Some good news for fossil fool share holders and the rest of the anti-progress brigade ;)

Someone is developing this stuff. It's just not here though :( Too much money being invested into house renovations research and development :)


Quote:

The breakthrough of Solar sheet to captures 90 percent of sunlight Researchers at the University of Missouri developed a solar sheet device that can capture 90 percent of sunlight or 70 percent more than today traditional solar panels. They have improved the ability of current PV panels to capture a broader range of wavelengths. Traditional solar powered devices have a weakness in transforming light into electricity and can only capture a small band of wavelengths out of the wide range of wavelengths found in sunlight striking the earth. Researchers used a special thin, nantenna which is moldable sheet of small antennas to capture the wider range of wavelengths. The material will converts heat to electricity that can be used for industrial heat recycling or solar designs which its capable of collecting both optical sunlight and the near infrared band sunlight. Patrick Pinhero, associate professor of chemical engineering, securing U.S. Department of Energy funding and fund from private investors to working to port the resulting device to a mass-producable design. He also assisted by Dennis Slafer of MicroContinuum, Inc., of Cambridge, Mass., a solar power and alternative energy firm. In the matters of developing a complete material with electronic devices capable of harvesting heat and light collected by the nantenna, Professor Pinhero worked with researchers at the Idaho National Laboratory and Garrett Moddel, an electrical engineering professor at the University of Colorado. He ambitious to be able to deliver a finished material in the next five years. Their finding has been published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.The researchers hope to get more advantage from solar energy is theoretically possible to bring them to the commercial market that can be bought by all people with cheaper price.

Now thats what I've been waiting to hear. Good stuff indeed! :)
Now watch what happens with an 'Above 50%' Free-Power Source.
This is what I've been holding out for besides knowing that Australia has crap quality Solar Panels compared to Africa and Europe for starters and a lot more expensive too.

...remember when people relied upon WIND to get around the world and many still enjoy doing so.
Now, if only someone puts a big rod up high in Sydney and learns how to 'contain, harness, etc' all those lightning strikes... ;)

I think though, that Australia might show the world how to rejuvenate thelack of fresh water these days and other such stuff.

they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen?

cods wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 6:25am:

they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen?

That would be where the increased wavelength range
would come into it.

Kat wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? That would be where the increased wavelength range would come into it.

Wanna be a pretty good range between the hours of 8 pm and 5 am.

Quote:

Wanna be a pretty good range between the hours of 8 pm and 5 am.

Even if that meant iron smelting could only takeplace during daylight hours, so what?

Grey wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 9:10am:

Quote: Wanna be a pretty good range between the hours of 8 pm and 5 am. Even if that meant iron smelting could only takeplace during daylight hours, so what?

You could say that about hospitals too.

Not much of a deep thinker are you?

There is a mob called, I think Upton Engineering, and they build a "solar tracker", where it mechanically tracks the sun during the day.

Apparently it makes it something like a 1/3 more efficient than a fixed unit.

Put the above solar panels on it and we are talking some serious energy generation

Verge wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 9:35am:

There is a mob called, I think Upton Engineering, and they build a "solar tracker", where it mechanically tracks the sun during the day. Apparently it makes it something like a 1/3 more efficient than a fixed unit. Put the above solar panels on it and we are talking some serious energy generation

Solar trackers were very fashionable at one stage, but the advice I most often hear these days is to put the money into more panels, which makes sense.

What we really need is better energy storage.

I'm pretty sure those people whose lives aren't 'environmentally' influenced by the Sun as much as others, will eventually create they own "Free Power" from another source. I think there are MANY sources of Free Power to use and harness for the betterment of this world.

...its like a Breath of Fresh Air. :)

cods wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 6:25am:

they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen?

There are things called batteries you know ;)

And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution.

BigOl64 wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 9:04am:

Kat wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 8:57am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? That would be where the increased wavelength range would come into it. Wanna be a pretty good range between the hours of 8 pm and 5 am.

I suppose you shut all of the blinds and turn on all of the lights just because sunlight is not available 24 hours a day. :) LOL

Sounds good, though their English skills leave me feeling a bit sceptical. Is this being taken seriously by the mainstream media?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 7:43pm:

Sounds good, though their English skills leave me feeling a bit sceptical. Is this being taken seriously by the mainstream media?

The writing has all the style of a fake announcement from India or China. and increasing the efficiency of solar cells from a typical 25-35% to 90%  has the feel of fantasy about it. It is the holy grail of soalr PV to get over 50%. Acheiving 90% is almost theoretically impossible being it would need to be totally nonreflective (virtually impossible) and absorb all heat (also impossible).

I tip that it is fake but it would be a truly revolutionary achievement if it is real. It would bring solar PV almost on a par with fossil fuel power (assuming manufacturing costs are affordable and it isnt made out of palladium or unobtainium)

Renewable energy is progressing and it will keep progressing.
I am betting we will look back in 20 yrs time and wonder what all the fuss was about
I am positive about the future and our excelleration away from dirty polluting fossil fuels.
It only takes a few huge break throughs and the dam walls will break..its been the same all throughout human history.

The usefulness of solar PV really boils down to cost, not efficiency.

adelcrow wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Renewable energy is progressing and it will keep progressing. I am betting we will look back in 20 yrs time and wonder what all the fuss was about I am positive about the future and our excelleration away from dirty polluting fossil fuels. It only takes a few huge break throughs and the dam walls will break..its been the same all throughout human history.

Dirty polluting fossil fuels...what about dirty polluting solar cells made of polysilicon, itself toxic, but in making it and disposing of it are both highly environmentally harmful.
It produces nitrogen trifluoride, silicon tetrachloride, arsenic, cadmium, etc.
Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,200 times more potent greenhouse gas than that nasty old CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels and has an estimated life in the atmosphere of 740 years.
To produce one ton of polysilicon produces 4 tonnes of liquid waste. In China this is being dumped in fields...not blooming marvelous because it is highly toxic to plant life.

If you get a free meal someone else is paying for it.

tonegunman1 wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 9:59pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Renewable energy is progressing and it will keep progressing. I am betting we will look back in 20 yrs time and wonder what all the fuss was about I am positive about the future and our excelleration away from dirty polluting fossil fuels. It only takes a few huge break throughs and the dam walls will break..its been the same all throughout human history. Dirty polluting fossil fuels...what about dirty polluting solar cells made of polysilicon, itself toxic, but in making it and disposing of it are both highly environmentally harmful. It produces nitrogen trifluoride, silicon tetrachloride, arsenic, cadmium, etc. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,200 times more potent greenhouse gas than that nasty old CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels and has an estimated life in the atmosphere of 740 years. To produce one ton of polysilicon produces 4 tonnes of liquid waste. In China this is being dumped in fields...not blooming marvelous because it is highly toxic to plant life. If you get a free meal someone else is paying for it.

but that would apply to anything that uses semiconductors which means just about any electronic device !!

and you only make the panels once. you don't keep burning and polluting like you do with fossil fools.

adelcrow wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Renewable energy is progressing and it will keep progressing. I am betting we will look back in 20 yrs time and wonder what all the fuss was about I am positive about the future and our excelleration away from dirty polluting fossil fuels. It only takes a few huge break throughs and the dam walls will break..its been the same all throughout human history.

the major technologies - wind and solar PV are actually 50 year old technologies. The only real improvemtns ahve been in manufacturing costs and efficiency. even wave/tidal is decades old. geothermal is not new either. hot rocks is, as is most of solar thermal and concentrated solar.

nuclear fusion however is very new - so new that it doesnt yet work!

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

The usefulness of solar PV really boils down to cost, not efficiency.

but cost is a function of efficiency! if the same hardware and plant can generate 2-3 times as much then the effective cost plummets. and it is COST that is holding R/E back.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 9:59pm: adelcrow wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Renewable energy is progressing and it will keep progressing. I am betting we will look back in 20 yrs time and wonder what all the fuss was about I am positive about the future and our excelleration away from dirty polluting fossil fuels. It only takes a few huge break throughs and the dam walls will break..its been the same all throughout human history. Dirty polluting fossil fuels...what about dirty polluting solar cells made of polysilicon, itself toxic, but in making it and disposing of it are both highly environmentally harmful. It produces nitrogen trifluoride, silicon tetrachloride, arsenic, cadmium, etc. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,200 times more potent greenhouse gas than that nasty old CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels and has an estimated life in the atmosphere of 740 years. To produce one ton of polysilicon produces 4 tonnes of liquid waste. In China this is being dumped in fields...not blooming marvelous because it is highly toxic to plant life. If you get a free meal someone else is paying for it. but that would apply to anything that uses semiconductors which means just about any electronic device !! and you only make the panels once. you don't keep burning and polluting like you do with fossil fools.

Calling fuels "fools" only helps to make you look sillier.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:41am:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 9:53pm: The usefulness of solar PV really boils down to cost, not efficiency. but cost is a function of efficiency! if the same hardware and plant can generate 2-3 times as much then the effective cost plummets. and it is COST that is holding R/E back.

Who was it said if we could weaponise the sun solar would be way ahead of where it is now?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 12:55pm:

cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution.

yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm...

however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture...

rusty are you driving the Great wall yet???

havent seen many

;D

mavisdavis wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:54am:

Calling fuels "fools" only helps to make you look sillier.

correction - fossil fools ;)

cods wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 9:14am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many

especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;)

and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

cods wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:14am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;) and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !!

as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy!

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy!

I can guarantee one thing about it. If there is anything in it, it won't be developed or manufactured here because we are to busy polishing floor boards and investing in old junk properties !! That's all that is left here as far as high tech goes :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

cods wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:14am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;) and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !!

Yep, trade it in on a Hybrid..

Longweekend.

Quote:

as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy!

What would you know longweekend?
You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads.
It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so
you should be thanking him for telling you.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 12:44pm: cods wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:14am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;) and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !! Yep, trade it in on a Hybrid..

nup, in the long term it still keeps you addicted to the rising cost of the fool bowser. Eventually those hybrids will become cost prohibitive :(

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 3:58pm:

Longweekend. Quote: as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy! What would you know longweekend? You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads. It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so you should be thanking him for telling you.

badweekend would never thank anyone except for his do-nothing paranormal friend jesus :) LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 3:58pm: Longweekend. Quote: as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy! What would you know longweekend? You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads. It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so you should be thanking him for telling you. badweekend would never thank anyone except for his do-nothing paranormal friend jesus :) LOL

Yes Nail - the religious nutcase with a false claim to a BSc.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 3:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 12:44pm: cods wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:14am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;) and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !! Yep, trade it in on a Hybrid.. nup, in the long term it still keeps you addicted to the rising cost of the fool bowser. Eventually those hybrids will become cost prohibitive :(

But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards..

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards..

what a dumb suggestion. you fork out 35K for another car with a bit better fool economy just for a bit of savings on 1 years worth of fossil fool :(

maybe if they had of built a plugin hybrid in the first place then there would be no argument would there ??

