http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...50_years_5478/

On Sep 2, 6:36*pm, harry wrote:
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne..._lions_share_o...

Noone can possibly know what power gen techs we'll have in 50 years.
To claim knowlege of which one will be best is irrational.


NT

harry wrote:

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...50_years_5478/

Yeah, customers subsidising one end and goverments underwriting the other.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/solyndra-to-file-for-bankruptcy-mulls-sale-and-licensing-deals.html

In message
,
harry writes
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...ons_share_of_w
orlds_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

A "No news today" filler type of article

no mention of fusion, which, hopefully should have been cracked by then



--
geoff

NT wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:36 pm, harry wrote:
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne..._lions_share_o...

Noone can possibly know what power gen techs we'll have in 50 years.
To claim knowlege of which one will be best is irrational.



No, it is as the poster there says, simply a political advertisement for
subsidies: As such it is classed along with religious tracts like 'Jesus
is coming' as being outside the remit of any criticism.

No adherence to facts is required in such documents.

Te use ofte word 'could' is enough.


Like 'harry could be a Good Fairy sent from the planet Zarg to lead us
into the light'

I mean its unlikely, but, in a metaphysical way, possible.


NT

Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...50_years_5478/


Yeah, customers subsidising one end and goverments underwriting the other.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/solyndra-to-file-for-bankruptcy-mulls-sale-and-licensing-deals.html


The FT alphaville journalists were moved to remark, after a list of
energy stocks were published, with all the renewables at the bottom 'if
anybody still believes in renewable energy, they need their head examining'


The only way they can survive is to lobby the government with even
bigger lies and more outrageous statements until they run out of money
to pay the spin merchants.

Thasnk Godd Dr Mcakay and te other scientists and engineers at DECC
scuppered the 45p a unit tariff for big installations. Its bad enough
with twerps like harry with their boots on the neck of the working man...


Now we have to scupper the tariff on domestic ****, and kill off stuid
windmills as well.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:40:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Like 'harry could be a Good Fairy sent from the planet Zarg to lead us
into the light'

Problem of course is the light doesn't shine at night and in winter
when we need it most, and even when it does shine in the UK it is
pretty feeble.

As a method of getting the poor to subsidise the well off it is of
course one of the best systems invented since the middle ages.

On 3/09/2011 8:10 a.m., geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...ons_share_of_w
orlds_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

A "No news today" filler type of article

no mention of fusion, which, hopefully should have been cracked by then

Hopefully, or hypefully?

On 3/09/2011 5:36 a.m., harry wrote:
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...50_years_5478/

As long as oil and gas are much cheaper we will continue to consume them
as fast as we can. In the very long run they'll be gone, and perhaps
then renewable energy sources will dominate. Meanwhile we ride around
in luxury in our ridiculously large chariots of steel, thumbing our
noses at future generations. The harmful effects on life on the planet
are manifold. I heard in a nature doco last night that during the war
in Vietnam the US dropped half a tonne of high explosive per Vietnamese
capita, and managed to destroy HALF of the country's forest (and it's
inhabitants). Such atrocities will continue while carbon fuels remain
cheap.

On 3/09/2011 9:22 a.m., Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:

On 3/09/2011 5:36 a.m., harry wrote:

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...share_of_world

s_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

As long as oil and gas are much cheaper we will continue to consume
them as fast as we can.

We're not using them up "as fast as we can". If that was our aim, we'd
just firebomb all the oil wells. We're using it up as fast as we feel we
need to. If you think that's too fast, good luck trying to stop people.

Have you not noticed that the oil companies are doing everything they
can to develop new fields? If there is a way to increase the production
rate, they will employ it. To me that qualifies as "as fast as we can".
I didn't say anything about stopping people, but I firmly believe only
depletion will stop this.

then renewable energy sources will dominate. Meanwhile we ride around
in luxury in our ridiculously large chariots of steel, thumbing our
noses at future generations.

We not thumbing our noses at future generations any more than previous
ones did at us. I haven't seen any evidence that the Victorians or
anyone else gave thought to future generations.

And? Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. Most
people couldn't give a ****. You might consider yourself to be in good
company.

On Sep 3, 2:46*am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 9:22 a.m., Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:

On 3/09/2011 5:36 a.m., harry wrote:

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne..._lions_share_o....

s_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

As long as oil and gas are much cheaper we will continue to consume
them as fast as we can.

We're not using them up "as fast as we can". If that was our aim, we'd
just firebomb all the oil wells. We're using it up as fast as we feel we
need to. If you think that's too fast, good luck trying to stop people.

