On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 21:33:04 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put
into the system once constructed

The whole point of the article was that you can't ignore that bit. If
when you include that construction cost you end up with a net energy
sink then the whole enterprise is worse than useless.

to be converted to (say
electricity) Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

But can't be collected "for free".

Can't be made dispatchable "for free"

No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No CO2 emitted.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No transport costs.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No clear up cost
For the fossil fuel mining ****-fer-brains'

What you leave the place covered with dead solar panels?

for mining etc. No health costs

What about the disposal of toxic materials in the EOL equipment?

During operation ****-fer-brains.

to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from
us/cut off.

Unless the earth were to rotate on its axis... oh hang on a mo?

And it predictably doesn't stop rotating


No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).

And all worthless if the net energy generated is less than zero!

Brain dead as usual I see. See my other post.