Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

Wind is variable, though some locations (coastal, offshore, mountain ridges) are almost constant. Solar power in many locations is solid from sunrise to sunset. Let's see some graphs of solar power output from utility scale photovoltaic installations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

EU-PV-LCOE-Projection.png


US_Economic_Solar_PV_Capacity_vs_Installation_Cost.png


Economics

Despite the overwhelming availability of solar power, little was installed, compared to other power generation, prior to 2012, due to the high installation cost. This cost has declined as more systems have been installed, and has followed a typical learning curve.
Photovoltaic systems use no fuel and modules typically last 25 to 40 years. The cost of installation is almost the only cost, as there is very little maintenance required. Installation cost is measured in $/watt or €/watt. The electricity generated is sold for ¢/kWh. 1 watt of installed photovoltaics generates roughly 1 to 2 kWh/year, as a result of the local insolation. The product of the local cost of electricity and the insolation determines the break even point for solar power. The International Conference on Solar Photovoltaic Investments, organized by EPIA, has estimated that PV systems will pay back their investors in 8 to 12 years.[65] As a result, since 2006 it has been economical for investors to install photovoltaics for free in return for a long term power purchase agreement. Fifty percent of commercial systems were installed in this manner in 2007 and over 90% by 2009.[66]
As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable:[67]

A U.S. study of the amount of economic installations agrees closely with the actual installations.
For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, as firms try to restore profitability, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.[67]

Additionally, governments have created various financial incentives to encourage the use of solar power, such as feed-in tariff programs. Also, Renewable portfolio standards impose a government mandate that utilities generate or acquire a certain percentage of renewable power regardless of increased energy procurement costs. In most states, RPS goals can be achieved by any combination of solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean, geothermal, municipal solid waste, hydroelectric, hydrogen, or fuel cell technologies.[68]

Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".[69]
 
Last edited:
"Kill zone"? "Nice shot"? Yes I do. I read FCT telling us what a nice guy you are but at the moment I'm having some difficulty accepting that assessment.



Perhaps I'm not. I was 34 years old at the time.



Since they haven't been directed at me I wouldn't be offended but I can't approve of violence - this is supposed to be a democracy. However, when I think what sort of world you and FlaCalTenn and WestWall and your less thoughtful hangers-on are going to leave my children and their children, I can understand someone thinking about doing violence. My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

Your waste of trillions will cost lives.

Your mistakes don't cost us a nickel because you are irrelevant. Nobody has any reason to pay any attention to you.


Feel free to whine to your heart's content. The world listens to scientists for science, not political Dittoheads.

Thought I'd check in with you PMZ --- how have you been?
Can't imagine what fun I've missed in your posts and I am concerned about you carrying us all on your strong and stable back..

Actually -- the world listens to INNOVATORS --- even if they are school dropouts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Engineers and scientists don't run much of anything except conferences and test equipment. Except in Germany and Japan -- where they are treated with more appropriate respect.

Problem is (and I'm about to step on toes) the world is increasingly run by MBAs who's ideas are not exactly "state of the art". And politicians -- most of which are dumb as stumps. And MILLIONS of consumers and voters that are manipulated by them. Survival in such a rigged game means that the average Joe only has to be increasingly smarter than your average politician. And that my bud --- is not a high bar at all..

Give Al Franken my regards. Tell him "lrwrwc" from brillscontent.com is alive and well and hoping he learned something from the forum...
:eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
"Kill zone"? "Nice shot"? Yes I do. I read FCT telling us what a nice guy you are but at the moment I'm having some difficulty accepting that assessment.



Perhaps I'm not. I was 34 years old at the time.



Since they haven't been directed at me I wouldn't be offended but I can't approve of violence - this is supposed to be a democracy. However, when I think what sort of world you and FlaCalTenn and WestWall and your less thoughtful hangers-on are going to leave my children and their children, I can understand someone thinking about doing violence. My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

Your waste of trillions will cost lives.

Your mistakes don't cost us a nickel because you are irrelevant. Nobody has any reason to pay any attention to you.


Feel free to whine to your heart's content. The world listens to scientists for science, not political Dittoheads.

You're right, that's why Kyoto got ratified.

What was the vote in the Senate again?
 
