Tag Archives: solar

Stimulus-Backed Solar Facility Touted By Harry Reid Shuts Down

Looks like we have another winner in the green jobs category. It won’t be long before there’s no solar panels being made in the United States.  Sounds like it should be called Solyndra II. The Democrats and the Obama Administration sure can pick ’em! Gory details (or should that be Gore-ee) at the source below.

Source: The Foundry

2 Comments

Filed under Solar

Are We Bored With Climate Change?

Americans Bored? This guy looks like the definition or boring!

Here’s a good one. A Brit named Ian McEwan writes a book on climate change called Solar (my how original!), then blames Americans being bored with climate change as the reason the book tanked. Gotta love that ego. Moreover he gets bad reviews and blames us being bored for that, too!

Here’s something from the Telegraph about the book and McEwan.

McEwan blamed American apathy for the negative reviews afforded to Solar, his satire about global warming.

The New York Times critic dismissed Solar as one of McEwan’s “lesser efforts” while the Washington Post called it “flaccid” and advised readers to “let Solar pass and wait for his next book to eclipse it”.

McEwan, who recently returned from a North American book tour, said many Americans had a “passionate dislike” for the novel.

Let me see does “lessor efforts” and “flaccid” sound like Americans are “bored” with climate change? Or, does it sound like the book sucks? Our fault we’re bored? Or, his fault for bad writing?

“Some of [the critics] were moaning that the novel had no plot and was formless, someone else was moaning that there was way too much plot. I think, though, that I caught America in a mood of profound boredom about climate change. They just didn’t want to hear about it any more, they were sick to the teeth. I think there was a strong element of that.”

Judging by the number of hits some climate change websites get, regardless if they’re “warmer” or “skeptic” sites I’d say he not only got the book wrong, he got the reason for bad reviews and sales wrong, too. Per his statement below, evidently he isn’t really sure we’re bored either.

He added, with a laugh: “Or maybe it was no good, there was always that possibility.”

This could also be a reason we’re turned off by the book.  It perhaps hits a little to close to reality.

The main character in Solar is Michael Beard, a deeply unlikable Nobel Prize-winning physicist engaged in the battle against global warming.

Man, if that doesn’t sound like Al Gore, as they say, “I’ll eat my hat.”  As “popular” as Al is, no wonder they’re panning the book.  I mean who wants to read about a boring, untruthful,  “sex-crazed poodle” who’s carbon footprint is so large someone might think he’s the cause of global warming all by himself? Flying all over telling us not to pollute, buying large mansions. That’s what I call getting off (pardon the pun) to a bad start from the get go.

Want another reason? Well, here from the horse’s mouth” we get the following.

“I did spend a lot of time with the science, and read an enormous number of papers, and it would seem to me there’s a fairly powerful consensus. About three-quarters of the papers I read thought we had a man-made problem and there was some urgency.

“At the same time, there are some very good sceptics out there. Sceptics are completely different from ideologically-driven deniers, who have no evidence but have interests to protect. It’s a very important distinction to make. Some of my best friends are climate change sceptics. The denial camp are really not scientists at all, they are very well-funded, particularly in the States, and they have specific agendas.”

See?  We’re back to that same old “warmer” song with words like “consensus” and “urgency” (damn he forgot unprecedented and robust).

Then we get to more of the same old “warmer” song about skeptics “have no evidence but have interest to protect,” “really not scientists,” “very well-funded,” “specific agendas”

Want some more? It appears us Americans aren’t the only one’s who panned this novel.  Seems the British don’t like it either, which is another indication that someone perhaps should admit that his book sucks, or at the very least that it’s only going to be read with any interest by people like him, who are dimwitted enough to believe in anthropogenic global warming. Here is some of the review from the Guardian, a British newspaper.

Ian McEwan excels at climate science but his one-dimensional protagonist makes you shudder.

Solar is a sly, sardonic novel about a dislikable English physicist and philanderer named Michael Beard. He’s a recognisable Ian McEwan type, a one-dimensional, self-deceiving man of science.

We have met others like him before in McEwan’s novels – such as Joe Rose, the science writer who narrates Enduring Love, or Henry Perowne, the brian surgeon protagonist of Saturday – but none is quite as repulsive as Beard.

Hmmmmmm…….other than the guy being British we’re sounding an awful lot like Al Gore again. I especially like the “repulsive” part. You can read the whole review here.  I love the last paragraph, which is below.

