Wind, Water, and Solar Power for the World


Quote:

We don’t need nuclear power, coal, or biofuels. We can get 100 percent of our energy from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power. And we can do it today—efficiently, reliably, safely, sustainably, and economically. We can get to this WWS world by simply building a lot of new systems for the production, transmission, and use of energy. One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I developed, projecting to 2030, includes: 3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent of the projected total global power demand 49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 percent 40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 percent 5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent 900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent are already in place, supplying 4 percent 720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent 490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent.

Kytro wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:34pm:

Wind, Water, and Solar Power for the World Quote: We don’t need nuclear power, coal, or biofuels. We can get 100 percent of our energy from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power. And we can do it today—efficiently, reliably, safely, sustainably, and economically.We can get to this WWS world by simply building a lot of new systems for the production, transmission, and use of energy. One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I developed, projecting to 2030, includes: 3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent of the projected total global power demand 49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 percent 40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 percent 5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent 900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent are already in place, supplying 4 percent 720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent 490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent.

Pretty sure that lot won't come cheap...

Kytro wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:34pm:

Wind, Water, and Solar Power for the World Quote: We don’t need nuclear power, coal, or biofuels. We can get 100 percent of our energy from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power. And we can do it today—efficiently, reliably, safely, sustainably, and economically. We can get to this WWS world by simply building a lot of new systems for the production, transmission, and use of energy. One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I developed, projecting to 2030, includes: 3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent of the projected total global power demand 49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 percent 40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 percent 5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent 900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent are already in place, supplying 4 percent 720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent 490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent.

Well actually we DO need nuclear power...

If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,.....

I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work?

Kytro wrote on Oct 7^th, 2011 at 7:31am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work?

Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants.

Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface....

... wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 3:34pm: Wind, Water, and Solar Power for the World Quote: We don’t need nuclear power, coal, or biofuels. We can get 100 percent of our energy from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power. And we can do it today—efficiently, reliably, safely, sustainably, and economically.We can get to this WWS world by simply building a lot of new systems for the production, transmission, and use of energy. One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I developed, projecting to 2030, includes: 3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent of the projected total global power demand 49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 percent 40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 percent 5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent 900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent are already in place, supplying 4 percent 720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent 490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent. Pretty sure that lot won't come cheap...

It's all scale: it's done!!!  :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 3:34pm: Wind, Water, and Solar Power for the World Quote: We don’t need nuclear power, coal, or biofuels. We can get 100 percent of our energy from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power. And we can do it today—efficiently, reliably, safely, sustainably, and economically. We can get to this WWS world by simply building a lot of new systems for the production, transmission, and use of energy. One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I developed, projecting to 2030, includes: 3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent of the projected total global power demand 49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 percent 40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 percent 5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent 900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent are already in place, supplying 4 percent 720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent 490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent. Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,.....

No, we don't!  :o :o 8-)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2011 at 8:27am:

Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface....

24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done!

::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:29am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 8:27am: Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface.... 24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done! ::) ::)

Riiiiight...
And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 12:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 8:27am: Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface.... 24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done! ::) ::) Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you????

An elliptical orbit around the north pole?

now there's an idea.  :)  too bad no-one in power really gives a sh-t.

There ARE many ways to generate energy - and water power doesn't necessarily refer just to hydro-electric power generation.
I think it depends a lot on location.  The tidal forces generated in the world's oceans are there, now.  Places which have large tidal ranges between low and high tide, for example, have that power right at their door.  But no-one wants to seriously look at these types of things, because -  the PROFIT isn't there. Forget about the good of humanity.

As for solar power - another infinite resource - we are just STARTING !!  unbelievable as that may seem to rational beings.
I believe I've said it elsewhere, .. but anyway - I say - one size fits all - isn't the name of the game.

Nuclear???   You'd be an egotistical fool to think that humans can master such.  Of course, for those who don't think long-term, it presents an attractive power source that - generally- others will have to clean up at some time in the future.
BAD SHITE

Our cultural obsession with money and possessions and consumption does not suggest 'the common good' has any place in world politics today, and it should be the main goal of civilised cultures.

.......there's gonna be a hard rain ..thats gonna fall..




   

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2011 at 8:27am:

Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface....

Sure, my question was really in relation to the numbers they provided, which they seem to believe were readily available.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 12:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 8:27am: Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface.... 24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done! ::) ::) Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you????

