast on man's scale. That doesn't mean we have worked out how to harness much of that energy, even though the best brains have been on it for centuries (windmills aren't new!). About the only great success in exploiting these vast natural energies has been in the energy content of matter, which we successfully exploit with Nuclear fission, which converts that potentially useful energy into actual useful energy in vast quantities. The convesrion of other naturally available vast energies into useful energy has been absolutely feeble - as solar panels and windmills illustrate - they are on a scale several orders of magnitude below Nuclear.

celerity

grahamc2003 wrote: »

The question I would ask is if there isa all that energy about (and there is), why does man have so much difficulty in harnessing it? Afterall, it's notnew information - the solar energy hitting the earth has beenknown about for hundreds of years.

It's a matter of perspective. You might think we have difficulty in harnessing it, but as a species, look at what we've accomplished in a few hundred years - we've harnessed the power of the atom, built computers to dwarf the ambition of the ancients - and have made a good go of knackering our planet's climate along the way.

We're already beating Mother Nature in harnessing solar energy by some standards. Plant leaves are generally about 4%-6% efficient, and standard solar panels are already 13% efficient.

[I'm retracting the bit that's now crossed out below - further research suggests it is too much of a leap to say "long depleted"]
Fast forward a century, [STRIKE]and current wisdom seems to be that our current nuclear fuels will have been long depleted[/STRIKE] - renewables will still be going strong though, and will be vastly more cost-effective thanks to investment made today. That's the point.

I honestly don't understand why there is so much negativity about renewables on these forums - and usually off-topic negativity at that. It's not like the subject header of the threads is ever "Please debate renewable energy versus nuclear" (for example).

It's also not like those of us who advocate investment into renewables are even anti-nuclear. In the "Wind Turbines" thread we've made it very clear we see renewables as being a partial solution with nuclear (and traditional) power plants very much a significant part of our energy infrastructure for decades to come.

The only real difference between the viewpoints seems to be that the anti-renewables crowd don't think much about the longer term, eg: 30 years+. Or, if they do, they rarely enlighten the rest of us with their proposed strategy for dealing with dwindling fossil fuel reserves...

/\dam

grahamc2003

celerity wrote: »

It's a matter of perspective. You might think we have difficulty in harnessing it, but as a species, look at what we've accomplished in a few hundred years - we've harnessed the power of the atom, built computers to dwarf the ambition of the ancients - and have made a good go of knackering our planet's climate along the way.

We're already beating Mother Nature in harnessing solar energy by some standards. Plant leaves are generally about 4%-6% efficient, and standard solar panels are already 13% efficient.

Fast forward a century, and current wisdom seems to be that our current nuclear fuels will have been long depleted - renewables will still be going strong though, and will be vastly more cost-effective thanks to investment made today. That's the point.

I honestly don't understand why there is so much negativity about renewables on these forums - and usually off-topic negativity at that. It's not like the subject header of the threads is ever "Please debate renewable energy versus nuclear" (for example).

It's also not like those of us who advocate investement into renewables are even anti-nuclear. In the "Wind Turbines" thread we've made it very clear we see renewables as being a partial solution with nuclear (and traditional) power plants very much a significant part of our energy infrastructure for decades to come.

The only real difference between the viewpoints seems to be that the anti-renewables crowd don't think much about the longer term, eg: 30 years+. Or, if they do, they rarely enlighten the rest of us with their proposed strategy for dealing with dwindling fossil fuel reserves...

/\dam

I don't know, and neither have I read, anyone who is 'anti-renewables'.

You are confusing that with 'anti-expensive solutions which won't solve anything yet divert scarce resources from solutions that will and at the same time will lower the quality of life for everyone'.

celerity

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I don't know, and neither have I read, anyone who is 'anti-renewables'.

You are confusing that with 'anti-expensive solutions which won't solve anything yet divert scarce resources from solutions that will and at the same time will lower the quality of life for everyone'.

Fine, but you are being too vague.

If I had to guess, I read your above as you saying that "I'm all for renewable investment, but don't spend the resources during my lifetime thanks, I'd rather use up what we have and let the next generation worry about what happens when it all runs out". Sort of a temporal form of NIMBY'ism .

Now, I may be doing you a terrible disservice, but if you're not making your position clear then that's not my fault.

/\dam

hasdogs

celerity wrote: »

Fast forward a century, and current wisdom seems to be that our current nuclear fuels will have been long depleted

The first paper I google tells me at 1999 generation rates we have 326 years of nuclear fuel using only known easily extracted sources in the most inefficient way. Using more difficult to extract sources in the most efficient way stretches that to 250,000 years.

celerity wrote: »

I honestly don't understand

Not surprising when you base your understanding on facts which are out by between 300 and 250,000 percent.

celerity wrote: »

and will be vastly more cost-effective thanks to investment made today

Investment in research may make renewables more cost effective in the future. Installing and operating current inefficient and expensive renewable generation today wont. It is just a waste of money which would be better spent on research.

celerity

hasdogs wrote: »

The first paper I google tells me at 1999 generation rates we have 326 years of nuclear fuel using only known easily extracted sources in the most inefficient way. Using more difficult to extract sources in the most efficient way stretches that to 250,000 years.

