Drove a Hybrid. Impressed?

BMW i8

http://youtu.be/Dqr_...lFUJvdvtXSZmdD5

The largest coal fired power stations in New South Wales don't use trucks, trains or even ships to move the coal. They just dig it out of the ground on site and move it by conveyors.

In the US, utility electrical accounts for over 60% of the total power consumed, and most of this power currently comes from coal and NG. Even though the US has far more EVs in use than any other country, they still only represent a tiny fraction of total road vehicles. At best, the greatest percentage of electric autos that would be practical in the US market would probably be around 75%. But even at this level,  the reduction in annual US CO2 emissions would not be that great since the electrical power for the EVs would still come from NG or coal. Commercial aircraft, commercial rail, and commercial long-haul trucks would still need to use liquid petroleum fuels.

The largest coal fired power stations in New South Wales don't use trucks, trains or even ships to move the coal. They just dig it out of the ground on site and move it by conveyors.

I was thinking world wide. Shiploads of the stuff leaves Oz shores every day. Or here in SA trainloads go from Leigh Creek to Pt Augusta.

For every kW.hr generated in cities there must be 100 that weren't.

Like Australia for example? Where we have a large oversupply of generating capacity.

It takes a while to manufacture and sell a million EVs per country. I suspect solar panels are being made at a faster rate than EV's worldwide.

We have an oversupply of generating capacity? Every state has a shortage except maybe Tassy. That is when the water is sufficient to run the hydro plants however.

That is why we have all these 'alternative' power sources like wind,, only when the wind is in the right quarter, not too stiff, not too soft and the spot price is high enough to sell the power!

That and ten thousand mini solar power stations putting a bit back in the grid.

Solar on a commercial scale is possibly a sound proposition, there is some talk about having one near Pt Augusta where the rest of the distribution network makes it more economical.It has been done in other sunny climates. Home solar plants and rebates are what is making power so damned expensive and mugs like me without are subsidising the rest. 

Wind as described above is very borderline, here in SA subscribed too by a bankrupt govt that has no money to use more economic means. With the 'oh it is green' tag. The reason we now have the worlds most expensive electricity. 

The same is happening in many areas. And if demand increases will get worse. So no plug in cars are not an answer.Apart from useless range that makes them a shopping hack and no more. You cannot even go for a Sunday drive in the things! So no real valid point, makes hybrids look sensible.

"We have an oversupply of generating capacity"

 

Corrected that for you.

 

See today's business section in The Australian, or http://www.abc.net.a...4-04-27/5406022

Heven forbid, if we maintain the RET three more coal fired power stations will have to close by 2020.

We have an oversupply of generating capacity? Every state has a shortage except maybe Tassy. That is when the water is sufficient to run the hydro plants however.

That is why we have all these 'alternative' power sources like wind,, only when the wind is in the right quarter, not too stiff, not too soft and the spot price is high enough to sell the power!

That and ten thousand mini solar power stations putting a bit back in the grid.

Solar on a commercial scale is possibly a sound proposition, there is some talk about having one near Pt Augusta where the rest of the distribution network makes it more economical.It has been done in other sunny climates. Home solar plants and rebates are what is making power so damned expensive and mugs like me without are subsidising the rest. 

Wind as described above is very borderline, here in SA subscribed too by a bankrupt govt that has no money to use more economic means. With the 'oh it is green' tag. The reason we now have the worlds most expensive electricity. 

The same is happening in many areas. And if demand increases will get worse. So no plug in cars are not an answer.Apart from useless range that makes them a shopping hack and no more. You cannot even go for a Sunday drive in the things! So no real valid point, makes hybrids look sensible.

 

http://www.hydro.com...ter/lake-levels

 

The Hydro has also invested heavily in wind power. The combination of wind power and hydro dams can be used to provide baseload. When the wind turbines produce more than what is used they can pump water into the dams. 

 

FWIW, a few weeks ago for a period of time, maybe an hour, 99% of South Australia's power requirements came from wind.

In the US, utility electrical accounts for over 60% of the total power consumed, and most of this power currently comes from coal and NG. Even though the US has far more EVs in use than any other country, they still only represent a tiny fraction of total road vehicles. At best, the greatest percentage of electric autos that would be practical in the US market would probably be around 75%. But even at this level,  the reduction in annual US CO2 emissions would not be that great since the electrical power for the EVs would still come from NG or coal.

