Solar panels - or not?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Biospace
Posts: 3014
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by Biospace »

PDQ Mobile wrote: 10 Jan 2025, 7:14pm ...
At the moment just under 6% wind.
Zero solar.

But lots of gas, biomass, and nuclear.
Demand is high.

3C878773-749B-402C-A65F-6D6EF29A485D.png
We're a very long way from the Grid being decarbonised, and once it is energy will be more scarce - so why is there so little mentioned of reducing consumption of electricity? This would speed our route to "Net Zero" and place us in a stronger position once we have learned how to rely without constant fossil fuel burning.

We've grown used to seemingly limitless levels of supply and most have adjusted our lives accordingly.

To overcome a shortfall of 20GW of power once stored energies had been used in a period of little wind or solar, the levels of redundancy required would be simply massive. Of the order of 200GW to 300GW capacity of wind energy if there was a 5 knot gentle breeze, for example.

Our lack of determination to get on with building tidal power to me suggests that a reliance on fossil fuels is intended for a long time yet, but clever accounting and carbon storage (I see the billions being thrown at that as a big mistake when they could be used to build clean energy) will somehow, it is hoped, make that perfectly acceptable.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

PDQ Mobile wrote: 11 Jan 2025, 10:17am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 11 Jan 2025, 1:10am My contribution at times of peak demand, and peak fossil use are generally zero, or negative…
Since you were picking an individual spot in time I looked at that same spot in time as well.

My contribution to the daily load is absolutely not zero, particularly not over winter (though it gets pretty close in summer).
I only took a screen shot to show how dependent the country still is on non carbon neutral (and nuclear) energy.
Overall is the important, indeed only relevant, thing IMV.
I strongly disagree. The ability to pick and choose when I import energy (though that choice is at least somewhat determined by my energy supplier, not me) is key to making sure that I use as little fossil fuel derived energy as possible. Nuclear is fine, and we should be looking to increase our capacity - preferably by deploying SMRs at places like service stations, or even shipping container sized micro reactors... There is some weird objection people have when it comes to harnessing clean energy using atomic physics.
We are ever less reliant on fossil fuels - just 42% last year, yet another record (and they keep on coming, year after year).

Last year I imported 10.2MWh, of which 7.2MWh were what the grid defines as low carbon (i.e. it probably includes some drax power), I also generated and exported 1.9/2MWh). That's substantially less fossil fuel energy used than is typical.
Last year for 11584 out of the 17544 half hour settlement periods (i.e ~65% of the year) I didn't consume energy from the grid (or at least I consumed less than 50Wh across that half hour period, there is usually some tiny give and take). That is how the grid is going to seriously decarbonise - I can pick and choose (or let my energy supplier do that) when to consume energy based on the generation available on the grid. If we regionalise pricing I would be incentivised further to do so when the local weather was favourable, and if there wasn't sufficient local capacity there would be a commercial incentive to put more generation locally.

It makes a huge difference *when* you pull energy from the grid, and it makes even more difference if you can shape that load, and it's even better if that shaping can be automated.

We are on the same page here though, or perhaps two sides of the same coin.

I am a techno-phobe though, and ever more so; in that we do differ.
The levels of fraud, the ever growing pressure to "update" stuff, the increasing level of "influencers" putting their views out to millions at the press of a button, make me sometimes want to throw my phone in a lake!
I fail to see the advantages over older paper based stuff.
Fraud (and influencers are part of that problem) is not what I'm looking at with technology... social media in general can go and take a long walk off a short pier.

Paper based stuff would mean no time of day metering beyond the old E7 and E10, which are incredibly blunt tools, slightly better than nothing, but absolutely not up to the job of actually having demand significantly follow generation, rather than the other way around.
With smart metering, and with control of "non time sensitive" power usage automated (whether locally in response to price changes or remotely with appropriate financial incentives) it's possible for load to follow generation very nicely. I've had days when my EV seems to have a dozen short charging sessions set by octopus, I don't think they do less than a quarter hour typically, but that's responding to grid demands, generation forecasts, costs, other people's charging needs etc. I don't care when the car is charged, so long as it gets enough over the course of a week I don't care when in the week the car is charged, I try to make sure I charge on greener days, and leave it unplugged on days with less clean energy available....
Similarly I wouldn't care when a hot water tank was heated, just that I had hot water.
Same with storage heaters, and similar with home heating - boost the heat earlier in the day, and most houses can ride out a period of low generation.