Have you not noticed that the oil companies are doing everything they
can to develop new fields? *If there is a way to increase the production
rate, they will employ it. *To me that qualifies as "as fast as we can"..
* I didn't say anything about stopping people, but I firmly believe only
depletion will stop this.

then renewable energy sources will dominate. Meanwhile we ride around
in luxury in our ridiculously large chariots of steel, thumbing our
noses at future generations.

We not thumbing our noses at future generations any more than previous
ones did at us. I haven't seen any evidence that the Victorians or
anyone else gave thought to future generations.

And? *Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. *The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. *Most
people couldn't give a ****. *You might consider yourself to be in good
company.

Depletion is already here . The Saudis are purchasing sixteen nuclar
reactors. Could it be because they are running out of oil? (Rhetorical
question if TurNiP doesn't realise.)

harry wrote:
On Sep 3, 2:46 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 9:22 a.m., Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 5:36 a.m., harry wrote:
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne..._lions_share_o...
s_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/
As long as oil and gas are much cheaper we will continue to consume
them as fast as we can.
We're not using them up "as fast as we can". If that was our aim, we'd
just firebomb all the oil wells. We're using it up as fast as we feel we
need to. If you think that's too fast, good luck trying to stop people.
Have you not noticed that the oil companies are doing everything they
can to develop new fields? If there is a way to increase the production
rate, they will employ it. To me that qualifies as "as fast as we can".
I didn't say anything about stopping people, but I firmly believe only
depletion will stop this.

then renewable energy sources will dominate. Meanwhile we ride around
in luxury in our ridiculously large chariots of steel, thumbing our
noses at future generations.
We not thumbing our noses at future generations any more than previous
ones did at us. I haven't seen any evidence that the Victorians or
anyone else gave thought to future generations.
And? Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. Most
people couldn't give a ****. You might consider yourself to be in good
company.

Depletion is already here . The Saudis are purchasing sixteen nuclar
reactors. Could it be because they are running out of oil? (Rhetorical
question if TurNiP doesn't realise.)

Of course, and that shows how much better informed and intelligent they
are in these matters.

THEY havent splattered their desert with solar panels have they?? and
yet one would have thought there was no better place to put them.

Peter Parry wrote:

As a method of getting the poor to subsidise the well off it is of
course one of the best systems invented since the middle ages.

But gives a better return than the national lottery, which does
much the same. ;-)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Depletion is already here . The Saudis are purchasing sixteen nuclar
reactors. Could it be because they are running out of oil? (Rhetorical
question if TurNiP doesn't realise.)

What you have to ask is why do the Saudis want the bomb, or maybe they just
want to desalinate sea water without emitting CO2 or maybe nuclear is
cheaper and they can sell the oil for more.

Most oil rig drilling is at shallow depths, likewise large sections of
the planet remain unexplored, much of the oil price is a combination
of melon protectionism fronting commercial interests (amusingly) and
speculation using the Fed Window to borrow at extremely low rates to
speculate in oil re JPM & GS (GS converting from an investment bank to
retail bank to qualify despite no bank accounts, bank outlets, ATM
etc).

The real problem is much of world gov't has been hijacked by
commercial interests and highly lucrative lobbyism, USA is in total
paralysis in seeing the elephant in the room re cost + tax +
bureaucratic reform and that is even before free exploration of oil is
mentioned. Remember bottom line oil exploration blowup for BP was in
fact a highly profitable result for Halliburton and its backers.
Halliburton might as well relocate to Sicily, although I suspect they
would be considered undesirables there.

The greatest problem facing the world is debt & unfunded liabilities,
due to idiotic 1995+ policy where Liar Mortgages and Mortgage Multiple
Inflation became the norm. The failure was gov't to enforce strict
proof of income and particularly impose mortgage multiple limits such
as 5x if 50% deposit or secure high earner (head master, GP, surgeon)
and 3.5x for the rest of the population. The reason it did not was
idiotic Cambridge PPE and Princeton socialists who believe #1
financial service profit would fund welfare, #2 housing for all would
buy votes irrespective of suitability, #3 boom and bust could be
eliminated by loose-credit when in reality it created an economy
dependent on it so creating a yet bigger bust.

For the recovery we had (I say that because 2012 is likely to be a
near zero or one quarter negative growth) oil should not have exceeded
95$, instead it topped 110$. Likewise the current slowdown should push
it down to circa 65$ which both Saudi & most oil explorers are happy
with as making new techniques viable re profits. Anyone who tells you
oil price does not matter is living in a dream world, it will make or
break the economy for the next decade because of high debt,
deleveraging business & consumer, low growth. Therein is the rub,
central bankers may actually prefer a good dose of high inflation as a
means to erode the vast deficits and unfunded liabilities (since wage
growth will be stagnant and in many areas will continue to fall,
unfortunately creating yet higher benefit bills re housing under-
supply in UK). The problem with engineering inflation for the UK to
erode the deficit (and that is the aim) is the vast amount of Index
Linked securities create a compounding liability in the future. USA
rather smartly issues very limited TIPS (Treasury Inflation
Protected), something the BoE depts may wake up to eventually.