:D :D :D ---->do your own homework!  :-*

Emma wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:41am:

now there's an idea.  :)  too bad no-one in power really gives a sh-t. There ARE many ways to generate energy - and water power doesn't necessarily refer just to hydro-electric power generation. I think it depends a lot on location.  The tidal forces generated in the world's oceans are there, now.  Places which have large tidal ranges between low and high tide, for example, have that power right at their door.  But no-one wants to seriously look at these types of things, because -  the PROFIT isn't there. Forget about the good of humanity. As for solar power - another infinite resource - we are just STARTING !!  unbelievable as that may seem to rational beings. I believe I've said it elsewhere, .. but anyway - I say - one size fits all - isn't the name of the game. Nuclear???   You'd be an egotistical fool to think that humans can master such.  Of course, for those who don't think long-term, it presents an attractive power source that - generally- others will have to clean up at some time in the future. BAD SHITE Our cultural obsession with money and possessions and consumption does not suggest 'the common good' has any place in world politics today, and it should be the main goal of civilised cultures. .......there's gonna be a hard rain ..thats gonna fall..

Necessity is the mother of invention! A carbon price changes everything as it breaks the blind growth cycle!  8-)

Necessity is the mother of invention! A carbon price changes everything as it breaks the blind growth cycle! - Death

hope so 'cos we've surely grown enough already.! >:( :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 12:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 8:27am: Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface.... 24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done! ::) ::) Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you???? :D :D :D ---->do your own homework!  :-*

Yep, that was the response I expected....You can't give the answers, because there aren't any....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 12:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 8:27am: Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface.... 24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done! ::) ::) Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you???? :D :D :D ---->do your own homework!  :-* Yep, that was the response I expected....You can't give the answers, because there aren't any....

hey gizmo, are you mr technology???? lol  ;D ;D ;D :-*

lol

http://i.imgur.com/Jd3IO.png

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 1:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 10:42pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 12:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 8:27am: Kytro wrote on Oct 7th, 2011 at 7:31am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:51pm: Well actually we DO need nuclear power... If it's a choice between Co2 and nuclear...then Nuclear wins hands down,..... I am not really opposed to nuclear, but what about the the provided list wouldn't work? Water, in terms of Hydro-Electric power, does work, but there are limted numbers of rivers that can be used and most of the suitabe ones already have dams and hydro plants. Solar and wind....well we all know the problems there.....the wind doesn't always blow, or it blows too hard, or not hard enough.....and the sun isn't always shining at an one spot on the world's surface.... 24 hour solar power was done back in the 80s: it's done! ::) ::) Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you???? :D :D :D ---->do your own homework!  :-* Yep, that was the response I expected....You can't give the answers, because there aren't any.... hey gizmo, are you mr technology???? lol  ;D ;D ;D :-*

Obviously YES, compared to you......

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

Obviously YES, compared to you......

Gizmos got nada... i wonder if Gizmo is trying to chew up the whole of the internets address space!??!
 :o :o :o :o :D :P

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 8:34am: Obviously YES, compared to you...... Gizmos got nada... i wonder if Gizmo is trying to chew up the whole of the internets address space!??!  :o :o :o :o :D :P

Oh, I've got nada???
You're the one who won't provide the info to back up your statement...

YOU made the claim, so YOU back it up....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 9:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 8:34am: Obviously YES, compared to you...... Gizmos got nada... i wonder if Gizmo is trying to chew up the whole of the internets address space!??!  :o :o :o :o :D :P Oh, I've got nada??? You're the one who won't provide the info to back up your statement... YOU made the claim, so YOU back it up....

...you telling me what to do pal?

...make me!!  ;) ;)

That's it, go push a lacky around to make yourself feel better!  :D ;D ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 10:16pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 10:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 9:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 8:34am: Obviously YES, compared to you...... Gizmos got nada... i wonder if Gizmo is trying to chew up the whole of the internets address space!??!  :o :o :o :o :D :P Oh, I've got nada??? You're the one who won't provide the info to back up your statement... YOU made the claim, so YOU back it up.... ...you telling me what to do pal? ...make me!!  ;) ;) That's it, go push a lacky around to make yourself feel better!  :D ;D ;) ;)

Nah, don't have to 'make' you.......by not replying, you prove that solar is NOT 24 hour, and wasn't, even in the 80's.....

TTFN

what happened to my reply to Cliff Richard???

You dirty dog - whoever you are - put my post up - what was wrong with it?

Don't tell me user error. Maybe it went somewhere else??
And - don't - whatever you do - tell me I'm paranoid. I sent a reply and I want to know where it is.
Was it moved?? mayhap?? :-? Maybe it's crossed in the mail - so to speak.!  :-??

(Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any angst felt by any poster to this forum, whatever the topic, or whomever the Mod.).