And another difference between us is that I love cycling in shorts. :wink: :wink:
Not today though.
I could go out in shorts, except that I'm not allowed out at all at the moment post surgery.
I'd probably need to put the front insert into the vent hole on the velomobile though, keep a bit more heat in ;)
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 1:04pm We're a very long way from the Grid being decarbonised, and once it is energy will be more scarce
Huh - why do you think that?
There is no reason for energy to be scarce as a result of decarbonisation.
- so why is there so little mentioned of reducing consumption of electricity? This would speed our route to "Net Zero" and place us in a stronger position once we have learned how to rely without constant fossil fuel burning.
Well, we're always looking to reduce consumption - but of energy, not just electricity. Heat pumps are a current example - they use vastly less energy to heat a home than any fossil fuel based system. In fact even if powered by a gas power plant, they consume less gas than a gas boiler would.
Similarly EVs use massively less energy than ICEv - even if powered by an oil power station.
Over the last several years we have significantly reduced our electricity consumption - through energy efficiency improvements all across the board. The major exception is the growth of data centres, and their current insatiable appetite for power to run pointless AI tools.
We've grown used to seemingly limitless levels of supply and most have adjusted our lives accordingly.

To overcome a shortfall of 20GW of power once stored energies had been used in a period of little wind or solar, the levels of redundancy required would be simply massive. Of the order of 200GW to 300GW capacity of wind energy if there was a 5 knot gentle breeze, for example.
You're assuming that we would wait until the stored energy has run out before we use any other power source.
If you have 100GW of wind capacity then at some points in the year you'll be over-generating like crazy, and can return to the "old days" of managing supply to match demand (once all the storage is full of course).
At other points in the year you'll be under the "normal" demand, but you can both reduce that demand, and supply a significant proportion from the wind you have, massively increasing the effectiveness of the storage facilities available, and they then *don't* run out.
Our lack of determination to get on with building tidal power to me suggests that a reliance on fossil fuels is intended for a long time yet, but clever accounting and carbon storage (I see the billions being thrown at that as a big mistake when they could be used to build clean energy) will somehow, it is hoped, make that perfectly acceptable.
Tidal power is incredibly difficult to build without massive alterations to ecosystems, which is something we'd rather avoid where we can. Of course the longer we hang onto fossil fuels the more it will make sense to sacrifice estuary based ecosystems to save the entire planet - but we could still do it without that sacrifice.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4911
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by PDQ Mobile »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 2:15pm
PDQ Mobile wrote: 11 Jan 2025, 10:17am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 11 Jan 2025, 1:10am My contribution at times of peak demand, and peak fossil use are generally zero, or negative…
Since you were picking an individual spot in time I looked at that same spot in time as well.

My contribution to the daily load is absolutely not zero, particularly not over winter (though it gets pretty close in summer).
I only took a screen shot to show how dependent the country still is on non carbon neutral (and nuclear) energy.
Overall is the important, indeed only relevant, thing IMV.
I strongly disagree. The ability to pick and choose when I import energy (though that choice is at least somewhat determined by my energy supplier, not me) is key to making sure that I use as little fossil fuel derived energy as possible. Nuclear is fine, and we should be looking to increase our capacity - preferably by deploying SMRs at places like service stations, or even shipping container sized micro reactors... There is some weird objection people have when it comes to harnessing clean energy using atomic physics.
We are ever less reliant on fossil fuels - just 42% last year, yet another record (and they keep on coming, year after year).

Last year I imported 10.2MWh, of which 7.2MWh were what the grid defines as low carbon (i.e. it probably includes some drax power), I also generated and exported 1.9/2MWh). That's substantially less fossil fuel energy used than is typical.
Last year for 11584 out of the 17544 half hour settlement periods (i.e ~65% of the year) I didn't consume energy from the grid (or at least I consumed less than 50Wh across that half hour period, there is usually some tiny give and take). That is how the grid is going to seriously decarbonise - I can pick and choose (or let my energy supplier do that) when to consume energy based on the generation available on the grid. If we regionalise pricing I would be incentivised further to do so when the local weather was favourable, and if there wasn't sufficient local capacity there would be a commercial incentive to put more generation locally.

It makes a huge difference *when* you pull energy from the grid, and it makes even more difference if you can shape that load, and it's even better if that shaping can be automated.

We are on the same page here though, or perhaps two sides of the same coin.

I am a techno-phobe though, and ever more so; in that we do differ.
The levels of fraud, the ever growing pressure to "update" stuff, the increasing level of "influencers" putting their views out to millions at the press of a button, make me sometimes want to throw my phone in a lake!
I fail to see the advantages over older paper based stuff.
Fraud (and influencers are part of that problem) is not what I'm looking at with technology... social media in general can go and take a long walk off a short pier.