By the time EV's get to 75% (many years from now) coal will be a much smaller player in the US generating market. Renewables and nuclear will take up the slack.

We have an oversupply of generating capacity? Every state has a shortage except maybe Tassy. 

No shortage here, they recently cancelled the construction of two new natural gas power stations near here due to lack of demand because of the increased wind and solar power systems. 

Edited by Catalina Park, 27 August 2014 - 09:52.

Apparently wind and solar etc. make coal-fired power 13% to 14% dearer for the rest of us. Bastards.

Apparently not.

 

"The Australian Energy Markets Commission says the renewable energy target adds four per cent to the average electricity bill. For an average household, that's about a dollar a week."

 

From the link provided above by Greg.

You tell me 4% - and a face on TV tells me 13% or 14% - who do you believe? I can make no judgement on just what percentage myself.

You tell me 4% - and a face on TV tells me 13% or 14% - who do you believe? I can make no judgement on just what percentage myself.

 

 The face on TV is just as likely to have misread the cue card.

 

http://www.bca.com.a...s-to-be-amended

 

The RET costs, according to this report, a staggering $49 per household per year! Mind you, they are against the RET and renewables.

 

Other modelling shows that by 2021 the RET will be saving money on the average bill.

 

Our Prime Minister said a couple of months ago that the average household would save $550 per year after the mislabelled carbon tax was repealed. In South Australia the number seems to be about $136. In Tasmania the average consumer will save $0 from the repeal. I expect Mr Abbott will be sending out checks for the shortfall.

 

http://www.hydro.com...nal_Revised.pdf

You tell me 4% . . .

Not me, I just copied and pasted from Greg's link.

http://www.abc.net.a...4-04-27/5406022

http://www.hydro.com...ter/lake-levels

 

The Hydro has also invested heavily in wind power. The combination of wind power and hydro dams can be used to provide baseload. When the wind turbines produce more than what is used they can pump water into the dams. 

 

FWIW, a few weeks ago for a period of time, maybe an hour, 99% of South Australia's power requirements came from wind.

Correction, it came from Pt Augusta and Torrens Island power stations. Or from the transformers supplied by them. The total wind generation may power a large town, small city that does not use cubic power, such as Pt Pirie.

Reputedly,,, maybe,, the wind can power the desal plant. not the whole state.

 

Tassy has had a drought and was struggling for water for the generating plants. Not sure if the drought has broken there yet or not. When the water is there Tassy does have excess capacity of true clean power. That is if you discount the enviromental damage building the dams. Which happens by burning a lot of diesel to do so. SW Tassy will never be the same. Though an interesting scheme though.

In my many Tassy visits over the decades I saw a good bit of the construction. 

You tell me 4% - and a face on TV tells me 13% or 14% - who do you believe? I can make no judgement on just what percentage myself.

Probably more than 14%. Green power costs a lot more and cannot provide base load as it is too unreliable.

Reputedly solar done on a large scale is efficient,, that is when the sun is shining! And the sun never shines as bright, nor near as long in the winter. Anywhere. So base load is still by burning something. Unless you have a LOT of water for hydro. Which ofcourse is a minority in Oz.

The sun doesn't shine much at night either.

Correction, it came from Pt Augusta and Torrens Island power stations. Or from the transformers supplied by them. The total wind generation may power a large town, small city that does not use cubic power, such as Pt Pirie.

Reputedly,,, maybe,, the wind can power the desal plant. not the whole state.

 

Tassy has had a drought and was struggling for water for the generating plants. Not sure if the drought has broken there yet or not. When the water is there Tassy does have excess capacity of true clean power. That is if you discount the enviromental damage building the dams. Which happens by burning a lot of diesel to do so. SW Tassy will never be the same. Though an interesting scheme though.

In my many Tassy visits over the decades I saw a good bit of the construction. 

 

 Drought broke years ago.

 

And as I said, since they haven't been able to build any more dams they have invested in wind power.

 

Dams may require lots of carbon to build, but they last 100s of years and do not require constant feeding of carbon.

 

I repeat, a couple of weeks ago 99% of all of South Australia's power requirements were satisfied by wind power for a short period - an hour or so. It was quite windy at the time.

The sun doesn't shine much at night either.

 

http://en.wikipedia....salt_technology

 

The sun often shines when the demand is at its highest. Ie hot summer days.

Probably more than 14%. Green power costs a lot more and cannot provide base load as it is too unreliable.