Posting a link to your source only takes seconds, and is considered good netiquette .
I have done some searches and will concede that you have a point, so have retracted my previous statement above.
For example, this paper suggests "At the 2007 level of consumption (69,000 t), world reserves could keep existing reactors running for nearly 80 years."

However, there is some debate about how easily usable uranium can continue to be mined. This obviously affects cost so is a valid concern.

No doubt you are familiar with all the environmental and safety concerns with nuclear reactors, so I won't rehash those. Suffice to say that many people have completely understandable reservations about committing to a nuclear fuel strategy.

Anyway, my views (which are subject to change as I learn more) are that the costs of renewables will steadily go down over the next century, whereas the cost of nuclear will go up (and unfortunately have several disasters along the way, some caused by malfunction of terrorism - that isn't intended to scaremonger, it just seems likely based on history).
I also think we'll have to continually upgrade reactor designs to take advantage of different fuel sources, which whilst not a bad thing in of itself, is going to keep costs high.

Investment in research may make renewables more cost effective in the future. Installing and operating current inefficient and expensive renewable generation today wont. It is just a waste of money which would be better spent on research.

It's a fair argument. My personal belief is that the research for solar and wind has been done so it's entirely reasonable to now start putting schemes into practise. If they are proven to be a technology dead end, then so be it - the potential gains are worth the cost (again, that's just my opinion).
Note that for other forms of renewable energy, eg wave power, the R&D phase is still going on, and rightly so - so we're not so far removed in viewpoint as you might think.

/\dam

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

I honestly don't understand why there is so much negativity about renewables on these forums - and usually off-topic negativity at that. It's not like the subject header of the threads is ever "Please debate renewable energy versus nuclear" (for example).

It's also not like those of us who advocate investment into renewables are even anti-nuclear. In the "Wind Turbines" thread we've made it very clear we see renewables as being a partial solution with nuclear (and traditional) power plants very much a significant part of our energy infrastructure for decades to come.



/\dam

Not all those who 'advocate investment into renewables' are pro Nuclear in fact the majority of 'Green' organisations oppose nuclear. Greenpeace being a case in point:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/the-case-against-nuclear-power-20080108

and http://earthdirectory.net/nuclear


I have to agree with Grahamc2003 above. If we point out the stupidity of some of the Government schemes that doesn't mean we are anti-renewable.

A case in point is the absurdity of paying massive subsidies(FIT) for thousands of tiny systems on roofs all over the country.

If the Government is to embrace solar PV - which is clearly unsuitable for our latitude - then it obviously makes sense to have solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or scrub land in SW England.

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

Not all those who 'advocate investment into renewables' are pro Nuclear in fact the majority of 'Green' organisations oppose nuclear. Greenpeace being a case in point

To be fair, the context was talking about this forum. In my view, there are few "Greenpeace types" on here debating renewables - the ones who are in favour have not been against nuclear per-se.

I have to agree with Grahamc2003 above. If we point out the stupidity of some of the Government schemes that doesn't mean we are anti-renewable.

Again, the context here is that someone was posting their solar PV results for the past year and was quite pleased with them, but got back a somewhat snarky reply saying a nuclear reactor would be millions of times more productive. Given you were the person who asked for the solar results to be posted in the first place, do you think that reply was on-topic and warranted?

Anyway, we have already debated the merits and objections to Solar PV feed in tariffs in the UK, so there is no point going over old ground again.

Like it or not, the FiT for solar in the UK is here (hopefully for the next 25 years ) so really it's not a productive exercise to keep carping on about how you don't agree with it. It would be much better to come up with some alternative positive ideas on how you would like our government to promote renewables...

/\dam

hasdogs

celerity wrote: »

Posting a link to your source only takes seconds, and is considered good netiquette .

Google "nuclear fuel resources" 1st hit. I didn't specifically link it because I don't claim it is the best or most accurate depiction. I am sure you can find conflicting claims, but, when it comes to green issues economy of truth is rampant.

celerity wrote: »

It's a fair argument. My personal belief is that the research for solar and wind has been done so it's entirely reasonable to now start putting schemes into practise.

If it were reasonable now it wouldn't require enormous subsidies for it to happen.

Those subsidies we are paying are not paving the way to a bright future, they are the price of the political willy waving competition in the fight against the mythical global warming beast they created.

Dead dino fuel is going to run out so we do have problems to solve. Wind and solar can be a part of the solution in places where it is windy and sunny which ain't a domestic roof in Sheffield. Micro generation schemes are almost all completely rubbish.

keith_r59

hasdogs wrote: »

Those subsidies we are paying are not paving the way to a bright future, they are the price of the political willy waving competition in the fight against the mythical global warming beast they created.

Dead dino fuel is going to run out so we do have problems to solve. Wind and solar can be a part of the solution in places where it is windy and sunny which ain't a domestic roof in Sheffield. Micro generation schemes are almost all completely rubbish.

This may well be true, and no doubt the climate change argument will run on and on, but in the meantime I will happily take the money offered to have a few solar panels stuck on my roof.

I would be stupid not to.