What is absent from Solar, ultimately, are other minds, the sense that people other than Beard are present, equally alive, with something to contribute. Without them, after a while, it feels as if you are locked inside an echo chamber, listening only to the reverberations of the one same sound – the groan of a fat, selfish man in late middle age eating himself.

“Fat, selfish man in late middle age eating himself.” You have to again wonder if he used Al Gore as his model for the hero of the book.  Perhaps he should have marketed as comedy instead of fiction.

No wonder his book tanked. Apparently no one likes it (well, maybe Al Gore bought it).  I may have to read it to see if the “her0” turns into a “sex-poodle” or not.  Perhaps if he’d put some good old-fashioned porn in there he could share the Nobel Porn Price with Pachauri, who writes sex novels. I can see it now…..

“He entered the room with spaghetti sauce dripping from his chin, a portly man who looked like his eyes might pop out of his head any minute. His dark blue robe was half-open and barely covered him up. All of a sudden he flung open the robe and started humping my leg like a sex crazed poodle.”

Nah, the thought of that is even more revolting than anthropogenic global warming.  More CO2 insanity.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Are We Bored With Climate Change?

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief

Solar Power Realities

Peter Lang has a paper titled “Solar Power Realities” that gets down to the nitty-gritty about solar power.

He’s a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy products throughout the world, including managing energy R & D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy and end use management projects.

Here is the abstract.

This paper provides a simple analysis of the capital cost of solar power and energy storage sufficient to meet the demand of Australia’s National Electricity Market. It also considers some of the environmental effects.

It puts the figures in perspective by looking at the limit position, the paper highlights the very high costs imposed by mandating and subsidising solar power. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The capital cost would be 20 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.

Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others.

Here is a link to his paper (PDF).

He as also written an addendum, here is a link (PDF).

Here is a link to another paper of his on the cost of transmission (PDF).

Here is a link to Brave New Climate where the papers and articles about this reside.

Comments Off on Solar Power Realities

Filed under Peter Lang, Renewable Energy

The Madness of King Rudd

UPDATE: I got booted out of office!

Author: Terence Cardwell

In 1994 they made a movie called ‘The Madness of King George.’ A true story about the eccentric and erratic behaviour of King George the 3rd of England, who exhibited increasing strange and eccentric behaviour, ignoring all logic and common sense to do as he wished.

In the near future they will no doubt be making another one based on the same behaviour of Kevin Rudd, called ‘The Madness of King Rudd.’

In spite of all the screaming facts from all corners of the globe that now has become apparent about renewable energy and global warming Kevin Rudd still refuses to listen or look at the truth and still declares that 20% of our power generation will be renewable energy.

——- IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT.

And if it was possible (and I repeat it is not) the influence from the unreliable wind or solar generators would cause instability in the power grid system as they continually change without any warning.

Also there would have to be a spinning reserve in the grid system in excess of 20%. plus normal spinning reserve to cover the largest unit ( in N.S.W. 660MWs)  plus spare.

That reserve would be covered by thermal power station units backed off sufficiently in load to immediately pick up if required. This affects their generation efficiency as they are at maximum efficiency at full load. Thus increasing generation cost.

And no you cannot just ‘turn them on and off’ like light switches. To bring a coal fired thermal unit to at least mid load or better operating level can take up to twelve hours or more from a cold start.

Hot starts are quicker but are not good for the unit on a continuous basis. Generators are designed to stay on line and operating continuously and they normally do that for months on end. Usually more than a year requiring only normal service shutdowns.

The power grid system in any country is a very closely controlled, finely tuned and highly sensitive network that must maintain  the system voltage and frequency within very fine limits.

To subject it to major (i.e.20%) unregulated continual variations in power input can create control problems and instability.

More gas turbine are being installed but these only have a relatively small output and are used for peak loads, not load control.

I read an article recently by a Melbourne university lecturer where he stated that coal fired thermal power generation units were slow and could not respond to load changes.

It is this type of erroneous completely wrong statements from someone who should know better, that deliberately mislead the community.

Coal fired thermal power generators can respond rapidly to system load changes and can cover the instant loss of the largest unit (660 megawatts) without instability being created in the system. It is this type of response that is required to compensate for the erratic output from wind and solar generators if they were to have a 20% input to the grid.

One wonders if Kevin Rudd has an ulterior motive for doing his best to destroy the power industry. Surely no one can be that blind and stupid to not see the glaring truth about the so called renewable energy farce.