Addendum: I apologise in advance .. should this disappearance prove to be my own doing. ;D :) :P

But it was about that utter moronic pig who mouthed off - the 'skrag' man, verbally abusing our Prime Minister. What a scumbag.  WHAT A SPECIMEN.!

Remind you of you????     PUKO.@!!@

And massive congrats  Prime Minister Julia Gillard.  

Which was also part of the missing post.

:P :P :P :P

Emma wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:01pm:

what happened to my reply to Cliff Richard??? You dirty dog - whoever you are - put my post up - what was wrong with it? Don't tell me user error. Maybe it went somewhere else?? And - don't - whatever you do - tell me I'm paranoid. I sent a reply and I want to know where it is. Was it moved?? mayhap?? :-? Maybe it's crossed in the mail - so to speak.!  :-?? (Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any angst felt by any poster to this forum, whatever the topic, or whomever the Mod.). Addendum: I apologise in advance .. should this disappearance prove to be my own doing. ;D :) :P But it was about that utter moronic pig who mouthed off - the 'skrag' man, verbally abusing our Prime Minister. What a scumbag.  WHAT A SPECIMEN.! Remind you of you????     PUKO.@!!@

ONE ANSWER= SHAM FORUM!  ::)

Yes there are a lot ways to generate energy but I hope it does come cheap and environment friendly.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 10:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 10:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 9:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 8:34am: Obviously YES, compared to you...... Gizmos got nada... i wonder if Gizmo is trying to chew up the whole of the internets address space!??!  :o :o :o :o :D :P Oh, I've got nada??? You're the one who won't provide the info to back up your statement... YOU made the claim, so YOU back it up.... ...you telling me what to do pal? ...make me!!  ;) ;) That's it, go push a lacky around to make yourself feel better!  :D ;D ;) ;) Nah, don't have to 'make' you.......by not replying, you prove that solar is NOT 24 hour, and wasn't, even in the 80's..... TTFN

Abbott is sitting on a pile of cards and 20 million australians know it!

KNOCK KNOCK!

EVERY CRACK SMOKER IN THE LAND KNOWS HE HASN'T GOT  A PLAN FOR THE 21ST CENTURY!!

UNBRIDLED GREED died in the fires of 9-11 and the following unanswerable anthrax-in-the-mail attack!

The so called 'conservatives' have nothing to sell!!

BYE BYE abbott... the libs need a plan!!  ::) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :-*

Cliff Richard wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 8:31am:

lol http://i.imgur.com/Jd3IO.png

true

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

Cliff Richard wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 8:31am: lol http://i.imgur.com/Jd3IO.png true

Unbridled greed died in the fires of 9-11 and the following unanswerable anthrax in the mail attacks!

How can the greedy hide behind Nuclear Weapons??

Lol, they know they can't! THEY DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS AND THE VOTERS KNOW IT!!

IT'S ALL YIN-YANG AY!

BYE BYE GREEDY TRYHARDS!! YOU'RE ALL HATED FOR MAKING US TARGETS!!

 :D :D

BYE BYE SILVER SPOONERS TALKING ENDLESS SHITE WHILST HIGH ON CRACK: YOU'RE ALL HATED FOR MAKING US TARGETS!!

UNBRIDLED GREED is just a game unhappy people play!

Normal people just want to live!!

So, what have the so called 'conservatives' got to sell now?

 :D :D :D

Real conservatives aren't afraid of change and they will survive: the so  called 'conservatives' won't!

IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

Lets hope so., it really should be the Death

Look forward to the back-end of Abbott.  ;D  Can't be long now.

Haven't been trying too hard to follow latest developments.   Unlike most of the serious posters  - I just cannot spend that same time.


Was rather excellent though... :) :) to see 'Bang Bang' losing face!!!!Hard as he tried not too.!!  ;D

A TOUGH COOKIE OUR PM!!!!

And where are all the whining  haters now? on this Board???
Staying pretty quiet, far as I can see.  Mind you - I might log on for long spans, but I can't spend too much time on this thing...so - if I've missed anything interesting - let  me know  Pls? Maybe there 's a topic of interest re Obama/Gillard/Bang Bang I've missed.
Im a bit mystified  - why is the focus around the Pacific Power all about economics, on this board? What have I missed./?
Economic policy is like politics......... a distraction, a buffer Zone , a riot barrier.

'take care of the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves'.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you????

Of course you can't receive solar energy 24 hours  ;D However, you can store it, and various storage technologies have become routine overseas.

If (it's a big if) we could construct a world-wide HVDC grid, then 24 hour solar would be possible without even bothering about storage.