Paper based stuff would mean no time of day metering beyond the old E7 and E10, which are incredibly blunt tools, slightly better than nothing, but absolutely not up to the job of actually having demand significantly follow generation, rather than the other way around.
With smart metering, and with control of "non time sensitive" power usage automated (whether locally in response to price changes or remotely with appropriate financial incentives) it's possible for load to follow generation very nicely. I've had days when my EV seems to have a dozen short charging sessions set by octopus, I don't think they do less than a quarter hour typically, but that's responding to grid demands, generation forecasts, costs, other people's charging needs etc. I don't care when the car is charged, so long as it gets enough over the course of a week I don't care when in the week the car is charged, I try to make sure I charge on greener days, and leave it unplugged on days with less clean energy available....
Similarly I wouldn't care when a hot water tank was heated, just that I had hot water.
Same with storage heaters, and similar with home heating - boost the heat earlier in the day, and most houses can ride out a period of low generation.


And another difference between us is that I love cycling in shorts. :wink: :wink:
Not today though.
I could go out in shorts, except that I'm not allowed out at all at the moment post surgery.
I'd probably need to put the front insert into the vent hole on the velomobile though, keep a bit more heat in ;)
I am not surprised that you feel that way.
Your heavy consumption means a big advantage to you.
But spare a thought for those of us that use little, pay the half our bills just to stay on grid (standing charges).
I think we subsidise you heavy users.

If we all used much less then a grid supported by carbon neutral sources would be far more achievable.
I do not share your ambivalent attitude to nuclear.
Look like AI will demand ever more of that.
Two dangerous roads in one IMV.

The techy nature of fiddling with all those dials, buttons and screens to just balance and correlate it all is anathema to me, seems a waste of good time. I am no good at it either, old dog and all that.
I just want a couple KWHs (to run a whole house daily) at a reasonable price at any time of day and that sadly is no longer the case.

I think you missed the earlier "cycling shorts" joke- was a rather obscure it's true.
Biospace
Posts: 3014
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by Biospace »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 2:23pm There is no reason for energy to be scarce as a result of decarbonisation.
What I said was that energy would be more scarce, not scarce. There's a huge difference, perhaps "less plentiful" sounds less concerning?

However, even ignoring the fact that a limitless supply of energy - which is how people have been led to believe it is over the decades - tends to more pollution and more waste, one reason there would be less once we've thoroughly decarbonised is that EROIs are lower for renewables, nuclear and storing excess RE further reduces this figure. In theory we could increase capacity as much as we wished, but that's most unlikely to happen in a world of limited resources and limited finance.
Well, we're always looking to reduce consumption - but of energy, not just electricity.... Similarly EVs use massively less energy than ICEv - even if powered by an oil power station.
Over the last several years we have significantly reduced our electricity consumption - through energy efficiency improvements all across the board. The major exception is the growth of data centres, and their current insatiable appetite for power to run pointless AI tools.
I did highlight electricity rather than total energy, note. Some new power stations for these data centres are fossil fuel powered - see the "Data" thread. Our electricity Grid is anticipating large increases in demand over coming decades, even though we are an economy of office workers and import ever more goods, goods often made with energy from coal.

The world certainly isn't reducing overall energy consumption either - completely the opposite. If we look just at Britain, then total energy consumption has fallen slightly, in line with our loss of industry, more efficient appliances and devices and no doubt because some can no longer afford to keep as warm as they once did.
You're assuming that we would wait until the stored energy has run out before we use any other power source.
If you have 100GW of wind capacity then at some points in the year you'll be over-generating like crazy, and can return to the "old days" of managing supply to match demand (once all the storage is full of course).
At other points in the year you'll be under the "normal" demand, but you can both reduce that demand, and supply a significant proportion from the wind you have, massively increasing the effectiveness of the storage facilities available, and they then *don't* run out.
Yes, and I believe some are talking about more than 100GW wind capacity (combined).
Tidal power is incredibly difficult to build without massive alterations to ecosystems, which is something we'd rather avoid where we can. Of course the longer we hang onto fossil fuels the more it will make sense to sacrifice estuary based ecosystems to save the entire planet - but we could still do it without that sacrifice.
You make the re-purposing of an estuary sound as if it's akin to a nuclear disaster. We live in a time when we assume the natural world is incapable of accommodating change, when in reality that increasingly applies to mostly one species, basking in the glow of fossil fuels and controlled nuclear reactions.