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:05pm: But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards.. what a dumb suggestion. you fork out 35K for another car with a bit better fool economy just for a bit of savings on 1 years worth of fossil fool :( maybe if they had of built a plugin hybrid in the first place then there would be no argument would there ??

So lease one......Being Australia largest electric self adjusting widget exporter, you should be able to qualify for a company car..

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:05pm: But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards.. what a dumb suggestion. you fork out 35K for another car with a bit better fool economy just for a bit of savings on 1 years worth of fossil fool :( maybe if they had of built a plugin hybrid in the first place then there would be no argument would there ?? So lease one......Being Australia largest electric self adjusting widget exporter, you should be able to qualify for a company car..

you are an idiot. you want me to spend more money just to save less on the cost of fossil fool !!

why don't you just admit that you have no solutions for the rising cost of fossil fool as long as people are addicted to the fool bowser !!

What seems to be avoided by the media and power industry, is, wave power.
Having been on ships without stabilisers, I have seen the front of the ship go up ten meters and then drop again, enormous amount of energy, which was never used.
If the wave and tidal power were utilised to pump water into a storage facility while there is excess of capacity, this stored water energy could then be used for peak generation of power.
I,am no engineer, but even standing on the beach when the tide is coming in or going out, one can feel the energy under the feet.
Just an opinion of mine.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 3:58pm:

Longweekend. Quote: as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy! What would you know longweekend? You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads. It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so you should be thanking him for telling you.

well you claim higher education so you easily se the flaw in the claim. a 90% efficiency means it is ABSORBING 90% or heat and light and convertin it to electricity. That would mean it is virtually nonreflective and remains cool inthe summer sun. care to tell us about ANY material that has those properties nevermind able to generate power from it?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:11pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:05pm: But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards.. what a dumb suggestion. you fork out 35K for another car with a bit better fool economy just for a bit of savings on 1 years worth of fossil fool :( maybe if they had of built a plugin hybrid in the first place then there would be no argument would there ?? So lease one......Being Australia largest electric self adjusting widget exporter, you should be able to qualify for a company car.. you are an idiot. you want me to spend more money just to save less on the cost of fossil fool !! why don't you just admit that you have no solutions for the rising cost of fossil fool as long as people are addicted to the fool bowser !!

I admitted that years ago nails....

Why do you always come up with stupid excuses to avoid doing the 'obvious'????

A self employed plumber can structure his business and tax system to write all expenses for a work truck off......And even buy/lease a new one every year or 2 years......

But you would rather keep your 'luxury' (fuel guzzler) car, than sell/trade it for a hybrid 'work' vehicle..or even do what lots of ordinary people have done and IMPORT an EV from overseas...

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:24pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:11pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:05pm: But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards.. what a dumb suggestion. you fork out 35K for another car with a bit better fool economy just for a bit of savings on 1 years worth of fossil fool :( maybe if they had of built a plugin hybrid in the first place then there would be no argument would there ?? So lease one......Being Australia largest electric self adjusting widget exporter, you should be able to qualify for a company car.. you are an idiot. you want me to spend more money just to save less on the cost of fossil fool !! why don't you just admit that you have no solutions for the rising cost of fossil fool as long as people are addicted to the fool bowser !! I admitted that years ago nails.... Why do you always come up with stupid excuses to avoid doing the 'obvious'???? A self employed plumber can structure his business and tax system to write all expenses for a work truck off......And even buy/lease a new one every year or 2 years...... But you would rather keep your 'luxury' (fuel guzzler) car, than sell/trade it for a hybrid 'work' vehicle..or even do what lots of ordinary people have done and IMPORT an EV from overseas...

its always the same with split-nail. whinging and whining and complaining and blaming everyone else for things. Yes, we'd all like to have cheaper fuel but the reality is that aint gonna happen and petrol has actually gone up by less that the CPI over the past 20 years which is more than some products can say. until there is a viable alterative - and there isnt - its just meaningless drivel from him.

And you are right. He could get and EV if he is so enamoured with them. But a centre-link income makes that hard I guess.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 3:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 12:44pm: cods wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:14am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;) and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !! Yep, trade it in on a Hybrid.. nup, in the long term it still keeps you addicted to the rising cost of the fool bowser. Eventually those hybrids will become cost prohibitive :(

everything is 'cost prohibitive' to you and there is the cruz of your problem. NOTHING is affordable to you. you couldnt afford a car even if needed no fuel.

idiot.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:01pm: Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 3:58pm: Longweekend. Quote: as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy! What would you know longweekend? You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads. It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so you should be thanking him for telling you. badweekend would never thank anyone except for his do-nothing paranormal friend jesus :) LOL Yes Nail - the religious nutcase with a false claim to a BSc.

I see you are unable to come up with an answer to my TECHNICAL query regarding this supposed PV cells. I guess your masters degree in lawn mowing didnt cover that!

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 4:05pm: But in the short term, it'll reduce your fuel usage and your running costs until the middle of next year when the Nissan Leaf hits the Aus car yards.. what a dumb suggestion. you fork out 35K for another car with a bit better fool economy just for a bit of savings on 1 years worth of fossil fool :( maybe if they had of built a plugin hybrid in the first place then there would be no argument would there ?? So lease one......Being Australia largest electric self adjusting widget exporter, you should be able to qualify for a company car..

more likely he sells 'self-sealing stem bolts'. he sources his technological information from the same place.

hawil wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

What seems to be avoided by the media and power industry, is, wave power. Having been on ships without stabilisers, I have seen the front of the ship go up ten meters and then drop again, enormous amount of energy, which was never used. If the wave and tidal power were utilised to pump water into a storage facility while there is excess of capacity, this stored water energy could then be used for peak generation of power. I,am no engineer, but even standing on the beach when the tide is coming in or going out, one can feel the energy under the feet. Just an opinion of mine.

Wave energy has always had its costs and maintenance problems. Carnegie Pty Ltd has just started a trial on a new wave generator that lets wave power pump water in and out of a land-based turbine. That will probably eliminate the biggest problem which was having turbines out at sea and the expensive of power cabling and corrosion. this system would have most of the sea components made out of non-corrosive materials. if it works well wave might finally become a significant producer of electricty. Up until now it was way too expensive and had very high maintenance costs.

look at the magnet on your fridge

wake up and smell the free energy that is being kept from you

while you argue about peek oil peak dumb

moron

that story later

with forgiveness

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:01pm:

look at the magnet on your fridge wake up and smell the free energy that is being kept from you while you argue about peek oil peak dumb moron that story later with forgiveness namaste

this from the only 'tard dumber than Prevailing and less sane. The same person who believes in the Galactive empire and 'invisible spaceships'.

'idiot' seems so inadeqate to describe him.

i forgive you for abusing me brother being

i LOVE you and regard you as my brother

you may abuse me if this brings you joy..so be it

not very xtian of you

have you drunk your blood and eaten your flesh today

as the pope says you should do re:catholocism?

im interested

[you do not have to drink blood or eat flesh to be CHRISTED

i am living proof,i am that i am]

namaste

do you deny that a simple magnet defies gravity?

are you this ignorant?

im interested in your blood drinking persona non gratia

as it were in the afforementioned

further

are you comforted and in a state of grace?

you are forgiven

namaste

this from the only 'tard dumber than Prevailing and less sane.

__________

if less sane is your definition being the polar opposite to your 'sane'

yes..

i am that i am that

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:11pm:

do you deny that a simple magnet defies gravity? are you this ignorant? im interested in your blood drinking persona non gratia as it were in the afforementioned further are you comforted and in a state of grace? you are forgiven namaste

your level of science is that low??? sticky tape defies gravity.

your level of science is that low??? sticky tape defies gravity.

____________

are you serious?

hahahahahhahahahah


you are hallarious!

i LOVE you

-:)

[a stick tape is not a magnet..a glue is not free energy

a magnet is..do you deny this?]

namaste

what did i expect from a blood drinking flesh eating

sychophant for the satanic vatican

you are forgiven as the CHRIST indeed within you does also

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:14pm:

your level of science is that low??? sticky tape defies gravity. ____________ are you serious? hahahahahhahahahah you are hallarious! i LOVE you -:) [a stick tape is not a magnet..a glue is not free energy a magnet is..do you deny this?] namaste

neither is a magnet, you ignoramus.

sticky tape defies gravity.


_____________

blu tack?

is blu tack free energy?

lol!

you ignoramus.

___________

LOVE trumps ignoramussuses

KING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[crown me in CHRISTED LIGHT i am the alpha and omega!]

hahahahahahahha

-:)

and i spose you still think the australian govt owns the RBA still?



giddyup*

-:D

what level of primary school did you pass? I am going to assume you never made it thru to high school.

i went to the high school on top of the hill...

i observe you as a good repeater of propaganda

if only you would use your powers for good

instead of licking the sweat of the ballbearings of govt

freewill

so be it

i am my own entity and do not bow down to tyranny

with forgiveness unto you and your weakened and mind controlled ilk

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:19pm:

and i spose you still think the australian govt owns the RBA still? giddyup* -:D

Funny thing that. The RBA itself says that - as does its constitution and the Fed govt.

idiot.

Those reptile aliens giving you bad info again?

Funny thing that. The RBA itself says that - as does its constitution and the Fed govt.

_______________

hahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the BIS tells the RBA what to do

do you deny this?

how can the RBA have 2 masters?

are you that economically ignorant?

no gold standard fiat ponzy scheme bernie maddoff invented

the NASDAQ and ITS STILL RUNNING

and you support the lies

hahaha

funny stuff!

namaste

neither is a magnet, you ignoramus.

__________

a magnet is FREE ENERGY

do you deny this?

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:25pm:

neither is a magnet, you ignoramus. __________ a magnet is FREE ENERGY do you deny this?

absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free. it has to come from somewhere. Do you even KNOW any science, dimwit?

absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free.

______________

incorrect with forgiveness

you speak upon quantum theory and limited 3rd dimensional physics

research max planc length 1.6 x 10 to the negative 35th meter

all points of matter becoime omni present this is the 'void'

free energy yes a different dimension

as above so in fact it is below

do you deny this?

this is fact and established science

do you deny this

einstien even commented upon this

are you ignorant of as much?

take a look for yourself through an electron microscope

i do not cut and paste i understand this intimately and

explain this off the cuff here

research the facts and stop repeating bullshit if you have the care

i know you think cut and paste is fact and repeat this crap verbatim

so be it

namaste

-:)

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:35pm:

absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free. ______________ incorrect with forgiveness you speak upon quantum theory and limited 3rd dimensional physics research max planc length 1.6 x 10 to the negative 35th meter all points of matter becoime omni present this is the 'void' free energy yes a different dimension as above so in fact it is below do you deny this? this is fact and established science do you deny this einstien even commented upon this are you ignorant of as much? take a look for yourself through an electron microscope i do not cut and paste i understand this intimately and explain this off the cuff here research the facts and stop repeating bullshit if you have the care i know you think cut and paste is fact and repeat this crap verbatim so be it namaste -:)

that was sheer nonsense without even a foundation in drivel nevermind one in FACT.

absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free

______________

look at the sun

free energy

are you blind?

i understand you like to repeat propaganda

you are dealing with an enlightened being

so dont feel too bad.

its inevitable i would make darkness look stupid.

with forgiveness

namaste

-:)

your priceless

-:)

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:39pm:

absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free ______________ look at the sun free energy are you blind? i understand you like to repeat propaganda you are dealing with an enlightened being so dont feel too bad. its inevitable i would make darkness look stupid. with forgiveness namaste -:)

You must be lastnail's technical advisor. the sun's energy is not free either. it is a giant fusion explosion and loses tens of million sof tonnes per second of mass to maintain its reaction.  energy is not free.