Wind is variable, though some locations (coastal, offshore, mountain ridges) are almost constant. Solar power in many locations is solid from sunrise to sunset. Let's see some graphs of solar power output from utility scale photovoltaic installations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

EU-PV-LCOE-Projection.png


US_Economic_Solar_PV_Capacity_vs_Installation_Cost.png


Economics

Despite the overwhelming availability of solar power, little was installed, compared to other power generation, prior to 2012, due to the high installation cost. This cost has declined as more systems have been installed, and has followed a typical learning curve.
Photovoltaic systems use no fuel and modules typically last 25 to 40 years. The cost of installation is almost the only cost, as there is very little maintenance required. Installation cost is measured in $/watt or €/watt. The electricity generated is sold for ¢/kWh. 1 watt of installed photovoltaics generates roughly 1 to 2 kWh/year, as a result of the local insolation. The product of the local cost of electricity and the insolation determines the break even point for solar power. The International Conference on Solar Photovoltaic Investments, organized by EPIA, has estimated that PV systems will pay back their investors in 8 to 12 years.[65] As a result, since 2006 it has been economical for investors to install photovoltaics for free in return for a long term power purchase agreement. Fifty percent of commercial systems were installed in this manner in 2007 and over 90% by 2009.[66]
As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable:[67]

A U.S. study of the amount of economic installations agrees closely with the actual installations.
For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, as firms try to restore profitability, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.[67]

Additionally, governments have created various financial incentives to encourage the use of solar power, such as feed-in tariff programs. Also, Renewable portfolio standards impose a government mandate that utilities generate or acquire a certain percentage of renewable power regardless of increased energy procurement costs. In most states, RPS goals can be achieved by any combination of solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean, geothermal, municipal solid waste, hydroelectric, hydrogen, or fuel cell technologies.[68]

Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".[69]

Before we listen to the solar sales pitch --- let's see what the daily production for solar REALLY looks like.. It's a little more coherent than wind. Anything could be. And contrary to your assertions, doesn't matter about location.. Offshore might have some advantage, but I gave you the wind production chart for one of the BEST SITED wind farms in the world and the total German output and it STILL is useless.

Anyway --- it is nowhere NEAR constant from sunrise to sunset.. It's good as a mid-day peaker like I said..

exhibit3-12b.jpg


Any other realities you like to attempt to upend???
 
Flac -

Why do none of your posts on solar refer to Solar Thermal?

Solar thermal is fine.. It's got a lot of moving parts and complexity. And enviro considerations for it's "heat storage" element if they use salts. It also needs WATER, which is a problem in deserts where they are likely to be sited.

Just not gonna be a LOT of Death Ray towers constructed. It's novel.. But it's not gonna power NYCity or even Salt Lake...

You know anything that flys into beam is nicely roasted in milliseconds dontcha?
Not exactly a harmless toy.. It's a tower of toxic salts, using water the desert doesn't have with a lethal DEATH RAY attached to the top and 1000s of motors and mirrors.. :eek:

Have at it --- Go talk Finland or whereever you pretend you're at to build one...

:cool:

BTW: small scale solar thermal for homes is great.. It just looks funky and needs a lot of maintenance.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for your definition of "orphan hole" your first attempt was an abject failure. C'mon mr. geologist.

Considering the searches I went through that found nothing, I think the only person with your definition of "orphan hole" is you. Why don't you link us to a geology reference or textbook that uses the term.





Anyone who is a geologist...a real geologist that is, KNOWS what an "orphan hole" is. When orogman gives up I'll post the definition.....
 
Flac -

Why do none of your posts on solar refer to Solar Thermal?

Solar thermal is fine.. It's got a lot of moving parts and complexity. And enviro considerations for it's "heat storage" element if they use salts. It also needs WATER, which is a problem in deserts where they are likely to be sited.

Just not gonna be a LOT of Death Ray towers constructed. It's novel.. But it's not gonna power NYCity or even Salt Lake...

You know anything that flys into beam is nicely roasted in milliseconds dontcha?
Not exactly a harmless toy.. It's a tower of toxic salts, using water the desert doesn't have with a lethal DEATH RAY attached to the top and 1000s of motors and mirrors.. :eek:

Have at it --- Go talk Finland or whereever you pretend you're at to build one...

