Originally posted by humy

If renewables were so promising as your eco link says why no investment?

1, in many places, there IS investment.

2, in places where there is lack of investment despite the economics now favouring renewables, it is because of morons like you.

"in many places, there IS investment."

Not many. You have been brainwashed by the BBC.

If Nigel Lawson is not going to appear on BBC because he is not a climate scientist Fred Singer should be invited on BBC to take his place.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"in many places, there IS investment."

Not many. You have been brainwashed by the BBC.

.

oh so it is now a vast conspiracy from the BBC now is there?
Well, you are totally delusional.

look as the statistics on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

and

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/increase-in-renewables-in-uk-energy-mix/

If there is generally little investment in renewables, how is it possible that, according to these web links and all others on this subject, the current percentage in energy generation from renewables is ~20% and increasing?
Is there some kind of mass conspiracy involving just making up all those statistics?

There is also investment in renewables (not nearly enough in my opinion but investment is still investment ) in virtually every developed country in the world including USA, Germany and UK -it is you that has been brainwashed -by yourself!

OK, as, according you, there are not many places there is investment in renewables, prove this to us! I challenge you to make a list of the countries that you claim are not investing in any renewables complete with your sources of such information including info that this apples to most countries! ....

Originally posted by humy
oh so it is now a vast conspiracy from the BBC now is there?
Well, you are totally delusional.

look as the statistics on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

and

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/increase-in-renewables-in-uk-energy-mix/

If there is generally little investment in renewables, how is it possible that, accor ...[text shortened]... ith your sources of such information including info that this apples to most countries! ....[/b]

"If there is generally little investment in renewables, how is it possible that, according to these web links and all others on this subject, the current percentage in energy generation from renewables is ~20% and increasing?
Is there some kind of mass conspiracy involving just making up all those statistics?"

There will always be a least some investment in solar for example. Here in rural Northern MI there are a lot of natural gas wells that have small solar panels at the well head. That way they don't have to run an electric line to a well head out in the boonies. That is cost effective, but that is because electric lines are too far away. That does not mean solar can normally compete with Great Lakes Energy though. It does explain some investment, but not a reason to count on solar to gain a sizable market share.

Are you saying there is some kind of mass conspiracy to suppress solar and wind? Maybe investors avoid renewable investments like a plague for very good reason.

Originally posted by Metal Brain


There will always be a least some investment in solar
.

yes, and in most countries. So you admit your were wrong? Reminder:

"..."in many places, there IS investment. (my assertion ) "

Not many. You have been brainwashed by the BBC. ...(your assertion ) "

Originally posted by humy
yes, and in most countries. So you admit your were wrong? Reminder:

"..."in many places, there IS investment. (my assertion ) "

Not many. You have been brainwashed by the BBC. ...(your assertion ) "

It is one thing to find a remote use for solar and quite another to claim solar is competitive to energy derived from fossil fuels. Solar is not competitive...period.

I buy LED lamps that are powered by a small solar panel to recharge the batteries in the daytime. That means I buy a tiny bit of solar. That hardly indicates some competitive advantage. You are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If there is generally little investment in renewables, how is it possible that, according to these web links and all others on this subject, the current percentage in energy generation from renewables is ~20% and increasing?
Is there some kind of mass conspiracy involving just making up all those statistics?"

There will always be a least some inves ...[text shortened]... solar and wind? Maybe investors avoid renewable investments like a plague for very good reason.

What you are forgetting is the world wide push to solar in terms of fundamental research. Right now the latest darling is Perovskite, a cheap material that right now has gone for 4% to 20% efficient in just a few years, something that took silicon cells some 50 years to achieve. That is just one example and Perovskite has a lot of engineering work left to make it viable, we already know that. Then there are the triple layer high temperature tolerant cells where you don't have to build a cell one meter in area to collect one meter of sunlight, you concentrate the light on a one square centimeter cell which gets to something like 400 degrees C but still works.

We are in the middle of a solar revolution and one of these technologies will win out over fossil fuel, my guess, ten years from now.

The largest impediment to solar isn't the cells themselves, it's the infrastructure to get the energy from the generating site to the consumption sites. The best place for solar in the US is states like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada but there are no large scale high tension wires there to take the thunderous amount of energy needed to power whole cities so they have to be built from scratch if those states are to provide energy to the country.

The cost of that project has been put in the trillions, it's not a trivial effort.

There is a lot of effort left in many disciplines to get solar to be our major source of energy but I think that day will come.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What you are forgetting is the world wide push to solar in terms of fundamental research. Right now the latest darling is Perovskite, a cheap material that right now has gone for 4% to 20% efficient in just a few years, something that took silicon cells some 50 years to achieve. That is just one example and Perovskite has a lot of engineering work left to m ...[text shortened]... n many disciplines to get solar to be our major source of energy but I think that day will come.

That is exciting stuff. Let me know when it is viable.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Solar is not competitive...period.

How do you know this? What is your source of this information? Show us all...

Originally posted by humy
How do you know this? What is your source of this information? Show us all...

You are asking me to prove a negative again. That is not reasonable. If solar was competitive except in certain parts of desert regions there would be serious investment and there is not. That should be proof enough for you unless you have a conspiracy theory you are hiding from us.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are asking me to prove a negative again. That is not reasonable..

In other words, you have no evidence while I have shown evidence to the contrary. You are talking a load of crap as usual.

If solar was competitive except in certain parts of desert regions there would be serious investment and there is not.

How do you know there is no “serious investment”? what is your source of this information?
And "competitive" with what? fossil fuels? if so, WHY does it have to be competitive to be affordable and profitable? -the two not being mutually exclusive.
And HOW do you define “serious” investment? $1,000? $100,000? $10,000,000? -more than that has been spent on solar.
You are talking meaningless vague crap here.