It is not about what political persuasion or beliefs  you have. It is about facts and the truth. Certainly anything cleaner or cheaper is welcomed but only IF it IS cheaper, NOT because the greenies or wind generator and solar array manufacturers say so.

The cost to install, operate and maintain them is very high. Wind generators have killed hundreds of thousands of birds with bird strikes throughout the world.

Here are some of those “screaming facts.’

In the early 1980s California was seduced by renewable energy and proceeded to offer subsidies to anyone wanting to erect a wind generator. This subsidy ceased in the late 1990s as they ran out of money due to bankruptcy.

By 2008 they had over 18000 wind generators scattered across California——————————-14000 of them no longer operate, some were cannibalised to keep the other running.

California power cost has now doubled. Their thermal power generation has increased continually to compensated for this disaster and the input from the wind generators, after 30 years of development,produces only 2.3% of California’s electricity. An extremely small percentage and erratic output.

There is also over 15000 birds killed per year by  bird strikes from wind generators.

Spain also embraced renewable energy with wind generators and solar array farms. A recent detailed analysis found that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs were lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies.

They now have an unemployment rate of 19%. The cost of power has gone up 100% and they are forced to import power from other countries.

Germany has over 7000 wind generators with over 2500 wind generator failures last year alone. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable supply.

Sweden has 5000 wind generators and 2000 wind generator failures.

During the cold weather in Europe last December a large number of wind generators froze up and did not work at all. When they finally did they only generated 4% of their capacity.

Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide

emissions have risen by 36% in 2006 alone and continues to rise.. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe.

Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.”

Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

Wind generators only generate an average of 30% of their capacity averaged over a month and are completely inconsistent, varying in output between zero and 70% and rarely reaching their maximum capacity.

For wind generators to provide 20% renewable energy in Australia there would have to be over 7000 of them assuming they were 5MW units with the usual generation capability of 30%.

Every Megawatt they generate would have to be backed up by a spinning reserve in the power grid system ready to compensate for their inconsistency. Which neutralises any advantage they may offer.

Wind generators are ideal for boats or isolated areas where they can charge a bank of wet cell batteries providing a continuous power supply. But are of great expense and are of no advantage to the power grid system.

Solar power Generation is in two forms.

Solar thermal generation is where the reflectors are concentrated on a central receiver which then heats a liquid such as sodium, which in turn heats the water to generate steam that drives a turbine coupled to a generator.

The problem is the heat is only available in strong sunlight and increases throughout the day and then falls off to nothing in the evening when there is insufficient sunlight to heat and drive the turbine. It then stops generating. This inactivity occurs for 14hrs of the day and the continual heating and cooling is not good for steam turbine operation.

These units, even though they cover a large area, only generate small amounts of power and add little to power demands.

Solar Electric Generation through solar array farms is more common where the panels generate power from sunlight stimulation. They are very expensive per kilowatt generated to install and require high maintenance to keep them clean and are susceptible to damage from storms and falling objects.

The total peak power generated in Australia is approximately 50,000MWs.

The World’s largest (currently) operating solar power generation plant is the Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park in Spain, and this needs an area of 250 hectares to generate 60MWs in bright sunlight. So let’s put this into perspective.

There are 100 hectares to the square kilometer, and using Olmedilla as a guide, one square kilometer will generate 24MWs.

Theoretically therefore, at maximum generation on a bright sunny day the generation of 10,000MWs to power 20% of Australia’s needs would require a solar array covering an area of 420 square kilometers – a massive area.

However because such a plant would only generate at approximately 20%-30% of its capacity measured over a year, the full size area needed would have to be five times larger, i.e. 2100 square kilometers.

Then there is a minor (?) problem: these plants do not  generate at night!!

So, here are some hard facts about solar generation:

1. Supply is more consistent in continually sunny areas e.g. Saudi Arabia, Queensland, Africa, etc., therefore solar generation would not be very effective in areas such as U.K., Europe, Russia, etc. where it is far more overcast. Solar power requires bright sunlight for maximum performance. The output can vary dependent on how overcast it is.

2. Solar generation is only possible during daylight hours where there is sufficient sunlight, approximately eight to ten hours per day; therefore it does not generate anything for between 14 and 16 hours per day.

3. Output cannot be controlled except for changing angles of those arrays fitted with moving solar panels.

4. The supply is unreliable, although more consistent than wind generation which is notoriously unreliable and thermal, nuclear, or hydro power (if available) is required to carry sufficient reserve in the grid system to compensate for any changes in solar plant output due to any changes in sunlight during the day.