Now that's not too much of a pipe dream (don't take that wrong Jalane), because there are HVDC transmission lines 2000 km long. The longest so far is 2400km.

The advantage of HVDC is the low transmission losses and relatively low currents involved. (Think Ohms Law) A fairly thin conductor will work ok, but the switching circuits wear out very quickly.

'If (it's a big if) we could construct a world-wide HVDC grid, then 24 hour solar would be possible without even bothering about storage.

Now that's not too much of a pipe dream (don't take that wrong Jalane), because there are HVDC transmission lines 2000 km long. The longest so far is 2400km. ' - Muso

No probs... :)

Since I don't know what HVDC stands for.  Is it  High VoltageDC   ?? as opposed to AC/DC?

:-?

So we just need to develop better switching mechanisms?
Like those converters we use to change between diff volt.?
Shouldn't thing it will take long to solve that... given the exponential increase in tech these days.

But, after all, what do I know.??   SFA really. :)

Oh yeah  
Been meaning to ask

I have not installed solar power -- I thought because I have no nth facing roof, and i have bulk tall trees around, that it wouldn't be efficient.

But I've been re-thinking.

This is real basic I know :-[ but if solar panels still collect on cloudy days,  .. just less efficiently, then surely  shading by trees is not proscriptive.  Is that so?

And my house gables face east and west, but the whole roof is in sun for much of the day.
Not a big roof mind you, galvanised - 15' ......

Would solar power suit my situation.  I've discussed it with a few people, but :) they weren't enthusiastic.

Why not?   Words of wisdom Muso??

Emma wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

Oh yeah   Been meaning to ask I have not installed solar power -- I thought because I have no nth facing roof, and i have bulk tall trees around, that it wouldn't be efficient. But I've been re-thinking. This is real basic I know :-[ but if solar panels still collect on cloudy days,  .. just less efficiently, then surely  shading by trees is not proscriptive.  Is that so? And my house gables face east and west, but the whole roof is in sun for much of the day. Not a big roof mind you, galvanised - 15' ...... Would solar power suit my situation.  I've discussed it with a few people, but :) they weren't enthusiastic. Why not?   Words of wisdom Muso??

It would probably work out as too expensive, but look into it yourself.  I think the government subsidy is going soon too.

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm: Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you???? Of course you can't receive solar energy 24 hours  ;D However, you can store it, and various storage technologies have become routine overseas. If (it's a big if) we could construct a world-wide HVDC grid, then 24 hour solar would be possible without even bothering about storage. Now that's not too much of a pipe dream (don't take that wrong Jalane), because there are HVDC transmission lines 2000 km long. The longest so far is 2400km. The advantage of HVDC is the low transmission losses and relatively low currents involved. (Think Ohms Law) A fairly thin conductor will work ok, but the switching circuits wear out very quickly.

hvdc IS ALREADY IN aUSTRALIA!  :D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 5:42pm:

muso wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 12:09pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm: Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you???? Of course you can't receive solar energy 24 hours  ;D However, you can store it, and various storage technologies have become routine overseas. If (it's a big if) we could construct a world-wide HVDC grid, then 24 hour solar would be possible without even bothering about storage. Now that's not too much of a pipe dream (don't take that wrong Jalane), because there are HVDC transmission lines 2000 km long. The longest so far is 2400km. The advantage of HVDC is the low transmission losses and relatively low currents involved. (Think Ohms Law) A fairly thin conductor will work ok, but the switching circuits wear out very quickly. hvdc IS ALREADY IN aUSTRALIA!  :D ;D ;D

Yes it is. The link between Tasmania and Victoria is HVDC for example.  It's "only" 400kV.  A Global network would need to work on 1000kV.

It's not a limitation of technology. It's just a question of having the insight to construct a global network. It could be possible to justify it on the back of conventional energy generation, but there is minimal solar electricity to share at the moment. It's a small proportion.

muso wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 7:55am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 5:42pm: muso wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 12:09pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 8:57pm: Riiiiight... And of course you can tell us where it was done (the geographic location that receives sunlight for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), what date or dates it happened, and who deigned and built it.....Can't you???? Of course you can't receive solar energy 24 hours  ;D However, you can store it, and various storage technologies have become routine overseas. If (it's a big if) we could construct a world-wide HVDC grid, then 24 hour solar would be possible without even bothering about storage. Now that's not too much of a pipe dream (don't take that wrong Jalane), because there are HVDC transmission lines 2000 km long. The longest so far is 2400km. The advantage of HVDC is the low transmission losses and relatively low currents involved. (Think Ohms Law) A fairly thin conductor will work ok, but the switching circuits wear out very quickly. hvdc IS ALREADY IN aUSTRALIA!  :D ;D ;D Yes it is. The link between Tasmania and Victoria is HVDC for example.  It's "only" 400kV.  A Global network would need to work on 1000kV. It's not a limitation of technology. It's just a question of having the insight to construct a global network. It could be possible to justify it on the back of conventional energy generation, but there is minimal solar electricity to share at the moment. It's a small proportion.