Reputedly solar done on a large scale is efficient,, that is when the sun is shining! And the sun never shines as bright, nor near as long in the winter. Anywhere. So base load is still by burning something. Unless you have a LOT of water for hydro. Which ofcourse is a minority in Oz.

 

Green power is cheaper and is lowering wholesale electricity prices across Australia.

 

The figure of 4% has been found by studies by reputable people.

 

Less than $50 for the average household was found by a study commissioned by the Business Council who are, like you, hostile to renewabl energies.

 

Also, lets not forget that the fossil fuel industry receives around $20bn in subsidies per year. Fossil fuels aint cheap, and they aint sustainable.

 

Also, there are more people working in solar power than there are in coal fired power generation.

Things move forward. The writing is on the wall, for those who want to see it. It gives me hope for the future.

I see the Plug in Hybrid as a stop gap solution. It will be a paranthesis in the automotive industry, a bridge between ICE and BEV. Something for people who needs both suspenders and belt.

There's a lot of talk about "green" here, but what I think will eventually drive the change to BEV is economy. The running costs are much lower and in the long run you can save a lot of money. There are examples around the net if you care to look for them. Like this video:

http://youtu.be/ybt5...SgWNs9ZAvRMhW2A

Green power is cheaper and is lowering wholesale electricity prices across Australia.
 
The figure of 4% has been found by studies by reputable people.
 
Less than $50 for the average household was found by a study commissioned by the Business Council who are, like you, hostile to renewabl energies.
 
Also, lets not forget that the fossil fuel industry receives around $20bn in subsidies per year. Fossil fuels aint cheap, and they aint sustainable.
 
Also, there are more people working in solar power than there are in coal fired power generation.

If you mean "sustainable" in the sense that fossil fuels are running out - there is enough coal, coal seam gas, tar sands etc. etc. to last many hundreds of years.
If the fossil fuels are there somebody will use them.

Does a wind turbine, solar cell etc. ever produce more energy than the amount of energy that was needed to produce the materials they are made of - that is, within their operating lives?

If you mean "sustainable" in the sense that fossil fuels are running out - there is enough coal, coal seam gas, tar sands etc. etc. to last many hundreds of years.
If the fossil fuels are there somebody will use them.

Does a wind turbine, solar cell etc. ever produce more energy than the amount of energy that was needed to produce the materials they are made of - that is, within their operating lives?

 

I'm sure they do. Sceptics always claim they can't.

 

I mean economically and environmentally sustainable.

 

Not to mention the health effects that burning **** has for the community. 

 

Burning coal to produce power seems to me like a dying industry. 

If you mean "sustainable" in the sense that fossil fuels are running out - there is enough coal, coal seam gas, tar sands etc. etc. to last many hundreds of years.
If the fossil fuels are there somebody will use them.

Does a wind turbine, solar cell etc. ever produce more energy than the amount of energy that was needed to produce the materials they are made of - that is, within their operating lives?

 

They will only be used if it is economically viable to do so. The day will come when that is no longer the case.

 

Of course they do. Think about it. Not only would the device be energy negative, it would also be financially loss-making. Yes they may be subsidised but only a moron would subsidise an energy pit and call it an energy source. One minute of Googling could have averted your posting such rubbish.

 

China is locked into a coal dependent economy but is desperately working on solar, wind and nuclear to extract themselves. Australia is desperately working to entrench their coal based economy.

Edited by gruntguru, 29 August 2014 - 22:26.

Green power is cheaper and is lowering wholesale electricity prices across Australia.

 

The figure of 4% has been found by studies by reputable people.

 

Less than $50 for the average household was found by a study commissioned by the Business Council who are, like you, hostile to renewabl energies.

 

Also, lets not forget that the fossil fuel industry receives around $20bn in subsidies per year. Fossil fuels aint cheap, and they aint sustainable.

 

Also, there are more people working in solar power than there are in coal fired power generation.

Bloody Hell. It is VERY well known that Green power is the reason for record HIGH power prices. This is announced regularly in the media, read any report from Electricity wholesalers. It is no where near as efficient as burning something to generate steam to turn a generator.

And worse not nearly as Green as often made out.

Nuclear is at a generating standpoint by far the most Green,,,, tis a pity about the waste and accidents!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 29 August 2014 - 23:02.