As it is, we're making huge changes to ecosystems with the vast levels of pollution associated with overconsumption of goods from the more polluting nations and AGW. Why is the ecosystem argument placed in the way of tidal energy when the natural world is being harmed far more by war, nuclear mistakes/accidents/disasters and the burning of fossil fuels?
Biospace
Posts: 3014
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by Biospace »

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 7:09pm If we all used much less then a grid supported by carbon neutral sources would be far more achievable.
Over-consumption is indeed the real issue.
rjb
Posts: 7941
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 10:25am
Location: Somerset (originally 60/70's Plymouth)

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by rjb »

With electric vehicles increasing the demands for charging and the implementation of heat pumps will likely double our consumption in the not too distant future.
Peugeot 531 pro, Dawes Discovery Tandem, Dawes Kingpin X2, Raleigh 20 stowaway X2, 1965 Moulton deluxe, Falcon K2 MTB dropped bar tourer, Rudge Bi frame folder, Longstaff trike conversion on a Giant XTC 840, Giant Bowery, Apollo transition. :D
Carlton green
Posts: 4571
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by Carlton green »

rjb wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 8:39pm With electric vehicles increasing the demands for charging and the implementation of heat pumps will likely double our consumption in the not too distant future.
If we’re not burning fossil fuels then that energy (released by them) will have to come from somewhere else instead, I can’t see it being anything other than electricity.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 7:09pm I am not surprised that you feel that way.
Your heavy consumption means a big advantage to you.
But spare a thought for those of us that use little, pay the half our bills just to stay on grid (standing charges).
I think we subsidise you heavy users.
There are too many levies which are on SC rather than unit rates, but I would also push them towards gas rather than electricity.
There is a fixed cost per meter point, which is always going to need to be reclaimed - but I agree that the SC is *way* too high. It makes up a third of my bill, and substantially more than that of other people I know who have more south facing roof than I do.
The high SC also reduces the ability to save money by saving energy... and that's perverse.
If we all used much less then a grid supported by carbon neutral sources would be far more achievable.
I do not share your ambivalent attitude to nuclear.
Look like AI will demand ever more of that.
Two dangerous roads in one IMV.
Oh, I'm not ambivalent, I'm absolutely pro nuclear as a contribution to the mess we're in - it's the safest form of power generation we have, by a long way.

I'm ever more depressed by the amount of energy which is being spaffed on machine pattern matching (it's nowhere near AI).
The techy nature of fiddling with all those dials, buttons and screens to just balance and correlate it all is anathema to me, seems a waste of good time. I am no good at it either, old dog and all that.
I just want a couple KWHs (to run a whole house daily) at a reasonable price at any time of day and that sadly is no longer the case.
That's the point - you don't need to.
I happen to actively monitor my power, because I enjoy it, but the system can also manage itself quite happily. If you only need a few kWh/day then it's easy to install a small battery which charges itself overnight (when demand is low and prices are cheap) and supplies your energy all day. Add a few panels and it will also charge from those, and the excess will get sold back to the grid at a higher rate than the overnight import.
There are also tariffs like Intelligent Flux, where someone else does all the balancing and correlation for you automatically.
I think you missed the earlier "cycling shorts" joke- was a rather obscure it's true.
Quite probably ;)
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Biospace wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 7:32pm
[XAP]Bob wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 2:23pm There is no reason for energy to be scarce as a result of decarbonisation.
What I said was that energy would be more scarce, not scarce. There's a huge difference, perhaps "less plentiful" sounds less concerning?
I still disagree... there's no implication of scarcity.
I did highlight electricity rather than total energy, note. Some new power stations for these data centres are fossil fuel powered - see the "Data" thread. Our electricity Grid is anticipating large increases in demand over coming decades, even though we are an economy of office workers and import ever more goods, goods often made with energy from coal.
But that's not the whole story - do you mind if road traffic doubles in volume?
What if that doubling was because everyone moved to bikes?

Energy usage is what we need to minimise, and the drop in energy consumption has been continuing for longer than the current cost of greed crisis.
Tidal power is incredibly difficult to build without massive alterations to ecosystems, which is something we'd rather avoid where we can. Of course the longer we hang onto fossil fuels the more it will make sense to sacrifice estuary based ecosystems to save the entire planet - but we could still do it without that sacrifice.
You make the re-purposing of an estuary sound as if it's akin to a nuclear disaster. We live in a time when we assume the natural world is incapable of accommodating change, when in reality that increasingly applies to mostly one species, basking in the glow of fossil fuels and controlled nuclear reactions.