It would also involve making agreements between countries to sell power to each other at a reasonable 'set' rate....

Emma wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

Oh yeah   Been meaning to ask I have not installed solar power -- I thought because I have no nth facing roof, and i have bulk tall trees around, that it wouldn't be efficient. But I've been re-thinking. This is real basic I know :-[ but if solar panels still collect on cloudy days,  .. just less efficiently, then surely  shading by trees is not proscriptive.  Is that so? And my house gables face east and west, but the whole roof is in sun for much of the day. Not a big roof mind you, galvanised - 15' ...... Would solar power suit my situation.  I've discussed it with a few people, but :) they weren't enthusiastic. Why not?   Words of wisdom Muso??

Your panels don't have to be on the roof, you could build a small structure just for your panels, I have a neighbour that did just that.

I've thought about that too,  but having made some enquiries it seems east/west orientation is acceptable.  But no way for south.

I was actually hoping to get a system that can be 'switched' so that it can just be used to power my house. Everyone says that would require buying solar batteries.  V exp.  
Mainly because living in bush, should a fire take out power, and having no town water, there is no way to access my water supply if a fire came thru.  

Have to keep thinking about it for now, thanks anyway.

Emma wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 6:22pm:

I've thought about that too,  but having made some enquiries it seems east/west orientation is acceptable.  But no way for south. I was actually hoping to get a system that can be 'switched' so that it can just be used to power my house. Everyone says that would require buying solar batteries.  V exp.   Mainly because living in bush, should a fire take out power, and having no town water, there is no way to access my water supply if a fire came thru.   Have to keep thinking about it for now, thanks anyway.

You can do that too, I have another neighbour that has sell back to the grid solar power as well as a battery bank for themselves should they get a power outage, which is very common here. I live in the bush too, I live on stand alone solar with just batteries,and yes the batteries can be expensive but if you spend some time looking around there are some bargains on E bay and the like, I ended up getting some ex Telstra batteries that had only ever been trickle charged and they cost a tenth of the price had they been brand new.
If you live in the bush,do you have water tanks or a dam?
I'd invest in a fire fighter pump if you do, or a  generator.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 10:31am:

It would also involve making agreements between countries to sell power to each other at a reasonable 'set' rate....

Yes, but that's not exactly a sticking point. It already happens in Europe. With Solar, it could even be easier. All you'd need is some kind of power swap deal with opposite hemispheres.

Emma wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 6:22pm:

I've thought about that too,  but having made some enquiries it seems east/west orientation is acceptable.  But no way for south. I was actually hoping to get a system that can be 'switched' so that it can just be used to power my house. Everyone says that would require buying solar batteries.  V exp.   Mainly because living in bush, should a fire take out power, and having no town water, there is no way to access my water supply if a fire came thru.   Have to keep thinking about it for now, thanks anyway.

As far as I know, you can go with either grid connected (you don't use any of the Solar Power) or Standalone (you use all the Solar power). I don't think that there is a switched option. If I'm wrong, I'd be delighted if somebody would correct me. The standalone systems are much more expensive in Urban areas, but not too bad in Rural areas, because the government still subsidises that. You can claim Renewable Energy Certificates (REC's) Of course you still have to buy batteries, regulators and an inverter or two.

The grid connect systems are cheap everywhere because of the government REC's.  It's funded by large users of electricity who have to pay a levy.  

If you live in the bush,do you have water tanks or a dam?
I'd invest in a fire fighter pump if you do, or a  generator.  
Thanks Skip.

Yep have a dam, a creek and 2 5000Gallon water tanks. Have thought about the water pump/ generator options - can't decide, and don't know enough at the mo.

I think I'd prefer ALL THREE.  :) ;)

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2011 at 3:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 23rd, 2011 at 10:31am: It would also involve making agreements between countries to sell power to each other at a reasonable 'set' rate.... Yes, but that's not exactly a sticking point. It already happens in Europe. With Solar, it could even be easier. All you'd need is some kind of power swap deal with opposite hemispheres.

Yes, but the countries in Europe are under a common government ( the EU) and the distances involved are much smaller..