Mental health care however, IS. thats what you really need!

You must be lastnail's technical advisor. the sun's energy is not free either. it is a giant fusion explosion and loses tens of million sof tonnes per second of mass to maintain its reaction.  energy is not free.

_____________

the sun is free energy'

humanity does not need to produce anything

this is free from the sun

our star

do you deny this fact?

how can you?

its free

-:)

it is a giant fusion explosion and loses tens of million sof tonnes per second of mass to maintain its reaction.  energy is not free.

___________

and it will burn for the next billion + years

and its not free?

oh ok cool..

deluded much?

this does not effect unto me beloved brother blood drinking and flesh

eating sychophantical repeat programmed mind controlled drone

so be it

forgiven

-:)

namaste

Your understanding of 'free' is a s limited as your understanding of science or reality. Perhaps your reptilian masters can explain it to you. Is one fo them called ANNA?

lets get this straight

humanity does not need to pay anything for the energy from the sun

for billions and billions of years the energy is free

photosynthesis life rebirth the seasons

all free

yet weekender says its not because he repeats some

search engined programming and repeats this crap

goodness gracious...

3rd dimension aint easy with these drones about when your trying

to save the planet

fortunately this is not a problem

-:)

namaste

by your definition the DOLE is free.

you make lastnail and prevailing  - the boards two stupidest posters - look like genuises.

say hello to Anna in the mother ship. We wil be watching her next season!

Is one fo them called ANNA?

__________

oh thats right

you still believe in bi partisan politics

lol!

hahahahah

good one!

whoever you vote for the party or queeny will sack them so

whats the point in democracy?

there is none

check mate

drink your blood with forgiveness

namaste

by your definition the DOLE is free.

____________

why are you making stories up?

i never said this

the dole is not a star/sun

that provides free energy

all you have is cut and paste lies

forgiven

namaste

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 5:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 3:58pm: Longweekend. Quote: as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy! What would you know longweekend? You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads. It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so you should be thanking him for telling you. well you claim higher education so you easily se the flaw in the claim. a 90% efficiency means it is ABSORBING 90% or heat and light and convertin it to electricity. That would mean it is virtually nonreflective and remains cool inthe summer sun. care to tell us about ANY material that has those properties nevermind able to generate power from it?

No Longweekend.
It is making the energy available in the form of electricity
from 90% of the light energy which hits the cell.
This energy is in the form of infra red light, right up to the start of ultra violet wavelengths.
If I knew how they did it I'd start my own company making them.

Now - thank Nail for telling you about it!

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:41am:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 9:53pm: The usefulness of solar PV really boils down to cost, not efficiency. but cost is a function of efficiency! if the same hardware and plant can generate 2-3 times as much then the effective cost plummets. and it is COST that is holding R/E back.

Efficiency is a very poor proxy measure of cost. What matters is how much a unit costs and how much power it produces. It is not like we are short on rooftop space. In fact, one of the cheapest options may be to incorprate PV cells into roofing tiles, windows etc. We could spend billions trying to come up with an expensive small cell that is 90% efficient, or we could make them into bricks.

longweekend; you may be right, the corrosion could be a big problem, but when you look at the oil rigs in the ocean, being pounded by huge waves and the wind turbines in the north sea, would they not also be subjected to corrosion?
I have the strange feeling, that some interests in certain energy sources have something to do with it.

hawil wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 9:06pm:

longweekend; you may be right, the corrosion could be a big problem, but when you look at the oil rigs in the ocean, being pounded by huge waves and the wind turbines in the north sea, would they not also be subjected to corrosion? I have the strange feeling, that some interests in certain energy sources have something to do with it.

dont go all 'conspiracy' on me. a major problem for oil rigs is CORROSION just as it is for shipping. running turbines at at sea is expensive and running underwater power cables is as well. this new concept of pushing salt water onto land is an excellent one where corrosionis far less and more easily maintained.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 5:34pm: Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 3:58pm: Longweekend. Quote: as usual, no technical comment on the virtual impossibility of a 90% conversion of sunlight to energy! What would you know longweekend? You're always making negative comments on all Nail's threads. It's only through Nail that you learn about new technology so you should be thanking him for telling you. well you claim higher education so you easily se the flaw in the claim. a 90% efficiency means it is ABSORBING 90% or heat and light and convertin it to electricity. That would mean it is virtually nonreflective and remains cool inthe summer sun. care to tell us about ANY material that has those properties nevermind able to generate power from it? No Longweekend. It is making the energy available in the form of electricity from 90% of the light energy which hits the cell. This energy is in the form of infra red light, right up to the start of ultra violet wavelengths. If I knew how they did it I'd start my own company making them. Now - thank Nail for telling you about it!

you didnt understand a single thing about what i wrote, did you? so what was your six years at university for??? it clearly had nothing to do with actual education!

Longweekend.

Quote:

you didnt understand a single thing about what i wrote, did you? so what was your six years at university for??? it clearly had nothing to do with actual education!

Longweekend.
You don't understand about efficency of solar cells.
You must have got your BSc from a cornflakes packet.

adelcrow wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Renewable energy is progressing and it will keep progressing. I am betting we will look back in 20 yrs time and wonder what all the fuss was about I am positive about the future and our excelleration away from dirty polluting fossil fuels. It only takes a few huge break throughs and the dam walls will break..its been the same all throughout human history.

I concur!

http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/super-efficient-solar-energy-tech-could-demolish-p


http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110519005505/en/Solar/Green-Energy/Energy

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/05/16/Coal-power-still-reigns-in-Australia/UPI-36211305566782/

coals energy is converted to electricity with 33% efficiency. Nothing to crow about.

Bobby. wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 12:16pm:

Longweekend. Quote: you didnt understand a single thing about what i wrote, did you? so what was your six years at university for??? it clearly had nothing to do with actual education! Longweekend. You don't understand about efficency of solar cells. You must have got your BSc from a cornflakes packet.

Then feel fre to edumacate us on this then if you are such an expert! a 90% efficient rating assumes less than 10% reflectivity as an absolute MINIMUM and other losses make it more like to be <5%. unless this solar cell is made of 'dark matter' then it is highly unlikely to be true.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:43pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:39pm: absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free ______________ look at the sun free energy are you blind? i understand you like to repeat propaganda you are dealing with an enlightened being so dont feel too bad. its inevitable i would make darkness look stupid. with forgiveness namaste -:) You must be lastnail's technical advisor. the sun's energy is not free either. it is a giant fusion explosion and loses tens of million sof tonnes per second of mass to maintain its reaction.  energy is not free. Mental health care however, IS. thats what you really need!

when did you last pay for direct sunlight energy you moron ??

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:27pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:25pm: neither is a magnet, you ignoramus. __________ a magnet is FREE ENERGY do you deny this? absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free. it has to come from somewhere. Do you even KNOW any science, dimwit?

free as in not paying for it. why do you have to complicate issues with your drivel :(

that one went right across the top of your head LN. 8-)

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 5:49pm:

everything is 'cost prohibitive' to you and there is the cruz of your problem. NOTHING is affordable to you. you couldnt afford a car even if needed no fuel. idiot.

well we can't all be wealthy from running a hair dressing salon like you do  ;)

and like I said you have no solution to the rising cost of fossil fool prices except to get a higher paying job to offset the costs which as you claim essentially makes it freeeeeeee :D LOL

read what you wrote dickhead on the other thread ;) is this your idea of free is it ???


Quote:

one obvious solution that you would never understand would be GET A BETTER PAYING JOB! easy enough to get $5000pa more for a job if you studied or tried hard. then your increase in salary would mean your fuel is FREEE. Simple really - if you have any brains. ah... Now i see the problem!

mavisdavis wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 1:47pm:

that one went right across the top of your head LN. 8-)

read what he wrote again properly. he is not talking about free as in the financial sense.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 1:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:27pm: it_is_the_light wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:25pm: neither is a magnet, you ignoramus. __________ a magnet is FREE ENERGY do you deny this? absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free. it has to come from somewhere. Do you even KNOW any science, dimwit? free as in not paying for it. why do you have to complicate issues with your drivel :(

'free;' is not just an economic term as you'd know if you ever went to university. in scientific terms energy is NOT 'free'. it comes at a cost. sunlight is not 'free'. it comes at the cost of the loss of mass in the sun. I know this 'scientific stuff' goes over your head, hangnail, but try and keep up!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 1:55pm:

mavisdavis wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 1:47pm: that one went right across the top of your head LN. 8-) read what he wrote again properly. he is not talking about free as in the financial sense.

he is just avoiding the problem than someone who actually STUDIED science is questioning the veractity of the OP. achieveing 90% efficiency in a pV cell is virtually impossible - something he doesnt even understand!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 1:55pm:

mavisdavis wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 1:47pm: that one went right across the top of your head LN. 8-) read what he wrote again properly. he is not talking about free as in the financial sense.

Read what he wrote, on "the other thread", or this one?? ;D

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:27pm: it_is_the_light wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:25pm: neither is a magnet, you ignoramus. __________ a magnet is FREE ENERGY do you deny this? absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free. it has to come from somewhere. Do you even KNOW any science, dimwit? free as in not paying for it. why do you have to complicate issues with your drivel :( 'free;' is not just an economic term as you'd know if you ever went to university. in scientific terms energy is NOT 'free'. it comes at a cost. sunlight is not 'free'. it comes at the cost of the loss of mass in the sun. I know this 'scientific stuff' goes over your head, hangnail, but try and keep up!

as usual you are desperate to win any argument by creating a straw man.

at the end of the day this debate is about renewable energy that you don't have to keep paying for !! As far as the consumer is concerned it is free because they don't get a bill in the mail for it. The 1st law of thermo dynamics is not relevant here unless you are worried about what is going to happen in 3 billion years time which i suppose for someone with a gold pass to heaven and eternal life would be worried ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 2:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 2:18pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:27pm: it_is_the_light wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 6:25pm: neither is a magnet, you ignoramus. __________ a magnet is FREE ENERGY do you deny this? absolutely. in fact, it is a fundamental law of physics that energy is NEVER free. it has to come from somewhere. Do you even KNOW any science, dimwit? free as in not paying for it. why do you have to complicate issues with your drivel :( 'free;' is not just an economic term as you'd know if you ever went to university. in scientific terms energy is NOT 'free'. it comes at a cost. sunlight is not 'free'. it comes at the cost of the loss of mass in the sun. I know this 'scientific stuff' goes over your head, hangnail, but try and keep up! as usual you are desperate to win any argument by creating a straw man. at the end of the day this debate is about renewable energy that you don't have to keep paying for !! As far as the consumer is concerned it is free because they don't get a bill in the mail for it. The 1st law of thermo dynamics is not relevant here unless you are worried about what is going to happen in 3 billion years time which i suppose for someone with a gold pass to heaven and eternal life would be worried ;)

you are such a transparent idiot! you have recognised the validity of my argument by failing to address it! even you see the unlikelihood of 90% efficiency in solar PV!

even by your low standards your response has been LAME!

