Posted by GeorgeB on February 3, 2008, 6:37 am
It would appear that most of the respondents to my original post
either a.) don't know what they are talking about, b.) haven't done
their homework, or c.) are living in fantasy land.
Not only PV? Well what else is there? I see no alternatives proffered.
Wind power? Well let's see. At 2 Mw each one might expect to get not
48 kw-hrs per day, but more like 10 kw-hrs per day. And how much
energy do people consume? Well, according to the US DoE about 200 kw-
hrs per day per person! That would suggest we would have to install
about 20 wind generators per person. Ooooh look, that's only 13
billion worldwide. Piece of cake, not. And by the way, 200 kw-hrs per
day per person is the world average. Developed countries consume a
nominal 300 kw-hrs per day per person. One quarter of the world has
absolutely no acces to electricity.
Replacing light bulbs? Give it a break! Replacing light bulbs would
reduce total energy consumption by all of 0.2 - 0.4 percent. Pity
Arnie has spent so much time and energy achieving pretty much nothing.
But it looks good, eh?
Which brings me to another point. Doesn't anyone know there is a
difference between total energy consumption, total electrical energy
consumption, total domestic consumption and total domestic electrical
consumption? Wake up to yourselves!!!!
Tidal power? How many tidal power stations do you see? I thought so.
Is there a solution? You bet. I see Ban Ki-Moon saying that to solve
this problem will cost about $0 trillion over the next two decades.
Apparently he doesn't read his mail. I wrote to him over a year ago
saying that I had found a simple, low cost, economical solution to the
Butl, like all politicians he knows better. Yeah, sure.
BTW, I also the same to the members of the UN General Assembly, as
well as the members of the Australian Federal Parliament, as well as
the members of all Australian state parliaments, as well as Al Gore,
as well as David Suzukiu. Didn't get one reply.
I guess all politicians are the same.
BTW, don't bother writing to me until you have done your homwork and
are ready to show facts and figures, as I have done, see www.global-reality.net
And don't bother writing to me to ask what my solution to the problem
is. Write to your politicians and ask them why they aren't doing their
Posted by klonq on February 3, 2008, 8:18 am
Jakthehammer might be a millionaire if he spent his Saturday nights
working out how to change solar energy into hydrogen. And he might
have a better personality if he spent them going out with friends
instead of posting mindless comments.
GeorgeB you're on the right track - PV is too expensive, and compared
to coal hydro power is the best/cheapest form of power but planet
earth has nearly exhausted all possibilities for hydro power and large
scale geothermal. Not only that each renewable technology has serious
question marks over its head.
1. PV reflects more light than grass or rooftops and so this increased
reflection will be trapped by carbon in our atmosphere heating the
planet up in the short term. The argument is that in the long term we
won't be producing as much carbon so the planet will cool down.
2. Wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere and we don't what
the effect of this will be at this stage.
3. Tidal generators have the same problem - not only would we be
taking energy out of ocean currents but also the gravitational field
between the earth and the moon.
4. Nuclear power is cheap but not renewable, its also pretty deadly.
Changing light bulbs isn't going to do it either, but how about
throwing away the air conditioner and the dishwasher? How about
installing insulation, washing the dishes by hand and walking to the
shops instead of taking the car? Infact if you are considering
installing PV I would suggest contacting and eco-architect before hand
and undertaking some renovations - its cheaper that way, or install 5-
star refrigerators etc. Putting some thought into home and office
design is the best way to go, in NSW the government introduced BASIX
to address this and its a nice attempt but by no means a final
solution. Energy consumption isn't that high, I can tell you a few
things in NSW electricity for aluminium smeltering accounts for about
13% of the state's capacity and elevators about 7%, typical
residential consumption is about 15-20 kWh per day per household
(about 7 kWh/day/person) in Australia.
No one solution will work as you have pointed out it will take a
combined effort from the international community. Rudd has ratified
Kyoto, which is nice but this doesn't quite go far enough either. My
opinion is community education and in particular educating the Ban Ki-
Moon's of the world - the decision makers.
But enlighten me - what's your solution. I've got to say the guys you
have been emailing are probably really busy guys, they probably get a
thousand of these cheap alternatives. And between you and me (and the
whole world) I don't think Al Gore knows his stuff either. Which
problem do you think you can solve cheaply?
Posted by Jakthehammer on February 3, 2008, 10:12 am
And KKonq misunderstood the context of my post.... Heehee.....First look
at his lengthy mindless comment people and judge for
yourself....Heehee........ Hey What do you know? Maybe the guilty Baboon
is not far from your monitor....Yup, through the window of your monitor,
that's IT.... HE IS YOU! Heehee...
Posted by Anthony Matonak on February 3, 2008, 8:32 am
It looks like you've chosen to blind yourself to the alternatives.
Wind (including flying wind turbines), ocean currents, solar thermal,
ocean thermal, geothermal and biomass are all alternatives. Add some
solar PV and conservation and you've got a pretty robust mix of energy
Are you seriously suggesting that a 2 megawatt wind turbine produces
10 kilowatt-hours a day? Perhaps you meant 10 megawatt-hours a day.
: One Vestas V80 (a 2 MW wind turbine) ... the turbine generated
: 5 million kWh per year.
5,000,000 kWh/year / 365 = 13,700 kWh/day = 13.7 MWh/day
The average home in the United States is often quoted as consuming
about 24 kWh/day so each one of these 2MW wind turbines would be
enough to power some 570 homes.
Even using your numbers of 300 kWh/day/person this single wind turbine
would be enough for 45 people and it's not even the largest wind turbine
on the market.
Vestas makes a 3MW wind turbine.
: The Enercon E-126 delivers up to 6 MW...
: The REpower 5M delivers up to 5 MW...
Posted by Mauried on February 3, 2008, 9:06 am
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:32:47 -0800, Anthony Matonak
Unfortunately this logic doesnt stack up.
The wind turbine makes 300 kwh a day, the people use 300 kwh a day,
so therefore the wind turbine can meet the needs of the 45 people.
Well sorry no.
The wind turbine makes 300 kwh a day but at any time thruout the day
the wind speed may = 0, and the turbine is making nothing.
So what do the people do when the Turbine is making nothing.
You have to get the power from somewhere else , and this then means
you must factor in the costs of getting the power from the somewhere
So you really need a 2 MW Turbine + a 2 MW back up Base load power
plant to supply the 45 people.