FiT is a FiTUP for the poor as Peter Parry perfectly states. Add wind
power and oil price fluctuation into that and things are going to get
very uncomfortable in the next 7-10 years. Sterling is merely being
held up by fear of the Euro where it just might snowball into a real
crisis, that is to say it is the dead dog with the fleas on life
support.

Deep sea & Arctic drilling could yield surprises, the requirements for
oil are somewhat different than those assumed even as recently as the
1990s. That said, Libya appears to be the current acquisition on the
list, so who knows. Perhaps a cable to china with its coal plants is
in the offing... who is the terrorist, the one blowing up the cable or
the gov't front running re Bush & Blair...?

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...50_years_5478/


I still have an encyclopedia given to me when I was 8 .... they showed we
would all having flying cars by 2000, be living on the moon, and have
complete cities underwater ............ people don't always get it right.

On 02/09/2011 21:58, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 8:10 a.m., geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...ons_share_of_w
orlds_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

A "No news today" filler type of article

no mention of fusion, which, hopefully should have been cracked by then

Hopefully, or hypefully?


Hopefully.

The oil won't run out, but it'll become damned expensive. Solar, wind
and tide can't cope with our ever growing population. Fission is no
more than a short term fix; it's dirty, and the fuel supply is
ultimately limited.

There are two cases; the population collapses, or we get a better
energy source. I have a nasty feeling it'll be the former, it won't be
by abstinence, and my kids will have a very unpleasant retirement.

Andy

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 02/09/2011 21:58, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 8:10 a.m., geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...ons_share_of_w
orlds_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

A "No news today" filler type of article

no mention of fusion, which, hopefully should have been cracked by then

Hopefully, or hypefully?


Hopefully.

The oil won't run out, but it'll become damned expensive. Solar, wind and
tide can't cope with our ever growing population. Fission is no more than
a short term fix; it's dirty, and the fuel supply is ultimately limited.

There are two cases; the population collapses, or we get a better energy
source. I have a nasty feeling it'll be the former, it won't be by
abstinence, and my kids will have a very unpleasant retirement.




If it's just keeping warm that's crucial as EB put it "Being cold is just
Gods way of telling you to burn more Catholics"

On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:03:00 +0100, "Rick Hughes"
wrote:


"Andy Champ" wrote in message
.uk...

There are two cases; the population collapses, or we get a better energy
source. I have a nasty feeling it'll be the former, it won't be by
abstinence, and my kids will have a very unpleasant retirement.




If it's just keeping warm that's crucial as EB put it "Being cold is just
Gods way of telling you to burn more Catholics"

EB?

Ettore Bugatti?
Enid Blyton?
Encyclopedia Britannica?

--

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 02/09/2011 21:58, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 8:10 a.m., geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...ons_share_of_w
orlds_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/

A "No news today" filler type of article

no mention of fusion, which, hopefully should have been cracked by then

Hopefully, or hypefully?


Hopefully.

The oil won't run out, but it'll become damned expensive. Solar, wind and
tide can't cope with our ever growing population. Fission is no more than
a short term fix; it's dirty, and the fuel supply is ultimately limited.

There are two cases; the population collapses, or we get a better energy
source. I have a nasty feeling it'll be the former, it won't be by
abstinence, and my kids will have a very unpleasant retirement.

IMHO food supply will have a greater impact on population than fuel supply

tim

tim.... wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 02/09/2011 21:58, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 8:10 a.m., geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne...ons_share_of_w
orlds_energy_in_just_50_years_5478/
A "No news today" filler type of article

no mention of fusion, which, hopefully should have been cracked by then
Hopefully, or hypefully?

Hopefully.

The oil won't run out, but it'll become damned expensive. Solar, wind and
tide can't cope with our ever growing population. Fission is no more than
a short term fix; it's dirty, and the fuel supply is ultimately limited.

There are two cases; the population collapses, or we get a better energy
source. I have a nasty feeling it'll be the former, it won't be by
abstinence, and my kids will have a very unpleasant retirement.

IMHO food supply will have a greater impact on population than fuel supply


Yes. Since its dependent on massive energy input to get the yields we do
at the moment.


tim

On Monday, September 5, 2011 10:52:48 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:03:00 +0100, "Rick Hughes"
wrote:


"Andy Champ" wrote in message
.uk...

There are two cases; the population collapses, or we get a better energy
source. I have a nasty feeling it'll be the former, it won't be by
abstinence, and my kids will have a very unpleasant retirement.