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 3:49pm:

you are such a transparent idiot! you have recognised the validity of my argument by failing to address it! even you see the unlikelihood of 90% efficiency in solar PV! even by your low standards your response has been LAME!

what argument ?? Nobody is claiming anything about the invention and until the details are known nor should you speculate anything about it. You're in no position to critique the idea because you don't have proper qualifications in the area. Just look at your lame response to the rising cost of fossil fools !! "Go get another job or a payrise to make up the difference." What a f,cken jerk you are.

And why do you conveniently ignore the thread about the Vatican's stance on climate change ??


Quote:

After assembling a panel of experts on climate change, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science released a report strongly urging all countries of the world to take three crucial steps in addressing the upcoming climate crisis, including:   That we reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50 percent, and prepare to adapt to the climatic changes that society will be unable to mitigate. The report also states:   We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.   We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish. While this could make for some interesting new political alignments stateside if the call is heeded, we’ll have to wait and see if having the Vatican’s seal of approval makes a dent in the minds of skeptics or not. Perhaps a nun with a ruler would give it more bite. Link - http://holykaw.alltop.com/vatican-issues-climate-change-warning ========================== Well LongWeakend, the Pope said it, so that must now make you a Climate Change believer?

Good onya LastNail. Stick to your guns. Can see why Bobby supports your posts a lot.

Solar/Wind/Water Energy will always prevail and just get better.
Some prefer a glass of Water to combat dehydration, while others need a Red Bull and all of its 'extras' for god knows why ...a heart palpitation and then a headache later??

I love it when a world goes into 'adversity' like the USA with its Economy (like Europe had with its Military and Australia has with its Sport ;)) ...all the great improvements that are NEEDED and not wanted are suddently brought to the front of the cue.

:)

Jas.

Quote:

Good onya LastNail. Stick to your guns. Can see why Bobby supports your posts a lot.

Thanks Jas.
Someone has to stand up for what's right.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 8:42pm:

Good onya LastNail. Stick to your guns. Can see why Bobby supports your posts a lot. Solar/Wind/Water Energy will always prevail and just get better. Some prefer a glass of Water to combat dehydration, while others need a Red Bull and all of its 'extras' for god knows why ...a heart palpitation and then a headache later?? I love it when a world goes into 'adversity' like the USA with its Economy (like Europe had with its Military and Australia has with its Sport ;)) ...all the great improvements that are NEEDED and not wanted are suddently brought to the front of the cue. :)

badweekend is your typical Luddite who votes liberal.

He doesn't want to change anything. He wants everything to stay the same whilst other countries make progress. If you drive a car he wants you to take it up the arse at the fool bowser. If fool prices go up then he expects you to get a higher paying job to make up for the difference !!

If you can't afford it then you must be a loser according to badweekend !! But under no circumstances should anyone have access to electric vehicle technology. Even if they are elderly pensioners and barely do no more than 20k's per day, then under no circumstance should these old folks have access to electric vehicle technology and they certainly shouldn't be supplementing their power usage with FREE energy from the sun because that is heresy according to badweekend.

Make them pay is badweekend's foolospohy in life. Hell, if badweekend has to pay a fortune to fill up his gas guzzling piece of crap then everyone else should pay as well !! Why should badweekend suffer alone !!

Well my Integral Energy 'neighbour' has just told me that the so-called "Safety Inspections" that have just kicked off upon all the Solar Panel installations are also to make sure no stolen and 'unusual' or 'Home-Made' are being used ...which would upset the Govt who has been providing expensive lesser quality Solar Panelling compared to Africa/Europe.

...his cigarette dropped out of his mouth when I told him that a new 90% Solar Panel had just been invented.

Jas,
The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold.
The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels.
I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date.
I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail -
something that he can't bring himself to do.

The 'variations' will filter down through society like sunlight through cloud. Within 10 years, those 90% Solar Panels will be all other the planet like a hit song that kicks off another 10 year trend.
Backyard Bobs (are you one Bobby? :-?) would be at their little soldering stations in their Men's Sheds around Australia pumping out their own versions.
Maybe the Televisually/Governmentally dedicated Australians might buy whatever over-priced crap they get sold. But everyone else will be "OnLine" to buy what is better from Home-Grown efforts. The only way to succeed in Australia is to stay below the Radar of the All-Seeing Eye of Television.

I bet ya I have these 90% Panels in 5 years. ;)

Jas.

Quote:

I bet ya I have these 90% Panels in 5 years.

I hope so for everyone's sake.
The Sun provides us with unlimited energy - if only we could harness it properly.

Bobby. wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Jas. Quote: I bet ya I have these 90% Panels in 5 years.   I hope so for everyone's sake. The Sun provides us with unlimited energy - if only we could harness it properly.

And it's FREE as well which means you don't get billed for its use !! Something which badweekend and mavis davis has a hard time comprehending because they are so use to being ripped off all of their life on oil that was created from sunlight energy in the first place !!

dont go all 'conspiracy' on me. a major problem for oil rigs is CORROSION just as it is for shipping. running turbines at at sea is expensive and running underwater power cables is as well. this new concept of pushing salt water onto land is an excellent one where corrosionis far less and more easily maintained.[/quote]

If I haven't seen and experienced conspiracy first hand, I would agree with you, but I can give you an example of it:
put in for a contract of loading ballast onto Railway trucks for
9 shilling a cubic yard, had to to deposit approximately 6 month wages, which I would have forfeited if I could not fullfill my contract; did not get contract, but the person who got the contract asked for 11 shilling a cubic yard.
As I knew one of the person who was on the board which allocated this contracts, I asked him why was the contract given to the person with a higher quote? His reply:"you have to kneow how to put in this contracts".
The contract was a government contract.
now I,am glad that I did not get the contract, because the ballast was form a uranium mine, where probably there was a lot of radiation.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 10:27am:

Well my Integral Energy 'neighbour' has just told me that the so-called "Safety Inspections" that have just kicked off upon all the Solar Panel installations are also to make sure no stolen and 'unusual' or 'Home-Made' are being used ...which would upset the Govt who has been providing expensive lesser quality Solar Panelling compared to Africa/Europe. ...his cigarette dropped out of his mouth when I told him that a new 90% Solar Panel had just been invented.

and imagine how much he wil laugh when he finds out it doesnt exist!

hawil wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 2:20pm:

dont go all 'conspiracy' on me. a major problem for oil rigs is CORROSION just as it is for shipping. running turbines at at sea is expensive and running underwater power cables is as well. this new concept of pushing salt water onto land is an excellent one where corrosionis far less and more easily maintained.

If I haven't seen and experienced conspiracy first hand, I would agree with you, but I can give you an example of it:
put in for a contract of loading ballast onto Railway trucks for
9 shilling a cubic yard, had to to deposit approximately 6 month wages, which I would have forfeited if I could not fullfill my contract; did not get contract, but the person who got the contract asked for 11 shilling a cubic yard.
As I knew one of the person who was on the board which allocated this contracts, I asked him why was the contract given to the person with a higher quote? His reply:"you have to kneow how to put in this contracts".
The contract was a government contract.
now I,am glad that I did not get the contract, because the ballast was form a uranium mine, where probably there was a lot of radiation.[/quote]

when you use the term 'shilling' we know this story is at least 45 years old and probably more like 60 years. how about something a tad more current?

and it remains true what i said. the existence of a conspiracy in one place doesnt imply it is the natural order of things. It is surprising to even need to explain that.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 5:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 3:49pm: you are such a transparent idiot! you have recognised the validity of my argument by failing to address it! even you see the unlikelihood of 90% efficiency in solar PV! even by your low standards your response has been LAME! what argument ?? Nobody is claiming anything about the invention and until the details are known nor should you speculate anything about it. You're in no position to critique the idea because you don't have proper qualifications in the area. Just look at your lame response to the rising cost of fossil fools !! "Go get another job or a payrise to make up the difference." What a f,cken jerk you are. And why do you conveniently ignore the thread about the Vatican's stance on climate change ?? Quote: After assembling a panel of experts on climate change, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science released a report strongly urging all countries of the world to take three crucial steps in addressing the upcoming climate crisis, including:   That we reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50 percent, and prepare to adapt to the climatic changes that society will be unable to mitigate. The report also states:   We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.   We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish. While this could make for some interesting new political alignments stateside if the call is heeded, we’ll have to wait and see if having the Vatican’s seal of approval makes a dent in the minds of skeptics or not. Perhaps a nun with a ruler would give it more bite. Link - http://holykaw.alltop.com/vatican-issues-climate-change-warning ========================== Well LongWeakend, the Pope said it, so that must now make you a Climate Change believer?

Im prepared to state categorically that these panels DO NOT EXIST. not only do they exceed the theoretical maximum in real life use the standard of english inthe OP makes it look very very much like the kind of scam that fools like you fall for. If you ahd half the education you claim to have you'd see that  any claim for 90% efficiency in energy conversion is way above average and bordering on the physically impossible. loss-less conversion systems do not exist for reasons you couldnt understand even if i tried.

Bobby. wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 11:15am:

Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do.

Longweekend -
I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou.

Bobby. wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 6:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou.

I'm waiting to hear you debunk my claim that this supposed 'breakthrough' goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this.

But as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understand my query - never mind respond to it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 6:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou. IM waiting to hree you debunk my claim that this supposed breakthrough goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this. but as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understan dmy quoery - never mind respond to it.

it claims to be less than 100% efficient so how does it violate the laws of physics ??

I know !! God must have created it ;) It's a miracle !@! :) LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 6:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:41pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou. IM waiting to hree you debunk my claim that this supposed breakthrough goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this. but as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understan dmy quoery - never mind respond to it. it claims to be less than 100% efficient so how does it violate the laws of physics ?? I know !! God must have created it ;) It's a miracle !@! :) LOL

you read my post before imbecile. to achieve 95% (and thats what he is actually claiming btw) the product MUST be virtually totally nonreflective. it must also remain cool to cold even in direct sunlight. If it heats up it is NOT converting the sunlight. 5% is a very very small loss and there are no non-reflective surfaces around. the very best (and very expensive) still reflect at least 3% and this claims to have an almost loss-less conversion rate behind it.