If you mean "sustainable" in the sense that fossil fuels are running out - there is enough coal, coal seam gas, tar sands etc. etc. to last many hundreds of years.
If the fossil fuels are there somebody will use them.

Does a wind turbine, solar cell etc. ever produce more energy than the amount of energy that was needed to produce the materials they are made of - that is, within their operating lives?

Exactly, the last sentence says it all.

Bloody Hell. It is VERY well known that Green power is the reason for record HIGH power prices. This is announced regularly in the media, read any report from Electricity wholesalers. It is no where near as efficient as burning something to generate steam to turn a generator.

And worse not nearly as Green as often made out.

Nuclear is at a generating standpoint by far the most Green,,,, tis a pity about the waste and accidents!

 

No, it is put forward by the fossil fuel industry and their acolytes (ie the Australian, well, any Murdoch press, and climate change deniers).

 

The record high prices, as per the article linked by Greg, are from record expendiatures in grid infrastructure. Green power has seen a fall in wholesale prices.

 

The reason for increased spending on infrastructure is the requirement to be able to cover peak demand. Of course it hasn't helped that those building the infrastructure over-inflated that demand.

If you mean "sustainable" in the sense that fossil fuels are running out - there is enough coal, coal seam gas, tar sands etc. etc. to last many hundreds of years.
If the fossil fuels are there somebody will use them.

Does a wind turbine, solar cell etc. ever produce more energy than the amount of energy that was needed to produce the materials they are made of - that is, within their operating lives?

 

 

Exactly, the last sentence says it all.

 

http://www.scienceda...40616093317.htm

 

 

 

in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.

 

 

 

 

Their analysis shows that the vast majority of predicted environmental impacts would be caused by materials production and manufacturing processes. However, the payback for the associated energy use is within about 6 months, the team found. It is likely that even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.

The problem with the simple energy payback argument is that it ignores other effects. A recent paper suggests that a power generating  technology has to have an energy payback of 7 or more to be effective.  However if the source is intermittent and has to be buffered the effective energy payback is halved or worse.

 

http://theenergycoll...-energy-storage

That paper suggests an energy payback of 16 - the one I posted suggests a payback of 30-40 (6-8 months payback time, 20 year life).

 

I guess the trick with wind is the siting of them. If you, for instance, placed them in the Launceston area you would no doubt get a poor return - because of the low amounts of wind. If, on the other hand, you placed them on top of Mt Wellington you would do quite well (I don't think the wind ever stops up there!). That is why Tasmania's largest wind farm in on the North West Coast - good wind source.

 

Solar PV  in that article is from Germany. I would think that in Australia solar PV would be substantially more viable. A co-worker of mine lives on Tassie's east coast. During the summer months he gets more than double the power he needs, which is then sold back to the grid. In the winter it is about half. Over the year he will generate more power than he needs and will, with the current tarriff arrangements, make a profit.

That paper suggests an energy payback of 16 - the one I posted suggests a payback of 30-40 (6-8 months payback time, 20 year life).
 
I guess the trick with wind is the siting of them. If you, for instance, placed them in the Launceston area you would no doubt get a poor return - because of the low amounts of wind. If, on the other hand, you placed them on top of Mt Wellington you would do quite well (I don't think the wind ever stops up there!). That is why Tasmania's largest wind farm in on the North West Coast - good wind source.
 
Solar PV  in that article is from Germany. I would think that in Australia solar PV would be substantially more viable. A co-worker of mine lives on Tassie's east coast. During the summer months he gets more than double the power he needs, which is then sold back to the grid. In the winter it is about half. Over the year he will generate more power than he needs and will, with the current tarriff arrangements, make a profit.

This is totally beside the point - but apparently 50% of the Tasmanian population is "functionally illiterate". Hard to believe in modern times.

Good wind source? Onions, boiled cabbage, Sultana Bran etc.

This is totally beside the point - but apparently 50% of the Tasmanian population is "functionally illiterate". Hard to believe in modern times.

Unbelievable - yes. Also not true.
 
 

Good wind source? Onions, boiled cabbage, Sultana Bran etc.

A location where the wind blows more consistantly than average. Like on top of a mountain, or on the west coast facing the "roaring 40s".

 

Or near parliament house in Canberra.

the bullshit in parliament house Canberra gennerates a lot of hot air which naturally rises and causes a low pressure cell so the inrusshing cooler air makes an exceptionally good site for a windfarm     

Unbelievable - yes. Also not true.