As it is, we're making huge changes to ecosystems with the vast levels of pollution associated with overconsumption of goods from the more polluting nations and AGW. Why is the ecosystem argument placed in the way of tidal energy when the natural world is being harmed far more by war, nuclear mistakes/accidents/disasters and the burning of fossil fuels?
[/quote]
Read the whole statement above.
Tidal barrages are devastating to their local ecosystem, the real problem here is that that ecosystem is pretty much defined by what makes a good barrage location.
We are screwing over the whole planet, but we *can* move to preserve the whole thing, without selectively destroying this one ecosystem everywhere it appears.

The Rance barrage is an example of this - with substantial changes to the local area, despite the best efforts of EDF to minimise the changes. That might be a price worth paying in various places, but to go all in on it destroys the same habitat in every location it exists - because that habitat is the definition of where you would want to put a barrage.
That's what makes it worse than most other disasters - not the single impact, but the impact being targeted at the same bit of nature everywhere.

Nature can and will change, but we absolutely will lose species entirely if we shut down all major tidal regions - and we still don't know how to get those back. Nature will outlast us, but that's no reason to challenge her to a fight.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

rjb wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 8:39pm With electric vehicles increasing the demands for charging and the implementation of heat pumps will likely double our consumption in the not too distant future.
Have you done the maths on this? Including things like the change in use of power at refineries?

EVs in particular are a much smaller increase than most people think (about 250W on average). Heat pumps will increase electrical usage significantly, but they will reduce our overall energy use substantially, even if we burn gas to power them.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Biospace
Posts: 3014
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by Biospace »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 14 Jan 2025, 10:22am I still disagree... there's no implication of scarcity.
Fair enough, but observing the amounts of fossil fuels used today, the population increase in Africa and an economic system which only works when there's growth, that's a helluvalotta nuclear, storage and RE!

Tidal power is incredibly difficult to build without massive alterations to ecosystems, which is something we'd rather avoid where we can. Of course the longer we hang onto fossil fuels the more it will make sense to sacrifice estuary based ecosystems to save the entire planet - but we could still do it without that sacrifice.

Tidal barrages are devastating to their local ecosystem, the real problem here is that that ecosystem is pretty much defined by what makes a good barrage location.
We are screwing over the whole planet, but we *can* move to preserve the whole thing, without selectively destroying this one ecosystem everywhere it appears.

The Rance barrage is an example of this - with substantial changes to the local area, despite the best efforts of EDF to minimise the changes. That might be a price worth paying in various places, but to go all in on it destroys the same habitat in every location it exists - because that habitat is the definition of where you would want to put a barrage.
That's what makes it worse than most other disasters - not the single impact, but the impact being targeted at the same bit of nature everywhere.

Nature can and will change, but we absolutely will lose species entirely if we shut down all major tidal regions - and we still don't know how to get those back. Nature will outlast us, but that's no reason to challenge her to a fight.
There's much debate to be had for future generations as to how to prioritise matters. Clearly it’s entirely valid to have ecological concerns about the stresses and changes in ecosystems affected by tidal energy but it's also crucial to maintain perspective and recognise that the ‘natural’ world we inhabit has undergone stresses and transformations far more significant than those posed by tidal energy.

Twelve thousand years ago - the blink of an eye in geological time - much of Britain lay beneath metres of ice, and much of what is now the North Sea was land. Nature adapts, which is precisely what healthy life does, and it is strengthened by such challenges. On the other hand, toxic waste debilitates life, fostering disease and dysfunction.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Indeed - and the Rance Barrage have made quite a thing about their new ecosystem...

It's a valid objection - not one I am suggesting should override all other concerns, but it has to be taken into account.

Can you imagine what the "wind turbines deafen whales" brigade would come up with if we built a barrage across the Severn?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Biospace
Posts: 3014
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by Biospace »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 4:16pm Indeed - and the Rance Barrage have made quite a thing about their new ecosystem...

It's a valid objection - not one I am suggesting should override all other concerns, but it has to be taken into account.

Can you imagine what the "wind turbines deafen whales" brigade would come up with if we built a barrage across the Severn?
Indeed, and I don't believe many have yet fully realised just how much energy is required to keep things running as they are, let alone accomodating African households each with one or two cars, a PlayStation, a few computers and energy for cooking with.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20239
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Solar panels - or not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Africa has *enormous* potential to be a net exporter of energy, even if their internal use tends towards US levels of excess (and they've got a better idea of many mistakes to avoid...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Post Reply