IM prepared to say it isnt true simply because it is so close to the theoretical maximum that it is extermely unlikely. It would be nice if it were true but the breakthrough would be in materials science more than SOlar PV.

And if you research him, he claims this technology would be good to 'contraband detection in airports'.  What the... ? now try and work that one out if you can. maybe as well as being impossibly efficient in solar radiation conversion it is also useful for detecting drugs. I wonder what else it can do? maybe for Xray glasses???  who knows!

Quote:

Im prepared to state categorically that these panels DO NOT EXIST. not only do they exceed the theoretical maximum in real life use the standard of english inthe OP makes it look very very much like the kind of scam that fools like you fall for.

The story in the OP is based upon a press release from the Engineering Dept of the University Of Missouri.

A couple of the guys involved were interviewed on the BBC the other night. They were most certainly claiming that the device captured 90% of available light. I have no idea what that actually means for overall efficiency or power output - are these panels actually 400+% better than existing ones?

But in your case Longy, you don't want the story to be true. It goes against your basic ideology. To you, anything "solar" stinks of "Green" and we all know how much you pathologically hate anything to do with the Greens.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 6:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:41pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou. IM waiting to hree you debunk my claim that this supposed breakthrough goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this. but as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understan dmy quoery - never mind respond to it. it claims to be less than 100% efficient so how does it violate the laws of physics ?? I know !! God must have created it ;) It's a miracle !@! :) LOL you read my post before imbecile. to achieve 95% (and thats what he is actually claiming btw) the product MUST be virtually totally nonreflective. it must also remain cool to cold even in direct sunlight. If it heats up it is NOT converting the sunlight. 5% is a very very small loss and there are no non-reflective surfaces around. the very best (and very expensive) still reflect at least 3% and this claims to have an almost loss-less conversion rate behind it. IM prepared to say it isnt true simply because it is so close to the theoretical maximum that it is extermely unlikely. It would be nice if it were true but the breakthrough would be in materials science more than SOlar PV. And if you research him, he claims this technology would be good to 'contraband detection in airports'.  What the... ? now try and work that one out if you can. maybe as well as being impossibly efficient in solar radiation conversion it is also useful for detecting drugs. I wonder what else it can do? maybe for Xray glasses???  who knows!

For a start it claims 90% not 95% efficiency !! Who the bugger are you to say whether or not it is true ? What qualifications do you have in this field ? Sweet f.ckall as usual. And you are an idiot because only a small part of sunlight energy is visible to the naked eye so who cares about a bit of reflected visible light.

Your denial of this technology is not much better than the reasoning you use to deny climate change science which by the way the Vatican actually endorses ;)

You just don't like the idea of anyone converting FREE sunlight energy into FREE electrical energy no matter how inefficient the conversion process is. If it's conventional solar panel then according to you its to inefficient and to expensive. But if its liter of PULP at $1.60 per liter then you have to get a payrise to afford to use it otherwise you're a loser.

What a f,cken idiot you are !!

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Quote: Im prepared to state categorically that these panels DO NOT EXIST. not only do they exceed the theoretical maximum in real life use the standard of english inthe OP makes it look very very much like the kind of scam that fools like you fall for. The story in the OP is based upon a press release from the Engineering Dept of the University Of Missouri. A couple of the guys involved were interviewed on the BBC the other night. They were most certainly claiming that the device captured 90% of available light. I have no idea what that actually means for overall efficiency or power output - are these panels actually 400+% better than existing ones? But in your case Longy, you don't want the story to be true. It goes against your basic ideology. To you, anything "solar" stinks of "Green" and we all know how much you pathologically hate anything to do with the Greens.

He doesn't want it to be true because he is an arsehole. He wants everyone to be chained to energy corporations no matter what alternatives are available. He's been in denial of electric car technology for years and has even argued against them on nearly every thread that I have started. One thread on Yahoo went for 4000 posts full of his drivel and yet other countries are investing heavily into this technology whilst his good useless mates at Ford and Holden are scamming corporate welfare out of the government on the promise of making the proverbial never-ever green car. These are businesses that can't support themselves and stand on their own two feet without yearly injections of tax payers money and badweekend reckons they make great cars that keep people chained to the fossil fool bowser. :(

i thought it was pretty obvious

longweekend is a freemasonic dupe and co intel pro

agent either willingly and being paid to spread disinformation

and corporate propaganda or dumb as a doorknob

either way

you cant fake this kind of stupid

either your paid to do it

or you are in fact and indeed to wit and that end... that stupid

with forgiveness and no judgement upon said stupidity

mear observational perspective without malice or malevolant intent

eternal blessings

and namaste

-:)

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Quote: Im prepared to state categorically that these panels DO NOT EXIST. not only do they exceed the theoretical maximum in real life use the standard of english inthe OP makes it look very very much like the kind of scam that fools like you fall for. The story in the OP is based upon a press release from the Engineering Dept of the University Of Missouri. A couple of the guys involved were interviewed on the BBC the other night. They were most certainly claiming that the device captured 90% of available light. I have no idea what that actually means for overall efficiency or power output - are these panels actually 400+% better than existing ones? But in your case Longy, you don't want the story to be true. It goes against your basic ideology. To you, anything "solar" stinks of "Green" and we all know how much you pathologically hate anything to do with the Greens.

quite the contrary. I would wish it very much to be true but as you say it is 400% BETTER than existing technology. it is also right on the edge of the theoretical limit. these two things alone lead me to be very suspicious of it. too many people in media and in forums love to beleive all these fantasticl new claims in renewable energy technology but they all seem to mysteriously fail to materialise. Achieving a 95% conversion efficiency is a remarkable achievement but the old saying is that if it sounds too good to be true then it usually ISNT true.

Now if they had claimed a 60% efficiency that would also be remarkable but possible. 95% simply ISNT.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:31pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:58pm: Quote: Im prepared to state categorically that these panels DO NOT EXIST. not only do they exceed the theoretical maximum in real life use the standard of english inthe OP makes it look very very much like the kind of scam that fools like you fall for. The story in the OP is based upon a press release from the Engineering Dept of the University Of Missouri. A couple of the guys involved were interviewed on the BBC the other night. They were most certainly claiming that the device captured 90% of available light. I have no idea what that actually means for overall efficiency or power output - are these panels actually 400+% better than existing ones? But in your case Longy, you don't want the story to be true. It goes against your basic ideology. To you, anything "solar" stinks of "Green" and we all know how much you pathologically hate anything to do with the Greens. He doesn't want it to be true because he is an arsehole. He wants everyone to be chained to energy corporations no matter what alternatives are available. He's been in denial of electric car technology for years and has even argued against them on nearly every thread that I have started. One thread on Yahoo went for 4000 posts full of his drivel and yet other countries are investing heavily into this technology whilst his good useless mates at Ford and Holden are scamming corporate welfare out of the government on the promise of making the proverbial never-ever green car. These are businesses that can't support themselves and stand on their own two feet without yearly injections of tax payers money and badweekend reckons they make great cars that keep people chained to the fossil fool bowser. :(

and as I pointed out repeatedly to you... EVs dont even EXIST in the mass market. they are at best a niche product with TWO models - one of which you cant even buy yet.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:41pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou. IM waiting to hree you debunk my claim that this supposed breakthrough goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this. but as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understan dmy quoery - never mind respond to it. it claims to be less than 100% efficient so how does it violate the laws of physics ?? I know !! God must have created it ;) It's a miracle !@! :) LOL you read my post before imbecile. to achieve 95% (and thats what he is actually claiming btw) the product MUST be virtually totally nonreflective. it must also remain cool to cold even in direct sunlight. If it heats up it is NOT converting the sunlight. 5% is a very very small loss and there are no non-reflective surfaces around. the very best (and very expensive) still reflect at least 3% and this claims to have an almost loss-less conversion rate behind it. IM prepared to say it isnt true simply because it is so close to the theoretical maximum that it is extermely unlikely. It would be nice if it were true but the breakthrough would be in materials science more than SOlar PV. And if you research him, he claims this technology would be good to 'contraband detection in airports'.  What the... ? now try and work that one out if you can. maybe as well as being impossibly efficient in solar radiation conversion it is also useful for detecting drugs. I wonder what else it can do? maybe for Xray glasses???  who knows! For a start it claims 90% not 95% efficiency !! Who the bugger are you to say whether or not it is true ? What qualifications do you have in this field ? Sweet f.ckall as usual. And you are an idiot because only a small part of sunlight energy is visible to the naked eye so who cares about a bit of reflected visible light. Your denial of this technology is not much better than the reasoning you use to deny climate change science which by the way the Vatican actually endorses ;) You just don't like the idea of anyone converting FREE sunlight energy into FREE electrical energy no matter how inefficient the conversion process is. If it's conventional solar panel then according to you its to inefficient and to expensive. But if its liter of PULP at $1.60 per liter then you have to get a payrise to afford to use it otherwise you're a loser. What a f,cken idiot you are !!

if you google this calim you wil find they are claiming 95% not 90%. and that just makes the claim even less likely. But let's just let tie judge who is right, ok?

in 2 years time lets see if anyone is doing anything with this Solar Cell/drug sniffer combo technology.

You fall for everything. You probably beleived the cold-fusion Palladium rod claim some years back as well! Science has some immutable lawas and if you ever attended a university you might know some of them. You might also have learned that a theroetical limit puts practical limits well below that. To use a high-tech example, no object with mass can exist at the speed of light. that doesnt mean that you can travel at 99% of the speed of light or (to make a parallel her) at 90% of c.

Real life science has real-life limits.

Quote:

Achieving a 95% converions efficiency is a remarkable achievement but the old saying is that if it sounds too good to be true then it usually ISNT true.

I heard the interview and there was no mention of 90+% efficiency. All they said is that it managed to use 90+% of the available light spectrum.

There was no mention of what kind of extra power production the extra 70 or so percent of light utilisation resulted in.

Since it wasn't mentioned, I think it's safe to assume that not all of the extra light captured results in a comparable increase in output.

it_is_the_light wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:49pm:

i thought it was pretty obvious longweekend is a freemasonic dupe and co intel pro agent either willingly and being paid to spread disinformation and corporate propaganda or dumb as a doorknob either way you cant fake this kind of stupid either your paid to do it or you are in fact and indeed to wit and that end... that stupid with forgiveness and no judgement upon said stupidity mear observational perspective without malice or malevolant intent eternal blessings and namaste -:)

oh, i WISH i was being paid :))

you are such a cretin.

why should any be suprised with weekenders responses?

this one denies that magnetic energy is free

and regards sticky tape as free energy to boot...

the guys' mind is footloose on the dancefloor that is painted

upon a checkerboard black and white canvass called insanity

with forgiveness and an abundance of non judgemental observational

aspectual interpretation

eternal blessings and forgiveness for freemasonics and or simple

minds

it_is_the_light wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:58pm:

why should any be suprised with weekenders responses? this one denies that magnetic energy is free and regards sticky tape as free energy to boot... the guys' mind is footloose on the dancefloor that is painted upon a checkerboard black and white canvass called insanity with forgiveness and an abundance of non judgemental observational aspectual interpretation eternal blessings and forgiveness for freemasonics and or simple minds

I won't forgive Longweekend until he thanks Nail.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:57pm:

Quote: Achieving a 95% converions efficiency is a remarkable achievement but the old saying is that if it sounds too good to be true then it usually ISNT true. I heard the interview and there was no mention of 90+% efficiency. All they said is that it managed to use 90+% of the available light spectrum. There was no mention of what kind of extra power production the extra 70 or so percent of light utilisation resulted in. Since it wasn't mentioned, I think it's safe to assume that not all of the extra light captured results in a comparable increase in output.