Sadly, it does appear to be true. I wish I had made it up.

http://www.abc.net.a...13/s3948357.htm

All the above comes down to the GW debate:

It (GW) may be happening - it may not be happening - no real proof for either side of the argument.

It (and increased CO2) may be harmful to the Earth - it may be of benefit to the earth - nobody can say definitely one way or the other.

Essentially there is absolutely nothing that anybody on Earth (or even everybody on Earth) can do to change the CO2 situation - and if the CO2 level could be lowered - would this be a good or bad thing?

No amount of hybrids, EVs, renewable energy etc. etc. could make the slightest difference to the CO2 level. Australia alone exports more than 200 million of coal per year (all of which will be burnt) - this fact totally overrides any possible advantages from hybrids, EVs etc. etc.

Why ruin the economy (with carbon taxes etc.) for purely symbolic reasons?

The whole GW debate is driven totally by ideological forces on both sides - but certainly mainly by the Left.

Every sane person would like not to have to burn coal to make electricity (I am very familiar with the incredible mess they are making in the Hunter Valley mines) - everybody would like a Star Trek style "anti-matter reactor" which just sat there quietly and made vast amounts of electricity - but it is not likely to happen anytime soon. Modern society needs vast amounts of electrical energy - the only way to do this at present is by burning coal (- apart from nuclear which is also blocked by the Left in Oz). No amount of wind, solar, wave etc. etc. can do the job - nor will they have the slightest effect on CO2 levels.

That paper suggests an energy payback of 16 - the one I posted suggests a payback of 30-40 (6-8 months payback time, 20 year life).

 

I guess the trick with wind is the siting of them. If you, for instance, placed them in the Launceston area you would no doubt get a poor return - because of the low amounts of wind. If, on the other hand, you placed them on top of Mt Wellington you would do quite well (I don't think the wind ever stops up there!). That is why Tasmania's largest wind farm in on the North West Coast - good wind source.

 

Solar PV  in that article is from Germany. I would think that in Australia solar PV would be substantially more viable. A co-worker of mine lives on Tassie's east coast. During the summer months he gets more than double the power he needs, which is then sold back to the grid. In the winter it is about half. Over the year he will generate more power than he needs and will, with the current tarriff arrangements, make a profit.

Yeah, because of the unsustainable tarriffs that were offered. BUT the solar panels need replacing every few years, something you have to do at your own expense. I wont play the game,, IF you have a roof top solar I am subsidising you quite heavily. The hundred thousand rooftop solar deals are so inefficient. Any home grown electricity generation not done in large volume is inefficient, another reason for South Australia having the worlds most expensive electricity. That and government incompetence too ofcourse.

A statistic from a discussion on a youtube video 

 

 

More people die from the effects of coal fired power stations every year than have ever been killed by nuclear accidents.

 

So it is more than just global warming that is at issue.

 

As for the carbon tax, it successfully reduced the amount of Co2 emissions from power generation. It did not wreck the economy.

 

If we can't reduce our carbon footprint, how can we expect countries like India and China to do so? The sad fact is both these countries are already doing more to deal with it than we are.

Yeah, because of the unsustainable tarriffs that were offered. BUT the solar panels need replacing every few years, something you have to do at your own expense. I wont play the game,, IF you have a roof top solar I am subsidising you quite heavily. The hundred thousand rooftop solar deals are so inefficient. Any home grown electricity generation not done in large volume is inefficient, another reason for South Australia having the worlds most expensive electricity. That and government incompetence too ofcourse.

 

20-25 year life span for PVs.

 

Are you subsidising them, or really just purchasing the power?

Sadly, it does appear to be true. I wish I had made it up.

http://www.abc.net.a...13/s3948357.htm

 

I still don't believe it.

 

The statistic shown there refers to 15yos tested that failed the minimum stardard for English - 47% for Tasmanians, 36% for all Australia. Isn't that more than a bit disturbing for the mainland too?

I still don't believe it.
 
The statistic shown there refers to 15yos tested that failed the minimum stardard for English - 47% for Tasmanians, 36% for all Australia. Isn't that more than a bit disturbing for the mainland too?

Well - it did plainly say at the beginning "At least half" of the population. Could have been a mistake I suppose.

A statistic from a discussion on a youtube video 
 

 
More people die from the effects of coal fired power stations every year than have ever been killed by nuclear accidents.
 