:cool:

BTW: small scale solar thermal for homes is great.. It just looks funky and needs a lot of maintenance.

Flac -

While I agree about its uses in Finland, its potential in the US is more than considerable. I understand California already has a plant, actually.

California Solar Thermal, Inc.

btw, Water is also needed in nuclear energy, isn't it? Has that presented nuclear power stations being constructed in places 1,000 miles from the sea?

My point here is that all renewables are undergoing massive development. Wind energy costs have dropped by one third in the past decade or so (in Europe, anyway) due to ever-developing technology.

Solar may develop much, much more, should Solar Thermal be all that it is seems it might be. Its potential in Africa and the ME is extraordinary, in particular.

It may well be that 50 years from now, the world relies on a mix of Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal...which I think would be ideal.
 
Flac -

Why do none of your posts on solar refer to Solar Thermal?

Solar thermal is fine.. It's got a lot of moving parts and complexity. And enviro considerations for it's "heat storage" element if they use salts. It also needs WATER, which is a problem in deserts where they are likely to be sited.

Just not gonna be a LOT of Death Ray towers constructed. It's novel.. But it's not gonna power NYCity or even Salt Lake...

You know anything that flys into beam is nicely roasted in milliseconds dontcha?
Not exactly a harmless toy.. It's a tower of toxic salts, using water the desert doesn't have with a lethal DEATH RAY attached to the top and 1000s of motors and mirrors.. :eek:

Have at it --- Go talk Finland or whereever you pretend you're at to build one...

:cool:

BTW: small scale solar thermal for homes is great.. It just looks funky and needs a lot of maintenance.

Flac -

While I agree about its uses in Finland, its potential in the US is more than considerable. I understand California already has a plant, actually.

California Solar Thermal, Inc.

btw, Water is also needed in nuclear energy, isn't it? Has that presented nuclear power stations being constructed in places 1,000 miles from the sea?

My point here is that all renewables are undergoing massive development. Wind energy costs have dropped by one third in the past decade or so (in Europe, anyway) due to ever-developing technology.

Solar may develop much, much more, should Solar Thermal be all that it is seems it might be. Its potential in Africa and the ME is extraordinary, in particular.

It may well be that 50 years from now, the world relies on a mix of Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal...which I think would be ideal.

I love the way you self-styled environmentalists just shuck off the enviro considerations of one of YOUR brainfarts. But if someone else proposes something --- and it might kill a desert toad --- they are bastards of the oil companies..

How can you ignore a massive pile of MOLTEN FERTILIZER in the middle of a pristine desert using water?

Anyway --- Yes California has a couple.

No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)

All the CREDIBLE renewables are all mature technologies except Tidal which is another enviro nightmare that you will convienently ignored (and have). There is nothing futuristic about building LARGER wind turbines that STILL don't provide reliable power. Or cheaper solar panels..

Solar may develop much, much more, should Solar Thermal be all that it is seems it might be. Its potential in Africa and the ME is extraordinary, in particular.

So you think Arabs and Jews all go to bed before midnight and don't need power at night?
No ice cream or indoor all night snow skiing required in Abu Dhabi eh???

Of course --- it's good enough for those savages in Africa.. THEY don't need reliable energy..

I BELIEVE --- solar thermal was first deployed in Israel --- could be wrong..
 
More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.

Did I leave anything out?

Yes - facts.

Coal is far more expensive than wind.

Convetional Coal 99.6
Clean coal 140.7

Wind 96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you admit it?

I don't think you can.

It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.

That's where wind loses. Thanks for the link.
 
More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.

Did I leave anything out?

Yes - facts.

Coal is far more expensive than wind.

Convetional Coal 99.6
Clean coal 140.7

Wind 96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you admit it?

I don't think you can.

Meaningless numbers. Every KWatt of wind is as a back-up to a primary generator of some other energy. Idling those other plants wastes fuel when the wind blows. You are paying for TWO power plants when you buy wind.. You can't power a Dairy Queen in Topeka on wind alone.

It's "cost" is a fudge number based on suspension of reality...
 
No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)

Nuclear plants currently being built do need water...which isn't a problem in any country with rivers.