If it's just keeping warm that's crucial as EB put it "Being cold is just
Gods way of telling you to burn more Catholics"

EB?

Ettore Bugatti?
Enid Blyton?
Encyclopedia Britannica?

--

(!)
Edmund Blackadder at at guess.
Simon.

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:

And? Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. Most
people couldn't give a ****. You might consider yourself to be in good
company.


Oh but I do. It's amusing to sit on the motorway inside lane at 60mph
and watch all the beamers and volvos and other ****ers with
unnecessarily large cars stooging along at 80+, enjoying their 20mpg.


Now come on!, a Volvo doing more than 50 ? what planet are these roads
on';?..
--
Tony Sayer

On 05/09/2011 11:07, tim.... wrote:
IMHO food supply will have a greater impact on population than fuel supply

No fuel - no tractors - no food.

Lots of food - biodiesel - tractors.

It's a tradeoff. Current systems require a large fossil input in
fertiliser, pesticides, and fuel.

Andy

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:

And? Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. Most
people couldn't give a ****. You might consider yourself to be in good
company.


Oh but I do. It's amusing to sit on the motorway inside lane at 60mph
and watch all the beamers and volvos and other ****ers with
unnecessarily large cars stooging along at 80+, enjoying their 20mpg.


Now come on!, a Volvo doing more than 50 ? what planet are these roads
on';?..

One with some pretty steep hills?



--
geoff

Andy Champ wrote:
On 05/09/2011 11:07, tim.... wrote:
IMHO food supply will have a greater impact on population than fuel
supply

No fuel - no tractors - no food.

Lots of food - biodiesel - tractors.

It's a tradeoff. Current systems require a large fossil input in
fertiliser, pesticides, and fuel.

Andy

So you think if we took 110% of the food we grow to supply 30% of the
oil we burn, this is a solution?

geoff wrote:
In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:

And? Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. Most
people couldn't give a ****. You might consider yourself to be in good
company.


Oh but I do. It's amusing to sit on the motorway inside lane at 60mph
and watch all the beamers and volvos and other ****ers with
unnecessarily large cars stooging along at 80+, enjoying their 20mpg.


Now come on!, a Volvo doing more than 50 ? what planet are these roads
on';?..

One with some pretty steep hills?



I've seen a volvo estate doing 130mph past the radar traps on Hangar
Straight..

One Jan Lammers at the wheel.


It cocked its leg going into Stowe leading to the announcer surmising it
needed two Labradors in the back..

http://shop.simonlewis.com/volvo-850...4-c-3103-p.asp

On 05/09/2011 18:02, tony sayer wrote:
In , Tim
scribeth thus
In ,
Gib wrote:

And? Previous generations laid waste to the forests, yes. The
destruction continues, on land and in the rivers and oceans. Most
people couldn't give a ****. You might consider yourself to be in good
company.


Oh but I do. It's amusing to sit on the motorway inside lane at 60mph
and watch all the beamers and volvos and other ****ers with
unnecessarily large cars stooging along at 80+, enjoying their 20mpg.


Now come on!, a Volvo doing more than 50 ? what planet are these roads
on';?..

As a Volvo owner (with 3 kids and a dog!) I usually sit in the inside
lane with you, getting 50+ mpg. (Diesel)
I find the economy drops off fairly steeply above 60mph so generally
travel at whatever speed the inside lane is going at. It makes little
difference to my journey time going any faster.

On Sep 2, 10:06*pm, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/09/2011 5:36 a.m., harry wrote:

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ne..._lions_share_o...

As long as oil and gas are much cheaper we will continue to consume them
as fast as we can. *In the very long run they'll be gone,

very long? the world (since 1980s) burns more oil every year that we
discover (currently 6x more) and we usually discover less every year
than we did the year before (has been the case since the 1960s).

Robert

On 05/09/2011 20:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So you think if we took 110% of the food we grow to supply 30% of the
oil we burn, this is a solution?

Go read my previous post. Mostly we agree.

Andy

As long as oil and gas are much cheaper we will continue to consume them
as fast as we can.

We're not using them up "as fast as we can". If that was our aim, we'd
just firebomb all the oil wells. We're using it up as fast as we feel we
need to.

No. We're using it as fast as we WANT to. There's a big difference.

Mary

On Sep 3, 7:48*am, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
As a method of getting the poor to subsidise the well off it is of
course one of the best systems invented since the middle ages.

It depends on your definition of 'poor' and 'well off'. We live on the
state pension, so by many people's standards we're poor. However, it's
more than we need so some would consider us 'well off'.

We need even less since we installed a solar water heater some years
ago and pv panels this year.

But gives a better return than the national lottery, which does
much the same. *;-)

That's what I've said for a long time, mind you, we're better off by
£104 p.a. because we don't buy a lottery ticket.

Mary

Chris