So it is more than just global warming that is at issue.
 
As for the carbon tax, it successfully reduced the amount of Co2 emissions from power generation. It did not wreck the economy.
 
If we can't reduce our carbon footprint, how can we expect countries like India and China to do so? The sad fact is both these countries are already doing more to deal with it than we are.

I am certainly not arguing against nuclear. I don't know if coal power stations have killed anybody recently in Oz - probably not a lot.

Carbon Tax - how much did it lower the CO2? Literally by no measurable amount at all - zero. Probably killed the Al refining industry in Oz - and it certainly didn't help the economy.
I'm sure the Indians and Chinese are about to be shamed into immediately stopping all coal burning.

All the above comes down to the GW debate:

It (GW) may be happening - it may not be happening - no real proof for either side of the argument.

It (and increased CO2) may be harmful to the Earth - it may be of benefit to the earth - nobody can say definitely one way or the other.

Essentially there is absolutely nothing that anybody on Earth (or even everybody on Earth) can do to change the CO2 situation - and if the CO2 level could be lowered - would this be a good or bad thing?

No amount of hybrids, EVs, renewable energy etc. etc. could make the slightest difference to the CO2 level. Australia alone exports more than 200 million of coal per year (all of which will be burnt) - this fact totally overrides any possible advantages from hybrids, EVs etc. etc.

Why ruin the economy (with carbon taxes etc.) for purely symbolic reasons?

The whole GW debate is driven totally by ideological forces on both sides - but certainly mainly by the Left.

Bush science. 

 

All the things on your list have been researched extensively and the answers are accepted by the scientific community with a high degree of confidence. AGW is accepted by both sides of politics in Australia and the majority of media commentators (a handful of right-wing shock-jocks excepted).

 

Real scientists lean a little to the left. Perhaps one reason the truth of AGW is particularly inconvenient for those on the right.

 

As for hybrids and EV's. The "possible advantages" are lower running costs as petroleum fuels rise in price and EV technology gets steadily cheaper and better performing. By 2020 EV will be a very competitive option for new vehicle buyers and nearly all combustion vehicles will be hybrids.

Edited by gruntguru, 31 August 2014 - 11:51.

Real scientists have no lean and present real theories, real experiments and real results without political judgement or spin. Facts are simply facts to a real scientist, not political tools to force a change a behaviour in any particular direction. Conclusions are drawn from the facts and presented without moral judgement. That is a scientist. Anything else is no longer purely science.

Climate change - not anthro global warming - is a given. As a species we seem hell-bent on status quo: Our borders are fixed, our political systems are fixed, our lifestyles. We would appear to want to impose that on natural cycles too. There were far warmer and colder periods throughout earth's history and nothing we as a species do will impact this. We're on a pendulum that swings at a rate we barely perceive.

This essay (for clarity - I did not author, just agree with) reflects my climate change position:
http://www.engineeri...al-Warming.aspx

Very sane article - I essentially agree with the article as well. I predict the GG will hate it.

A statistic from a discussion on a youtube video 

 

 

More people die from the effects of coal fired power stations every year than have ever been killed by nuclear accidents.

 

So it is more than just global warming that is at issue.

 

As for the carbon tax, it successfully reduced the amount of Co2 emissions from power generation. It did not wreck the economy.

 

If we can't reduce our carbon footprint, how can we expect countries like India and China to do so? The sad fact is both these countries are already doing more to deal with it than we are.

You have been listening to Bill Shorten and Julia Dullard. And Christine Milne too. The carbon tax achieved nothing and cost billions,,, and thousands of jobs. All exported to Asia, where they will make the same products and do it dirtier!

20-25 year life span for PVs.

 

Are you subsidising them, or really just purchasing the power?

About 7 year life [sometimes less] for solar panels. I know many that have already replaced them. 

SA Govt has buildings with them but they cost too much to make viable again.

As I said, I subsidise all these tiny solar stations, probably about 25% 

Sadly, it does appear to be true. I wish I had made it up.

http://www.abc.net.a...13/s3948357.htm

By that standard, 36% of Australians are illiterate. Also, don't know how they go from 47% to "at least half". Am I missing something or is that article ********?

Composed by one of the 47% perhaps?

Another "doomsday lunatic".

 

http://www.ted.com/t...d_of_the_world#

 

http://www.ted.com/t...century#t-30512

Edited by gruntguru, 02 September 2014 - 10:01.