OK, I don't know why you exclude other renewables (why do you? ) but take a look at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255182/UK_Renewable_Energy_Roadmap_-_5_November_-_FINAL_DOCUMENT_FOR_PUBLICATIO___.pdf

"...Between January 2010 and September this year, DECC recorded
announcements worth £31 billion of private sector investment in renewable electricity generation
...."

( and much of that was in solar )

That was in 2010 and investment would have been increased since then, with your great wisdom, explain to all of us scientists here why £31 billion in renewable electricity generation (and that is just from private investment alone ) is not "serious" investment?.....

Originally posted by humy
In other words, you have no evidence while I have shown evidence to the contrary. You are talking a load of crap as usual.

If solar was competitive except in certain parts of desert regions there would be serious investment and there is not.

How do you know there is no “serious investment”? what is your source of this information?
And ...[text shortened]... y generation (and that is just from private investment alone ) is not "serious" investment?.....

You cite investment in solar as proof it is competitive. That is outright lying!

Just because I go to the dollar store and buy an LED lamp powered by a 1.5 volt AAA rechargeable battery with a tiny solar panel is not proof solar is competitive with fossil fuels. I put it in my yard and like the fact I don't have to recharge it. It only costs a buck and it is a compulsive buy for the most part. This investment is not because it competes with fossil fuels!

If you want to prove something show me solar panels used for selling the electricity on a large scale where it actually competes well. You can probably find those in the American south west and in Saudi Arabia, but where else? Show me that it can beat electricity generated by coal or natural gas burning in more than just a few remote locations.

Originally posted by humy
In other words, you have no evidence while I have shown evidence to the contrary. You are talking a load of crap as usual.

If solar was competitive except in certain parts of desert regions there would be serious investment and there is not.

How do you know there is no “serious investment”? what is your source of this information?
And ...[text shortened]... y generation (and that is just from private investment alone ) is not "serious" investment?.....

"OK, I don't know why you exclude other renewables (why do you? ) but take a look at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255182/UK_Renewable_Energy_Roadmap_-_5_November_-_FINAL_DOCUMENT_FOR_PUBLICATIO___.pdf"

Okay, now you are digressing from solar to all renewables. We have been through this all before. Renewables is a general term that includes hydroelectric which is for the most part just the continued renewable source that has been around for a long time but is not expanding. Most of your assertions come from that kind of misleading crap. I stated solar and wind for a reason. They only have niche applications where they can compete. They cannot compete generally.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I stated solar and wind for a reason. They only have niche applications where they can compete. .

I ask yet again, "compete" with what exactly?
Fossil fuels?
If so, WHY do they need to "compete" with Fossil fuels to be affordable i.e. cost effective?

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
Stop being evasive.

+, whether "compete" with fossil fuels or something else, "They only have niche applications" would ALSO apply to hydroelectric since hydroelectric can generally only be applied where there are suitable sources of river/runoff water that can go into dams (although there is also the alternative run-off-the-river schemes that don't always require dams but they still require a RIVER) so you explanation for why you exclude hydroelectric, like so many of your assertions, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
+, if anything, there are far more places where solar can be used than hydroelectric because even in the least sunniest place in the inhabited part of the world (wherever that part of the world is ) has significant solar energy (probably about ~200 kilowatts per square meter on average ) thus the potential to cost-effectively generate electricity from it providing cheap enough and energy efficient enough solar panels are available (and their cost-effectiveness, in particular, their efficiencies-to-cost ratio, is going up all the time so it is just a matter of when, not if, they will become cost effective in that least sunniest part of the world ) ; unlike with hydroelectric which generally requires rivers to be present which are not present everywhere.

You cite investment in solar as proof it is competitive.

Nope. You cited the 'lack' of investment in solar as proof it is uncompetitive.
Reminder:
“..If solar was competitive except in certain parts of desert regions there would be serious investment and there is not. ..”(your quote )

I merely pointed out that billions of dollars are invested into solar so it is just a trivial observation that your premise appears to be false although that depends on what you mean by "serious" investment, which you still refuse to explain and is pretty vague.

That is outright lying!

which I never said. So it is your who lies here. Tell me exactly where I said this lie...

Originally posted by humy
I ask yet again, "compete" with what exactly?
Fossil fuels?
If so, WHY do they need to "compete" with Fossil fuels to be affordable i.e. cost effective?

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
Stop being evasive.

+, whether "compete" with fossil fuels or something else, "They only have niche applications" would ALSO apply to hydroelectric since hydroelectric can g ...[text shortened]... ote]
which I never said. So it is your who lies here. Tell me exactly where I said this lie...

If you are so sure solar is competitive with fossil fuels then put your money where your mouth is and invest in it to sell the electricity. When you lose money don't cry about it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If you are so sure solar is competitive with fossil fuels then put your money where your mouth is and invest in it to sell the electricity. When you lose money don't cry about it.

I think it safe to say fossil fuels will run out after some length of time. During those days, fossil fuel will inevitably cost a lot more with no end in sight.

At some point, it will be cheaper to buy solar, run electric cars. Right now there is a company that will build a carport stacked with solar that can recharge an electric car.

Solar will get cheaper as time goes by, already has. At some point it will be equal in price to fossil fuels.

What is stopping solar right now is getting power from the deserts where there is no high tension wire systems to transport that energy to users in the coastal cities, LA, San Diego, Seattle, NYC, Miami and the like. The main lines run around the edge of the country and it is said to get power from the desert will require a trillion dollar investment in the infrastructure needed to get that power to the users.