Now that is quite a different scenario, isnt it? a wider range of frequencies that can be captured is vastly different than the implication in the OP. So it uses 90% of the visible light spectrum or the spectrum of light emitted by the sun? interesting!

but it is a very different scenario than converting 90% of light energy.

Perhaps they should hire a scientist instead of a marketer to write their press releases. Be interesting to see what the outcome of it is.

oh, i WISH i was being paid :))

you are such a cretin.

_________

forgiven

i think its pretty obvious weekender

you never speak out against the system because you

are co intel pro

your covers are blown...cat out of the bag much?

its over 'patsy' cline

-:)

Bobby. wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:01pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 7:58pm: why should any be suprised with weekenders responses? this one denies that magnetic energy is free and regards sticky tape as free energy to boot... the guys' mind is footloose on the dancefloor that is painted upon a checkerboard black and white canvass called insanity with forgiveness and an abundance of non judgemental observational aspectual interpretation eternal blessings and forgiveness for freemasonics and or simple minds I won't forgive Longweekend until he thanks Nail.

grow a set, you big girl.

now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels.

.



Quote:

via Ernie; What we really need is better energy storage

Well put Ernie. We could have a mythical solar panel putting out 100% conversion efficancy and we still run into the same old problems when the sun goes down. Our current technology solar panels would probably be near good enuf if we had a dirt cheap reliable battery.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

As i hate power lines and like to be a little independant from the government teat i dont have power to me little farm and i've been using solar fer about quarter of a century now.
  Expensive and unreliable is the best discripter of solar. Most times now i just fire up the genny when anything more then a light is needed. That said, i look forward to the day when we have good cheap reliable indepent power sources...
   
   ...in the mean time oil and coal is the most sensible power sources we have. IMO it is shear stupidity to stop using them as power sources until something better comes along.







.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:03pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 7:57pm: Quote: Achieving a 95% converions efficiency is a remarkable achievement but the old saying is that if it sounds too good to be true then it usually ISNT true. I heard the interview and there was no mention of 90+% efficiency. All they said is that it managed to use 90+% of the available light spectrum. There was no mention of what kind of extra power production the extra 70 or so percent of light utilisation resulted in. Since it wasn't mentioned, I think it's safe to assume that not all of the extra light captured results in a comparable increase in output. Now that is quite a different scenario, isnt it? a wider range of frequencies that can be captured is vastly different than the implication in the OP. So it uses 90% of the visible light spectrum or the spectrum of light emitted by the sun? interesting! but it is a very different scenario than converting 90% of light energy. Perhaps they should hire a scientist instead of a marketer to write their press releases. Be interesting to see what the outcome of it is.

The press release makes no claims other than "has developed a flexible solar sheet that captures more than 90 percent of available light".

The problem seems to be an attempt at creative writing when the press release was rewritten on one of the Green or renewable energy sites and then went kind of viral on similar sites.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 7:31pm: Life_goes_on wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:58pm: Quote: Im prepared to state categorically that these panels DO NOT EXIST. not only do they exceed the theoretical maximum in real life use the standard of english inthe OP makes it look very very much like the kind of scam that fools like you fall for. The story in the OP is based upon a press release from the Engineering Dept of the University Of Missouri. A couple of the guys involved were interviewed on the BBC the other night. They were most certainly claiming that the device captured 90% of available light. I have no idea what that actually means for overall efficiency or power output - are these panels actually 400+% better than existing ones? But in your case Longy, you don't want the story to be true. It goes against your basic ideology. To you, anything "solar" stinks of "Green" and we all know how much you pathologically hate anything to do with the Greens. He doesn't want it to be true because he is an arsehole. He wants everyone to be chained to energy corporations no matter what alternatives are available. He's been in denial of electric car technology for years and has even argued against them on nearly every thread that I have started. One thread on Yahoo went for 4000 posts full of his drivel and yet other countries are investing heavily into this technology whilst his good useless mates at Ford and Holden are scamming corporate welfare out of the government on the promise of making the proverbial never-ever green car. These are businesses that can't support themselves and stand on their own two feet without yearly injections of tax payers money and badweekend reckons they make great cars that keep people chained to the fossil fool bowser. :( and as I pointed out repeatedly to you... EVs dont even EXIST in the mass market. they are at best a niche product with TWO models - one of which you cant even buy yet.

and when are we going to see the proverbial green car from Holden that cost tax payers 200 million dollars ?? How can the Holden EV exist in the mass market when Holden refuses to make even one prototype :(

You must think everyone is completely stupid.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:06pm:

now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels.

and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ??

How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ??

Quote:

and when are we going to see the proverbial green car from Holden that cost tax payers 200 million dollars ??

We got it. The Cruze.
It's more fuel efficient and more energy efficient to produce when compared to the old Astra.

It fitted the brief of the "Green" grant. You might have your own definition of what "green" is, but as far as the grant went, all they wanted were vehicles or devices that reduced fuel consumption - not just eliminate it.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:29pm:

Quote: and when are we going to see the proverbial green car from Holden that cost tax payers 200 million dollars ?? We got it. The Cruze. It's more fuel efficient and more energy efficient to produce. It fitted the brief of the "Green" grant. You might have your own definition of what "green" is, but as far as the grant went, all they wanted were vehicles or devices that reduced fuel consumption - not eliminated it.

We got ripped off !! Any small fossil fool car would fit that description and yet only Holden got the grant. What a scam :(

It still keeps you addicted to the rising costs at the fossil fool bowser and still pollutes as well. Its fuel economy is not the great either. Plenty of smaller cars do better but hey why didn't they get any money ?? :(

Quote:

We got ripped off !! Any small fossil fool car would fit that description and yet only Holden got the grant. What a scam

Who else was going to get it?
The only other option here is Ford - or perhaps Toyota.

Anything else would require huge startup costs - far exceeding anything the grant was offering.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:01pm: it_is_the_light wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 7:58pm: why should any be suprised with weekenders responses? this one denies that magnetic energy is free and regards sticky tape as free energy to boot... the guys' mind is footloose on the dancefloor that is painted upon a checkerboard black and white canvass called insanity with forgiveness and an abundance of non judgemental observational aspectual interpretation eternal blessings and forgiveness for freemasonics and or simple minds I won't forgive Longweekend until he thanks Nail. grow a set, you big girl.

Longweekend.
You grow a set - old lady.
You come here bagging every piece of new technology
when you don't even understand it.
You're a whinging, whining loser.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:41pm:

Quote: We got ripped off !! Any small fossil fool car would fit that description and yet only Holden got the grant. What a scam Who else was going to get it? The only other option here is Ford - or perhaps Toyota. Anything else would require huge startup costs - far exceeding anything the grant was offering.

this dude didn't get it and he can still make EV's in his back yard workshop but Holden has trouble making one even with 200 million in gov handouts :) LOL

http://bev.com.au/


Quote:

COMING SOON: ALL NEW ELECTRON GEN II Announcing Australia’s first plug-in EV with a range of 220km (based on the Japanese 10.15 drive cycle) and 160km of highway driving. Available in 3 or 5 door configuration, with sporty performance (0-60kmh in 5 sec). It will be Australia’s first EV powered by a 100% Australian designed and built drive train (taking local content over 80%) AND the first practical EV for driving in regional areas. We call it the Electron Gen II. Other features: front/side/curtain airbags, 4 hour recharge, optional leather seats and 420ltr boot space. Supplied with a four-on-the-floor semi-automatic shift for those who like to DRIVE their car. Available Q3-2011 – call now to place an advance order.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

cods wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:14am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 12:55pm: cods wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:25am: they talk sunlight so what happens when there is no sunlight?..winertime some countries see very little sunlight..even in Canberra we have our days..do they still capture the sun heat though it cant be felt or seen? There are things called batteries you know ;) And do we ignore sunlight and heat energy during the day just because it is not available 24 hours a day ?? It's not an all or nothing solution. yeah I have heard of them.... something funny about batteries they always fade at the wrong moment..mine would burn out about 8pm... however are not batteries a pollutant in their own right? and almost impossible to get rid of.and would we have to have a huge one attached to the roof as well.. just asking as I like to get a mental picture... rusty are you driving the Great wall yet??? havent seen many especially those batteries in every fossil fool car on the planet. But that doesn't count does it as long as some shareholder in some oil company profits out of it ;) and I got a car. don't need another one. cost me enough as it is. I paid $1.58 for PULP the other day :( Not cheap are they. Got any ideas of how I can reduce the costs of running my fossil fool vehicle since you libbos are always obsessed by the cost of renewable energy !!

You could convert it to run on methane and derive it from the crap that you frequently spew.

Quote:

Longweekend - you are such a transparent idiot! you have recognised the validity of my argument by failing to address it! even you see the unlikelihood of 90% efficiency in solar PV!

You reckon you can't get Pv Panels 90% efficient? you're willing to bet on it? Well I wont be having any... this new technology isn't PV.  ;D

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JSEEDO000132000001011014000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

Working on being an Innovator myself with some Dive Buddies, I've seen some pretty cool stuff come out this year from Innovators around this country. I'm not talking novelty gizmos and gadgets ...I'm talking real life-changing inventions/innovations. Seeing such an avalanche of Innovation pour forth (just like it did from the adversity of the Great Depression and other such Crises times like the World Wars) only confirms that such a thing as 90% Solar Power (input/output) is out there ...especially now knowing how the 'game' of Patents is played out. ;)
...only Daft Punks like LongWeekend couldn't concieve of such a thing because he ain't the type to come up with such things to better our world in the first place. He would rather just Frack off instead.

White T-Shirts: Keep you cooler but allow more UV.
Black T-Shirts: Keep you from UV but allow more heat.