I agree that in the middle of the Sahara it might be one issue, but for the US, China, Australia etc, Solar Thermal would have no more water problems than Nuclear.

Before you go on ranting about Africa, try and remember that I work there! My thoughts on Solar Thermal are largely based on my experiences in Africa.

btw.Solar Thermal can also supply (some) energy at night, but the major needs in most hot countries are in the day and early evening, because of the use of air con, fans etc.

I don't think anyone ignores the issues with wind (birdstrike) or tidal (fishstrike), but particularly in the case of tidal these seem to be more teething problems than game changers.

Tidal has the ability to change the global electricity market - it is that good. Why anyone would dismiss it before it has had the chance to be properly tried on a massive scale I have no idea.

How can you ignore a massive pile of MOLTEN FERTILIZER in the middle of a pristine desert using water?

Um...what?
 
Meaningless numbers. Every KWatt of wind is as a back-up to a primary generator of some other energy. Idling those other plants wastes fuel when the wind blows. You are paying for TWO power plants when you buy wind.. You can't power a Dairy Queen in Topeka on wind alone.

It's "cost" is a fudge number based on suspension of reality...

I largely agree about wind. I think its of limited use - except in countries with exceptional wind resources, such as Denmark.

Todd -

I knew you wouldn't be able to admit it. You're not that kind of poster.
 
No -- new gen nuclear does not need water (several designs like that)

Nuclear plants currently being built do need water...which isn't a problem in any country with rivers.

I agree that in the middle of the Sahara it might be one issue, but for the US, China, Australia etc, Solar Thermal would have no more water problems than Nuclear.

Before you go on ranting about Africa, try and remember that I work there! My thoughts on Solar Thermal are largely based on my experiences in Africa.

btw.Solar Thermal can also supply (some) energy at night, but the major needs in most hot countries are in the day and early evening, because of the use of air con, fans etc.

I don't think anyone ignores the issues with wind (birdstrike) or tidal (fishstrike), but particularly in the case of tidal these seem to be more teething problems than game changers.

Tidal has the ability to change the global electricity market - it is that good. Why anyone would dismiss it before it has had the chance to be properly tried on a massive scale I have no idea.

How can you ignore a massive pile of MOLTEN FERTILIZER in the middle of a pristine desert using water?

Um...what?

Why would I dismiss tidal before it gets built? Because the designs I've seen are COMPLETE enviro nightmares. THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..

If you insist on IGNORING environmental issues and problems -- you realize the credibility for your cause goes to crap really quickly. Especially with the high bars you ecofrauds set for other ideas..

The "molten pile of fertilizer" reference to solar thermal is -- that is what is USED FOR THE FREAKING STORAGE... To stretch the generation out a few hours past daylight.

And you're not listening real well.. There are several types of NEW nuclear plant designs that DO NOT REQUIRE water for cooling.. In fact, the exciting developments are small scale reactors that can be buried and forgotten.. Tenn is getting 2 of these in the next couple years in conjunction with the Oak Ridge Nat Lab..
 
Flac-

I think you've been getting poor and/or outdated information. Tidal is up and running in a half-dozen places around the world, and it simply isn't a major environmental problem.

There is an issue with the massive turbine blades killing fish, and experts tell me that is something that they will be able to fix when they have enough information. It's just about positioning the blades at the right depth, angle etc.

This is the smaller of two in NZ, the massive Cook St program is only at the pilot stage...

Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see anyone ignoring the environmental problems, but we need to look at them objectively. You act as if Hydro or Coal had 0 impact on the environmental and wind and tidal did. Basically, any form of electricity generation will cause some problems, and we need to balance those against the value of the energy delivered.

here are several types of NEW nuclear plant designs that DO NOT REQUIRE water for cooling..

That could be...but the latest plant being constructed here at Pori is still water cooled.
 
Last edited:
THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..

I think you need to check your sources.
 
Flac-

I think you've been getting poor and/or outdated information. Tidal is up and running in a half-dozen places around the world, and it simply isn't a major environmental problem.

There is an issue with the massive turbine blades killing fish, and experts tell me that is something that they will be able to fix when they have enough information. It's just about positioning the blades at the right depth, angle etc.

This is the smaller of two in NZ, the massive Cook St program is only at the pilot stage...

Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see anyone ignoring the environmental problems, but we need to look at them objectively. You act as if Hydro or Coal had 0 impact on the environmental and wind and tidal did. Basically, any form of electricity generation will cause some problems, and we need to balance those against the value of the energy delivered.

here are several types of NEW nuclear plant designs that DO NOT REQUIRE water for cooling..

That could be...but the latest plant being constructed here at Pori is still water cooled.





"Pilot" stage? More like still in the planning stage. Need to check your sources there saggy, wiki is not reliable....



Crest Energy Limited has been granted consents to construct a marine tidal turbine power station in the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour in Northland, northern New Zealand. The project comprises up to 200 completely submerged marine tidal turbines with a maximum generating capacity of around 200MW, located invisibly underwater.


Tidal power - Crest Energy




Kaipara Tidal Power Station (Planned)

The Kaipara Tidal Power Station is a proposed tidal power project to be located in Kaipara Harbour. Crest Energy, has resource consent for up to 200 turbines with an ultimate capacity of 200 MW by 2023.

Crest plans to place the turbines at least 30 metres deep along a ten kilometre stretch of the main channel.The output of the turbines will cycle twice daily with the rise and fall of the tide. Each turbine will have a maximum output of 1.2 MW, and is expected to generate 0.75 MW averaged over time.

Crest has not yet made a decision on the initial supplier or suppliers of turbines for the project.

In August 2011, Todd Energy acquired the majority shareholding in Crest Energy.


Kaipara Tidal Power Station - Marine - POWER PLANTS

And, of course, there are major concerns which you all just luuuuuve to ignore...


Snapper may be off the fish n'chips menu at local takeaway shops if Crest Energy's plan to build a tidal power station in the Kaipara Harbour goes ahead, according to Maori MP Hone Harawira.

Mr Harawira told media that 90 percent of New Zealand's snapper nursery comes from the Kaipara harbour, "there's no way you can put up a stop sign up to stop them swimming through".

"The Kaipara harbour is the food basket for the people of the Kaipara and this project will destroy this asset."

The Environment Court made a positive recommendation to Conservation Minister Tim Groser on a proposal from Crest Energy to generate electricity from the harbour earlier this year.

This could see the country's largest harbour providing power to 250,000 homes within 10 years.

Mr Harawira says he will be discussing his concerns over fish stocks with the with Prime Minister John Key.

Asked why he thought the Prime Minister should do something about it, Mr Harawira said, "because the Kaipara harbour is in his territory".

"Anyone who likes snapper should be concerned, Maori and Pakeha."

Mr Harawira asks, "where in the world has this technology been tested commercially and why test it in one of the worlds greatest fisheries?"

Power station will affect snapper - MP | Stuff.co.nz


And then of course there's this.....

Kaipara tidal power project paused

The future of a Kaipara power station is looking uncertain with Crest Energy stepping away from predictions construction will start this year.

The company’s chief executive Anthony Hopkins said, in May 2010, the earliest date for construction on the $600 million project would be two years away.

In 2011, a Government grant of $1.85 million was withdrawn when deadlines around the tidal power project were missed.

Mr Hopkins is now refusing to give a date, saying three factors need to be resolved for the project to progress.

These include the future of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter which may increase electricity capacity to the New Zealand market by 10 percent or more if it closes; the long-term implications of the Government’s privatisation programme; and the impact of new energy supplies such as fracking on world markets.

Mr Hopkins says fracking has completely changed the US energy market in the last two years.

“The uncertainty of the world oil market could have an impact on New Zealand oil markets, which will have an effect on New Zealand electricity markets.”

Kaipara tidal power project paused

Yep, you too had better check your sources....:eusa_whistle:
 
Westwall -

Have you EVER got ANYTHING right on this board?!

I have never come across any poster on any forum so desperate to score points - and so prepared to sacrafice facts to do so. Really...you just post any drivel at all, won't you?

A Maori curse does not mean the project has stopped. As someone who claimed to have lived in NZ might be expected to know, negotiations with tangata whenua always take place when a makutu is in place. The curse has no legal standing. The project is continuing as of May 2013.

You might also want to learn the difference between the Kaipara Harbour and the Cook Strait. They are two entirely unrelated projects, a thousand miles apart.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top