🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:11:55 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:

>
>Greig Ebeling wrote in message <39390953.3661908@news.bigpond.com>...
>>On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:53:45 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:
>>
><edit>
>
>>Of course it is technically possible to build a solar-powered house,
>>independent of the grid.  The problem is that it is too expensive.
>>Ant could do it now, but he won't because he can't afford it.  His
>>dream involves nameless, faceless engineers in overalls, installing
>>his clean power system free-of-charge.  No doubt each day the men in
>>overalls fail to appear, he blames people like me, because of my lack
>>of faith in his solar dreamworld.
>
>OK greig, just to make it clear, you have stepped outside the area of
>rational debate with the above, you have engaged in unfounded and baseless
>speculation and projection.

I thought that was started with your comment: "ignore greigs rantings,
he is seriously out of touch with the current state of the art in
energy generation."  

>"The problem is that it is too expensive. Ant could do it now, but he won't
>because he can't afford it"
>
>in the above sentences you have implied knowledge of intimate details of my
>personal income and attitude to energy expenditure. do you know these
>things to be true greig?

No, I don't, I was just guessing.  You seem to know so little about
solar PV power generation, and you have very transparently failed to
respond to the crux of my posts, so I didn't believe for a second you
actually had PV panels.  If I was wrong, my apologies.

>you have made a basless slur on my charater from my point of view, perhaps
>you were projecting your attitudes onto myself.

Perhaps I wasn't, perhaps I was just guessing.

>BTW i am "doing it" now with over 200 watts of PV collectors already
>installed, as they pay for themselves over the life of the installation
>cost is hardly a real problem. i am going to keep expanding the system as i
>can afford to, as the system is _modular_ the individual unit cost per
>panel is acceptable IMO.

Great, perhaps you can tell us more about your system which pays for
itself.  What type of panels, what batteries do you use, what devices
do you drive with the solar system, how much was your initial
investment, how long before you need to replace you batteries and
panels?

I have presented my own preferred system, and estimated costs in a
seperate post, and I don't see how a solar system could possibly "pay
for itself".  So, since you made the claim, let's have some figures. 

>"His dream involves nameless, faceless engineers in overalls, installing
>his clean power system free-of-charge"
>
>wrong again Greig, my dream is to see people take responsibility for their
>own energy generation wherever possible. small scale, decentralized and
>efficient power generation.
>my dream is to see an integrated approach to energy generation and use,
>with clean, waste free energy sources exploited wherever possible, with
>small solar plants and wind farms capable of powering a village and
>scalable enough to power a city. i dont know where the "faceless engineers
>in overalls" comes from as in my dream people understand the technology and
>have th skills to perform basic maintenance themselves and to know when it
>would be appropriate to call a local expert. the beauty of wind and solar
>systems is their simplicity, you dont need a thousand construction workers
>and a hundred nuclear technicians to run a village solar/wind plant. banks
>and energy providers offering to finance the conversion to renewable energy
>sources for a percentage of the energy generated by the plant. 

Your dream is an unrealistic vision.  Very few people have the skill,
education or inclination to manage complex energy generation systems.
They just want to plug in and turn on.  Lethergy makes centralised
energy generation marketable.  Yet it is impractical to install PV
panels on rooftops as part of a centrally managed system.

>already
>utilities in california are installing solar panels on their customers
>roofs, and offering them rebates on their power bills. 

Fine, but is it economically viable?  Or is it just part of those very
expensive politically motivated schemes attempting to meet Kyoto
targets.  Some figures please, not just anecdotes.

>i dont believe that
>the solution to that African villages energy crisis is to build a massive
>nuclear power plant, move the inhabitants of several hundred villages into
>a city and provide power to that. 

Neither do I.  The city should have a nuclear plant, the villages
connect to the grid where they can, and use a combination of renewable
systems and diesel generators when they can't.

>i believe that we get energy to cheap and
>have no problem with increased power bills to finance the conversion,
>afterall after a few years the systems will be paid for and fuel is not an
>ongoing cost issue, neither is long term waste storage, nuclear
>proliferation or accidental contamination of large areas of the
>environment.

Fuel is never a major part of the cost of power, and neither is
nuclear waste management or plant decommissioning.  The main cost is
the plant construction and operation, and the energy transport
infrastructure and management.  Both nuclear and solar power have
exactly the same issues with up-front capital expenditure, and the
requirement to show a ROI on the funds used.

It turns out that nuclear provides much more reliable power, at a
fraction of the cost of solar.

>"No doubt each day the men in overalls fail to appear, he blames people
>like me, because of my lack of faith in his solar dreamworld."
>
>so each day your nuclear utopia fails to appear it is the fault of us non
>believers in the nuclear dream, not because of any fundamental faults with
>the technology.

That's right.  

Many people have an irrational fear of of all things "nuclear", and
this fuels the political movement which is preventing the use of
nuclear power, when it would be an a better cleaner, more
environmentally sound choice than fossil fuels.


...Greig