Flying Binghi wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:09pm:

. Quote: via Ernie; What we really need is better energy storage Well put Ernie. We could have a mythical solar panel putting out 100% conversion efficancy and we still run into the same old problems when the sun goes down. Our current technology solar panels would probably be near good enuf if we had a dirt cheap reliable battery. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . As i hate power lines and like to be a little independant from the government teat i dont have power to me little farm and i've been using solar fer about quarter of a century now.   Expensive and unreliable is the best discripter of solar. Most times now i just fire up the genny when anything more then a light is needed. That said, i look forward to the day when we have good cheap reliable indepent power sources...        ...in the mean time oil and coal is the most sensible power sources we have. IMO it is shear stupidity to stop using them as power sources until something better comes along. .

effective battery technology remains a big issue. they tend to be extremely expensive to be of any use. another way of storing energy is to use solar during the day to pump water up a hill into a large tank and then during the night use hydro generation. but that too is expensive. solar thermal storage using molten salt work but is VERY expensive and is along way from larg scal commerical use - nevermind residential use.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:03pm: Life_goes_on wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 7:57pm: Quote: Achieving a 95% converions efficiency is a remarkable achievement but the old saying is that if it sounds too good to be true then it usually ISNT true. I heard the interview and there was no mention of 90+% efficiency. All they said is that it managed to use 90+% of the available light spectrum. There was no mention of what kind of extra power production the extra 70 or so percent of light utilisation resulted in. Since it wasn't mentioned, I think it's safe to assume that not all of the extra light captured results in a comparable increase in output. Now that is quite a different scenario, isnt it? a wider range of frequencies that can be captured is vastly different than the implication in the OP. So it uses 90% of the visible light spectrum or the spectrum of light emitted by the sun? interesting! but it is a very different scenario than converting 90% of light energy. Perhaps they should hire a scientist instead of a marketer to write their press releases. Be interesting to see what the outcome of it is. The press release makes no claims other than "has developed a flexible solar sheet that captures more than 90 percent of available light". The problem seems to be an attempt at creative writing when the press release was rewritten on one of the Green or renewable energy sites and then went kind of viral on similar sites.

Yes I can see that. there is a HUGE difference between capturing(converting) 90% of light falling on a cell and being able to convert 90% of the wavelengths falling on it. the language in the OP also sounde like it was written by an Indian student!

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:29pm:

Quote: and when are we going to see the proverbial green car from Holden that cost tax payers 200 million dollars ?? We got it. The Cruze. It's more fuel efficient and more energy efficient to produce when compared to the old Astra. It fitted the brief of the "Green" grant. You might have your own definition of what "green" is, but as far as the grant went, all they wanted were vehicles or devices that reduced fuel consumption - not just eliminate it.

this is the standard toenail problem. He only accepts somethign if it is 100% in agreement with his own veiwpoint. 'green' has a wide and varied application, the most common being REDUCED energy consumption. that does not imply zero use.  I think most people understood that.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ??

it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:48pm:

effective battery technology remains a big issue. they tend to be extremely expensive to be of any use. another way of storing energy is to use solar during the day to pump water up a hill into a large tank and then during the night use hydro generation. but that too is expensive. solar thermal storage using molten salt work but is VERY expensive and is along way from larg scal commerical use - nevermind residential use.

what about the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ??

it's very cheap at the moment isn't it :) LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 9:57pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:41pm: Quote: We got ripped off !! Any small fossil fool car would fit that description and yet only Holden got the grant. What a scam Who else was going to get it? The only other option here is Ford - or perhaps Toyota. Anything else would require huge startup costs - far exceeding anything the grant was offering. this dude didn't get it and he can still make EV's in his back yard workshop but Holden has trouble making one even with 200 million in gov handouts :) LOL http://bev.com.au/ [quote]COMING SOON: ALL NEW ELECTRON GEN II Announcing Australia’s first plug-in EV with a range of 220km (based on the Japanese 10.15 drive cycle) and 160km of highway driving. Available in 3 or 5 door configuration, with sporty performance (0-60kmh in 5 sec). It will be Australia’s first EV powered by a 100% Australian designed and built drive train (taking local content over 80%) AND the first practical EV for driving in regional areas. We call it the Electron Gen II. Other features: front/side/curtain airbags, 4 hour recharge, optional leather seats and 420ltr boot space. Supplied with a four-on-the-floor semi-automatic shift for those who like to DRIVE their car. Available Q3-2011 – call now to place an advance order.

[/quote]

I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH?

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising.

and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ??

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 9:57pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:41pm: Quote: We got ripped off !! Any small fossil fool car would fit that description and yet only Holden got the grant. What a scam Who else was going to get it? The only other option here is Ford - or perhaps Toyota. Anything else would require huge startup costs - far exceeding anything the grant was offering. this dude didn't get it and he can still make EV's in his back yard workshop but Holden has trouble making one even with 200 million in gov handouts :) LOL http://bev.com.au/ [quote]COMING SOON: ALL NEW ELECTRON GEN II Announcing Australia’s first plug-in EV with a range of 220km (based on the Japanese 10.15 drive cycle) and 160km of highway driving. Available in 3 or 5 door configuration, with sporty performance (0-60kmh in 5 sec). It will be Australia’s first EV powered by a 100% Australian designed and built drive train (taking local content over 80%) AND the first practical EV for driving in regional areas. We call it the Electron Gen II. Other features: front/side/curtain airbags, 4 hour recharge, optional leather seats and 420ltr boot space. Supplied with a four-on-the-floor semi-automatic shift for those who like to DRIVE their car. Available Q3-2011 – call now to place an advance order.

[/quote]

and they are allowed to build up to ONE HUNDRED cars a year. that will really worry ford and holden.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:56pm:

I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH?

Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:48pm: effective battery technology remains a big issue. they tend to be extremely expensive to be of any use. another way of storing energy is to use solar during the day to pump water up a hill into a large tank and then during the night use hydro generation. but that too is expensive. solar thermal storage using molten salt work but is VERY expensive and is along way from larg scal commerical use - nevermind residential use. what about the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? it's very cheap at the moment isn't it :) LOL

compared to the total cost of a current EV over 10 years, yes petrol is very cheap. a Prius takes 20 years to make up for its higher cost with lower fuel use. a comparable car to a MiEV - a Barina has a lower TCO (total cost of ownership).

You seem deluded into thinkiing the sole cost of a car is fuel. it isnt even the MAJOR cost. depreciation on my car alone is 4 times what i pay in fuel. tyres and services and a minor repair nearly adds up to my fuel costs.

yes fuel is expensive, but it remains only a component of the cost of a car. and that is current EVs major problem - they lose all their advantages in low fuel costs by costing 2-3 times as much as a petrol vehicle yet stil lajhving range/recharging limits.

as said many times before, EVs wil take over and dominate as soon as their TCO is equal or lower than petrol cars and they can compete on most or all criteria.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising. and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ??

fuel costs are a small component of TOTAL cost.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:00pm:

and they are allowed to build up to ONE HUNDRED cars a year. that will really worry ford and holden.

and Holden got 200 million in government handouts and they can't even build one !!! WTF !~!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 7:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:41pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou. IM waiting to hree you debunk my claim that this supposed breakthrough goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this. but as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understan dmy quoery - never mind respond to it. it claims to be less than 100% efficient so how does it violate the laws of physics ?? I know !! God must have created it ;) It's a miracle !@! :) LOL you read my post before imbecile. to achieve 95% (and thats what he is actually claiming btw) the product MUST be virtually totally nonreflective. it must also remain cool to cold even in direct sunlight. If it heats up it is NOT converting the sunlight. 5% is a very very small loss and there are no non-reflective surfaces around. the very best (and very expensive) still reflect at least 3% and this claims to have an almost loss-less conversion rate behind it. IM prepared to say it isnt true simply because it is so close to the theoretical maximum that it is extermely unlikely. It would be nice if it were true but the breakthrough would be in materials science more than SOlar PV. And if you research him, he claims this technology would be good to 'contraband detection in airports'.  What the... ? now try and work that one out if you can. maybe as well as being impossibly efficient in solar radiation conversion it is also useful for detecting drugs. I wonder what else it can do? maybe for Xray glasses???  who knows! For a start it claims 90% not 95% efficiency !! Who the bugger are you to say whether or not it is true ? What qualifications do you have in this field ? Sweet f.ckall as usual. And you are an idiot because only a small part of sunlight energy is visible to the naked eye so who cares about a bit of reflected visible light. Your denial of this technology is not much better than the reasoning you use to deny climate change science which by the way the Vatican actually endorses ;) You just don't like the idea of anyone converting FREE sunlight energy into FREE electrical energy no matter how inefficient the conversion process is. If it's conventional solar panel then according to you its to inefficient and to expensive. But if its liter of PULP at $1.60 per liter then you have to get a payrise to afford to use it otherwise you're a loser. What a f,cken idiot you are !!

Actually nails, the blog only claims that the Solar sheet 'captures' 90% of sunlight....it doesn't say anything about conversion rates.

It might be more efficient than a standard PV array, but does it actually convert ALL the captured radiation into usable electricity????

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;)

as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:06pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 7:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:41pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:15am: Jas, The 90% efficent panels are a long way off being manufactured & sold. The price may also be too high when compared to ordinary panels. I think Nail was just trying to keep losers like Longweekend up to date. I'm still waiting for Longweekend to thank Nail - something that he can't bring himself to do. Longweekend - I think Nail is still waiting for his thankyou. IM waiting to hree you debunk my claim that this supposed breakthrough goes close to violating the laws of physics and is highly unlike to work int he real world where 90% conversion figures are a myth - just like this. but as usual, your utter lack of science education renders you inadequate to even understan dmy quoery - never mind respond to it. it claims to be less than 100% efficient so how does it violate the laws of physics ?? I know !! God must have created it ;) It's a miracle !@! :) LOL you read my post before imbecile. to achieve 95% (and thats what he is actually claiming btw) the product MUST be virtually totally nonreflective. it must also remain cool to cold even in direct sunlight. If it heats up it is NOT converting the sunlight. 5% is a very very small loss and there are no non-reflective surfaces around. the very best (and very expensive) still reflect at least 3% and this claims to have an almost loss-less conversion rate behind it. IM prepared to say it isnt true simply because it is so close to the theoretical maximum that it is extermely unlikely. It would be nice if it were true but the breakthrough would be in materials science more than SOlar PV. And if you research him, he claims this technology would be good to 'contraband detection in airports'.  What the... ? now try and work that one out if you can. maybe as well as being impossibly efficient in solar radiation conversion it is also useful for detecting drugs. I wonder what else it can do? maybe for Xray glasses???  who knows! For a start it claims 90% not 95% efficiency !! Who the bugger are you to say whether or not it is true ? What qualifications do you have in this field ? Sweet f.ckall as usual. And you are an idiot because only a small part of sunlight energy is visible to the naked eye so who cares about a bit of reflected visible light. Your denial of this technology is not much better than the reasoning you use to deny climate change science which by the way the Vatican actually endorses ;) You just don't like the idea of anyone converting FREE sunlight energy into FREE electrical energy no matter how inefficient the conversion process is. If it's conventional solar panel then according to you its to inefficient and to expensive. But if its liter of PULP at $1.60 per liter then you have to get a payrise to afford to use it otherwise you're a loser. What a f,cken idiot you are !! Actually nails, the blog only claims that the Solar sheet 'captures' 90% of sunlight....it doesn't say anything about conversion rates. It might be more efficient than a standard PV array, but does it actually convert ALL the captured radiation into usable electricity????

the claim I liked was the one that said it could be used to detect contraband in airports! i still see ZERO connection on that one!

