You have worked yourself up into a lather.

Whoever it was upthread who made the point that the stuff we talk about here really changes very little was right. In the end it doesn’t matter if you think my opinion is total bollocks or the words of an oracle, or anything in between. The probability that anything said here by anyone will even be quoted by anyone close enough to policy to have a hand in shaping it is trifling.

What we are really doing here is a series of thought experiments with others who, like us, are fascinated with public policy, feel a need to express ourselves, and for the most part are somewhat left-of-centre. It’s a lot of fun, and often, we can find out how others of similar general disposition might respond to the things we fancy we have figured out.

You say solar is the way to go. I have serious doubts, though I would be pleased to be wrong. As I said, my fear is that if you are wrong, and nuclear keeps being blocked, we will simply get coal, coal and more coal, until it stops being viable and the ecosystem is a mess. But if a whole bunch of really clever entrepreneurs figure out how to replace coal in a hurry with something better that isn’t nuclear and sell that concept to the public successfully and soon, on a world scale, then I will most happily concede my mistake.

Until that day arrives though, or if it arrives too late to make a difference, I will continue to fear an oncoming ecological and human catastrophe. Let’s hope one of us gets proved correct very soon.

This is our democracy at work. Those seeking election generally come from the law, education, unions/business, and the social welfare sector. By my observations at least. However many of the decisions about our future are heavily dependent on science and engineering knowledge. Passion just does not bridge that gap. How can we make this better and safer? How can we make our democratic decision making sharper. Do we have the wrong mix of talents and skills in our parliaments?

Second the comments of Tim Macknay and BilB upthread.

Fran, before you get too condescending with me again, I will refer you back to your appalling effort on an earlier thread where you tried and totally failed to demonstrate why solar was ineffective. Your calculations were soo emabarrassingly wrong, I am amazed that you continue to argue the case. Even after I spelt out the errors in both assumptions and calculations, you continued on in the same vein.

I doubt you have any real idea about solar technology, despite your claims to have “spent extensive time looking at the economics and the constraints…”. If that were so, you would not make so many plainly wrong statements.

I also doubt that you understand much about hydro, since in an earlier thread you did not seem to grasp the basics of hydrostatic head and friction losses. And you had a thick enough hide to suggest that I didn’t understand basic physics, when I challenged it. Remember the rediculous analogy to your washing machine overflowing? You clearly didn’t understand what you were talking about.

Fran, it would appear that you make a habit of reading and collating the stories of others, without any real understanding of the technology in each case. You then grossly overstate your position in areas where you have limited real expertise.

You may fool yourself, Fran, and some others with negligible technical background. There is no harm in having an opinion, but you really should try to refrain from overselling your limited knowledge.

Of course you are going to say “what happens when the sun goes down”. For starters these systems are still working on cloudy days, just at a reduced rate. Secondly, over the next 20 years, as pointed out by a Dutch researcher, many households will have access to a recycled automotive energy pack which, while no longer efficient enough to power a car at peak performance, will still be suitable for domestic energy storage and delivery.

You are going to have to start thinking about these sorts of systems in the same way as we thought about computer printers. Every year a different price, better and cheaper. Against a trend like that Nuclear is no longer relevent.

So coming back to the thread, again I say that Monbiet may achieve a battle win based on exact timing, but the campaign is already won in Leggett’s favour. And as to latitudes and seasons these systems are partially self compensating, and no I won’t spell out how that applies.

It must be highlighted however that these figures refer to total energy output – which combines both the electrical and heat power – not just electrical output, as is the case with standard solar cells. The standard CUESS panel produces 400 watts of electrical power and 1700 watts of heat power for a total of 2100 watts. It is this combination of heat and electrical energy output that allows the developers of the CUESS technology that allows them to claim a lifting of efficiency from around 18 percent for standard solar panels to over 50 percent.

Don’t get me wrong — progress is progress, and if this does no more than is claimed, then I will be every bit as happy as you to celebrate. Apparently it is going to be used alongside utilities as an adjunct to existing supply, which sounds sensible to me on a number of grounds. In settings where significant hot water and electricity is demanded, this could be excellent.

I still don’t see how it can carry the industrial loads the main system carries though.

And no sooner spoken about, here is a similar technology to the one that I am involved with.

http://www.gizmag.com/cuess-solar-panel-photovoltaic/14507/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=d65a18b76e-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

The future is Solar, get used to it. Nuclear cannot compete against this in our geographic situation.

In response to Frans assertion that nuclear and then gas are the best alternative to our current coal addiction, I must point out that both uranium and gas are finite resources with less than 50 years supply available, in the case of uranium, we would run out in less than 10 years if all power generation was switched to nuclear.

This is a more ambitious claim than the usual 50 years for uranium but it is wrong on several counts

I refer readers to detailed modelling by Professor David Mackay, UK Government adviser on these matters:

In summary, we not only have our existing RARs of uranium, but with IFRs, the entuire waste inventory is available too — enough on some estimates to power all of the world’s energy for 475 years. Currently, only about 0.6% of the uranium is used. Not only is this more efficient, it radically reduces the time the resultant hazmat needs to be sequestered.

Moreover, seawater contains uranium that could be extracted at about $300kg. Again, the fuel cost would make very little difference to energy prices as fuel cost is a trivial part of the power supply cost with nuclear.

And there is of course thorium, which is about three times as abundant as uranium. Australia has about 20% of world RARs of thorium.

“If a 40.7% efficient solar panel costs ten times as much to buy as one that is 10% efficient, you lose on the trade, all else being equal”

Fran you don’t know what you are talking about on this, and I can’t enlighten you at the moment because I have a commercial interest in this technology. Just suffice it to say that $1.50 per watt is achieveable today, as I said above.

Maggie M,

I don’t believe in the need to cut back on the functions that our energy consumption allows. I believe that the future is entirely electrically powered, just as Carbonsink has proclaimed for such a long time. The exciting thing about further extending electric power into so many new areas is that it is far more efficient than liquid fuel power. And even more exciting than that is that this will be entirely powered from the sun, and this transition can take as little as 40 years.

I was recently in Qingdao (China), and every building there had solar waterheating units (multiples thereof) on their rooves, right down to tin shacks. The disturbing thing was that everybody drove cars. I saw about 3 bicycles in this city of 10 million, quite the opposite of Beijing. The message there is that the fuel will not last much longer, just as you suggest.

Bloody efficiency isn’t the point, Fran. Cost per kWh to the consumer is the point.

Indeed it is Elise, and if you calmed down a moment, you’d grasp that that was my point.

If a 40.7% efficient solar panel costs ten times as much to buy as one that is 10% efficient, you lose on the trade, all else being equal. If a 5% efficient set of solar panels cost less than half the price of the 10% one, then you are ahead, all else being equal.

NASA’s panels had no cost constraint, and were aimed at powering satellites and so they could spend a considerable amount getting them up to the efficiency they wanted.

If you want to use a gas transition you need to specify what year the production of gas fired will start to decline and what year it will cease if you are to get realistic comparison of alternatives.

It seems to me that the year 2018 might be a year in which we could begin to review the status of nuclear power with benefit of a working IFR (2015 in Russia) and a number of thorium plants in India. By 2025 we might have the first 2 or 3 GenIII and GenIV plants here. From there we could add about 3GWe every five years until all the remaining coal and gas was phased out, possibly by about 2060.