5. It is very expensive per kilowatt to install, and expensive per kilowatt to operate and maintain. The solar panel receivers have to be continuously kept clean of bird droppings, dust, and rubbish; and they can be damaged in severe weather (for example in the recent severe hailstorm in Melbourne).

As a power ‘add on’, solar ‘farms’ are useful but could never play anything more than a small part of the grid system because of their inflexible and unreliable nature. The same applies even more so to wind generators.

A note about solar power generation for your home:

The solar program subsidised by the federal government has an output of 1 to 1.5 kilowatts. Provided the sun shines brightly and there is no cloud cover.

The power usage of the average Australian family (i.e. 2 adults + 2 children) is approximately 3 to 4 kilowatts during the day and the additional power required would be drawn from the grid system

Even at night while you are asleep some 0.8 to 1.5 kilowatts is still required to keep things going, such as a refrigerator If you start to run things such as air-conditioning then inevitably your power demand must increase and all power is drawn from the power grid.

The cost of a 1.7kW system is somewhere between $7,000 & $8,000 after allowing for the present Australian Government subsidy. The cost before the subsidy is somewhere between $13,000 & $14,000.

The good news is that a far more efficient solar photovoltaic panels has been invented in Israel, and this is reported to be 400% more efficient than present panels. However these are still being tested and developed and not yet ready for general use.

Hydro Electric is the perfect Power Generation but we are using all available water resources and there is no more available to increase its capacity.

Hydro generation is 4.6% of total generation and can only run when there is sufficient water from spring snow melt and rain water.

Geothermal is good if you are in New Zealand but there is none in Australia except for the ‘Hot Rocks’ experiments which so far has only met with failure.

Tidal and wave Generation is being developed but would only have a very minor possible power generation capability for the foreseeable future. In the distant future (50 years) I believe we may develop it substantially.

Nuclear Power generation is proving throughout the world to be the ideal power generation system. Especially with the new revolutionary 4thgeneration Liquid fluoride Thorium Reactor systems that solves all the problems associated with nuclear power. LFTRs consume 100% of the thorium fed to them and can be started with spent fuel rods or old nuclear warheads.

LFTRs will inevitably be used as janitors cleaning up old nuclear waste.

A very exciting concept for power generation.

In the past three years the Rudd government has squandered billions of dollars on;

A. Clean coal technology.  A complete failure.

B. Hot rocks programmes, Still struggling to get any form of result.

C. Power stations with CO2 deep storage.  Massive cost for a teaspoon of power.

D. Renewable energy projects.  Could never achieve a viable usage or cost.

E. Home Insulation programmes. A total waste of money and a disaster.

F. Solar Power on homes. Will have negligible effect on power generation.

All have been either a failure or worse a disaster as in the insulation program.

AND FOR WHY?

Oh yes that’s right !!!  To reduce our ‘carbon footprint’. What a ridiculous name. One imagines a big black boot covered in graphite leaving a mess on the carpet.  When they actually mean carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon Dioxide the gas essential to all life and they call it a pollutant.

SO HOW DOES ALL THE ABOVE REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS.

Ah yes! By reducing the amount of electrical power from the thermal power stations that generate over 94% of our energy. Therefore reducing the CO2 coming  out of the stacks.

Except for one minor point!!!!!!

In 2008-2009 Australia’s power stations produced approximately 276 billion kilowatt hours (TWh) of electricity*, 71.5% more than the 1990 level and growing at 4% pa.

This growth in production is normal and has not even dropped in the slightest due to the above programmes.

The power returned to the grid system from domestic solar panels would be an irritating and a very expensive teaspoon full in a 200 litre drum.

The federal and state governments have spent many billions of dollars of ours and our children’s  economic future chasing butterflies.

One final point; NOT ONE of the doomsday predictions from as far back as 1979 has eventuated or proven to be true.

Global warming will be forever in our history as the biggest scam EVER perpetrated on mankind putting billions of dollars in the pockets of those that have promoted the scam and those ‘scientists’ that have been highly paid to  come up with ‘positive’ results.

( Remember the computer 2000 millennium bug.)

The eruption of the volcano  in Iceland that is emitting millions of tons of sulphur dioxide, ash and carbon dioxide daily make man’s efforts extremely puny and ridiculous.

The madness of the federal and state governments in this horrific waste of money must be stopped before they bankrupt the country.

Terence Cardwell

1 Comment

Filed under Financial, Politics, Renewable Energy, Terence Cardwell