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;) as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries.

"Green" can also refer to the amount of Co2 produced in production, as compared to conventional vehicles...

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising. and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ?? fuel costs are a small component of TOTAL cost.

at $1.60 per liter you're kidding aren't you !! :D LOL

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;) as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries. "Green" can also refer to the amount of Co2 produced in production, as compared to conventional vehicles...

and there after what happens ??

pull the other one will you. The Holden Cruz made in a special factory in Korea designed to emit less CO2 :D:D:D:D:D LOL

Hi Nail,
Notice Longweekend still hasn't thanked you for telling him
about new technology?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising. and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ?? fuel costs are a small component of TOTAL cost. at $1.60 per liter you're kidding aren't you !! :D LOL

No, not compared to the cost of, labour for repairs, parts and rego, maintainence and insurance...

Bobby. wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Hi Nail, Notice Longweekend still hasn't thanked you for telling him about new technology?

It's not all that new bobby......

There was a science show I watched about 10 or 15 years ago that talked about a solar 'cloth' a university team was developing....sort of like shade cloth, but UV/visible light absorbing....

Sounds like much the same thing.

Quote:

the claim I liked was the one that said it could be used to detect contraband in airports! i still see ZERO connection on that one!

Solar cells and electronic image sensors are closely related  technologies.

The image sensor in a digital camera is a glorified solar cell unit. It converts captured light to a voltage.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising. and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ?? fuel costs are a small component of TOTAL cost. at $1.60 per liter you're kidding aren't you !! :D LOL

no, Im not. Perhaps if you owned a car that cost you more than $500  - like the rest of us - you'd know why! but since you ahve no idea let me articulate the costs of ownership.

Purchase price/lease costs/loan costs/depreciation
registration
insurance
repairs
tyres
repairs and finally....

fuel.

perhaps you stole your car, dont register or insure it and drive on bald tyres. thats the only way you dont understand TCO issues with vehicles.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Quote: the claim I liked was the one that said it could be used to detect contraband in airports! i still see ZERO connection on that one! Solar cells and electronic image sensors are closely related  technologies. The image sensor in a digital camera is a glorified solar cell unit. It converts captured light to a voltage.

I understand that but we already have camers and thermal imaging equipment. I fail to see how this technology woudl in any way be suitable - nevermind an improvement - on thermal imaging equipment.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising. and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ?? fuel costs are a small component of TOTAL cost. at $1.60 per liter you're kidding aren't you !! :D LOL

Last FBT year I spent $12,546 on my vehicle, of which only $2,915 was fuel.  Thats only 23.23%, not even a quarter of the total costs for the year.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:45pm: Quote: the claim I liked was the one that said it could be used to detect contraband in airports! i still see ZERO connection on that one! Solar cells and electronic image sensors are closely related  technologies. The image sensor in a digital camera is a glorified solar cell unit. It converts captured light to a voltage. I understand that but we already have camers and thermal imaging equipment. I fail to see how this technology woudl in any way be suitable - nevermind an improvement - on thermal imaging equipment.

Well, quite obviously they think it may have some advantages over current technologies. Unless you're fully informed about the specs of the product, it's a very brave person who calls "bullshit" in regards to claims about what devopment paths they show an interest in following with it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;) as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries.

yes and that is at least one toxic battery used in each of the 800 million fossil fool cars and trucks world wide !! Some how come that doesn't count in your small minded mentality :(

and what about the carcinogenic sump oil not to mention the cocktail of toxins emitted from the tail pipe :( Of course that is the way it has always been done so you can't use that as a comparison can you ??

Verge wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:10pm:

Last FBT year I spent $12,546 on my vehicle, of which only $2,915 was fuel.  Thats only 23.23%, not even a quarter of the total costs for the year.

And when it comes to a $2915 pay rise for the lowest income workers well we can't have that can we !! but when it comes to taking it up the arse at the fossil fool bowser well then that is perfectly acceptable and very very cheap and the lowest income earners shouldn't complain should they !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:37pm:

Verge wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:10pm: Last FBT year I spent $12,546 on my vehicle, of which only $2,915 was fuel.  Thats only 23.23%, not even a quarter of the total costs for the year. And when it comes to a $2915 pay rise for the lowest income workers well we can't have that can we !! but when it comes to taking it up the arse at the fossil fool bowser well then that is perfectly acceptable and very very cheap and the lowest income earners shouldn't complain should they !!

What has a pay rise got to do with the TOTAL costs for a year?

Where do you come up with some of your rants?

I was merely pointing out that fuel was only 23% of the total cost of my vehicle last year, making it less than a quarter of my total expenditure.

This year it will be even less.

Verge wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:10pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 8:06pm: now the more important question wil be the cost factors in such PV cells. the drawback in Solar PV remains its cost per kw. if the efficiency (which surely has to be the intention of this) can bring it up to 65% then solar PV can compete well with wind and be withing striking distance of fossil fuels. and what about the draw back of the rising cost of fossil fools at the fool bowser ?? How come that is never a factor in these comparisons ?? it is. the rising cost of fossil fuels ARE included in cost comparisons but you seem to not understand that the gap in costs is HUGE. Solar PV is 3 times the cose of coal and Solar thermal FOUR times. and the building costs of wind farms - the biggest component of cost - is also rising. and including the cost of running a fossil fool vehicle compared to an electric vehicle how does it then compare ?? fuel costs are a small component of TOTAL cost. at $1.60 per liter you're kidding aren't you !! :D LOL Last FBT year I spent $12,546 on my vehicle, of which only $2,915 was fuel.  Thats only 23.23%, not even a quarter of the total costs for the year.

as a more expensive vehical my total expenses were about $5000 more than than and fuel about $1500 more.  as much as it sucks to pay a lot for fuel it is a small amount compared to loan repayments!

Life_goes_on wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:05pm: Life_goes_on wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:45pm: Quote: the claim I liked was the one that said it could be used to detect contraband in airports! i still see ZERO connection on that one! Solar cells and electronic image sensors are closely related  technologies. The image sensor in a digital camera is a glorified solar cell unit. It converts captured light to a voltage. I understand that but we already have camers and thermal imaging equipment. I fail to see how this technology woudl in any way be suitable - nevermind an improvement - on thermal imaging equipment. Well, quite obviously they think it may have some advantages over current technologies. Unless you're fully informed about the specs of the product, it's a very brave person who calls "bullshit" in regards to claims about what devopment paths they show an interest in following with it.

given the capability of thermal imaging equipment now I have little reason to expect that a solar cell is going to be superior. I rememebr the announcement of the original black LCD. one of ita anticipated uses was to eliminate window coveringas as with a swtch the windows would turn black. it was a stupid idea then and history proved it was a stupid idea. you just need to think a little about some of these claims.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;) as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries. yes and that is at least one toxic battery used in each of the 800 million fossil fool cars and trucks world wide !! Some how come that doesn't count in your small minded mentality :( and what about the carcinogenic sump oil not to mention the cocktail of toxins emitted from the tail pipe :( Of course that is the way it has always been done so you can't use that as a comparison can you ??

there is a HUGE difference betweenn a single lead-acid battery and an EV battery with lithium or other toxic materials. you seem to think that petrol is the only possible pollutant from cars. you dont even consider other issues.

Verge wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:50pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:37pm: Verge wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:10pm: Last FBT year I spent $12,546 on my vehicle, of which only $2,915 was fuel.  Thats only 23.23%, not even a quarter of the total costs for the year. And when it comes to a $2915 pay rise for the lowest income workers well we can't have that can we !! but when it comes to taking it up the arse at the fossil fool bowser well then that is perfectly acceptable and very very cheap and the lowest income earners shouldn't complain should they !! What has a pay rise got to do with the TOTAL costs for a year? Where do you come up with some of your rants? I was merely pointing out that fuel was only 23% of the total cost of my vehicle last year, making it less than a quarter of my total expenditure. This year it will be even less.

you probably notice erge that EVERY post he makes and every argument is rarely about what he is claiming. this post is all about his problems affording fuel. it has nothing to do with new technology or anythgin else. it is about him - as it has always been.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 3:17pm:

as a more expensive vehical my total expenses were about $5000 more than than and fuel about $1500 more.  as much as it sucks to pay a lot for fuel it is a small amount compared to loan repayments!

so now you are admitting that it is a lot to pay for fool at the fool bowser but some how you can rationalize it away in your small mind by comparing it to something that is yet more expensive :) LOL

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 3:22pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;) as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries. yes and that is at least one toxic battery used in each of the 800 million fossil fool cars and trucks world wide !! Some how come that doesn't count in your small minded mentality :( and what about the carcinogenic sump oil not to mention the cocktail of toxins emitted from the tail pipe :( Of course that is the way it has always been done so you can't use that as a comparison can you ?? there is a HUGE difference betweenn a single lead-acid battery and an EV battery with lithium or other toxic materials. you seem to think that petrol is the only possible pollutant from cars. you dont even consider other issues.

lead is toxic to you moron or haven't you heard of the ROHS standards that is being applied to all electronic equipment over the last 10 years !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 3:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 3:17pm: as a more expensive vehical my total expenses were about $5000 more than than and fuel about $1500 more.  as much as it sucks to pay a lot for fuel it is a small amount compared to loan repayments! so now you are admitting that it is a lot to pay for fool at the fool bowser but some how you can rationalize it away in your small mind by comparing it to something that is yet more expensive :) LOL

are you terminally stupid???? we have NO ALTERNATIVES. adn petrol is actually still cheaper than when it peaked at $1.75 a few years ago.

when you and your gay lover - booby_the_planker - comes up with a viable and available alternative then let the world know. for now we buy petrol or we ride a bike. I cant help it that YOU ride a bike.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 3:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 3:22pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:56pm: I presume you are buying one? puyt down your deposit or ar you just a BIG MOUTH? Nah, I'm still waiting for Holden to build one for all of the corporate welfare that was given to them to build a 'green' car. Someone forgot to tell Holden that 'green' means that you don't keep people addicted to the fool bowser and pollute the crap out of the environment in stop start traffic !! Maybe you can emphasize that salient point to them ;) as has been said by others 'green' doesnt mean using no fuel. it means using LESS.  you need to learn to understand the shades of grey that exist in the real world. EVs arent green by your standards either. there are few things more environmentally toxic than batteries. yes and that is at least one toxic battery used in each of the 800 million fossil fool cars and trucks world wide !! Some how come that doesn't count in your small minded mentality :( and what about the carcinogenic sump oil not to mention the cocktail of toxins emitted from the tail pipe :( Of course that is the way it has always been done so you can't use that as a comparison can you ?? there is a HUGE difference betweenn a single lead-acid battery and an EV battery with lithium or other toxic materials. you seem to think that petrol is the only possible pollutant from cars. you dont even consider other issues. lead is toxic to you moron or haven't you heard of the ROHS standards that is being applied to all electronic equipment over the last 10 years !!

lead is recycled. you dont need handling or breathing equipment if you touch it!