Peter Lang said:

Matthew,

My apologies. I thought you were the Matthew Wright, CEO of “Beyond Zero Emissions”, lead author of “Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan”. (our critique here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/) . So I beg your pardon.

By the way, how are you progressing with that damned dam? I was in the investigation adits about 30 years ago!

Accepted, though you might want to review a poster’s history before making an ID based on a common first name (I’m decently active here).

To which dam are you referring? I only moved here in March from Montreal, so my knowledge of local issues isn’t really up to snuff.

My apologies. I thought you were the Matthew Wright, CEO of “Beyond Zero Emissions”, lead author of “Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan”. (our critique here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/) . So I beg your pardon.

By the way, how are you progressing with that damned dam? I was in the investigation adits about 30 years ago!

        Peter Lang said:

Matthew is the CEO and lead author of the “Zero Carbon Australia” by 2020 plan. The plan is fraudulent but has gained the endorsement of many politicians and many important academics.

The plan proposes that all Australia’s electrcity generation can be converted to baseload solar and wind power by 2020. The authors estimated a cost of $370 billion. See the critique here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

Comments would be most welcome (85 so far).

Say what? No idea what you’re talking about. Not that I’d turn down a CEO salary. mind you – but unless you’re offering me the cash, please don’t give me a false identity.

Really not sure where you’re getting this, especially since I was pointing out tht solar tech is well understood, and not particularly useful in large scale, baseload operations.

Doc, I hate to ask, but you know where I’m posting from, could you please confirm that I’m in Prince George, BC, and not in the land of deadly snakes, spiders, and wallabees?

        matthew said:

And if this was a remotely new concept, you might have a point. This is very old, very well understood technology. The only thing new about it is the claim that it is useful.

Matthew is the CEO and lead author of the “Zero Carbon Australia” by 2020 plan. The plan is fraudulent but has gained the endorsement of many politicians and many important academics.

The plan proposes that all Australia’s electrcity generation can be converted to baseload solar and wind power by 2020. The authors estimated a cost of $370 billion. See the critique here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

Comments would be most welcome (85 so far).

        Krzysztof Kosiński said:

Incidentally the USA is probably the only country in the world with a fossil fuel lobby powerful enough to convince a substantial portion of the population that global warming doesn’t exist, or is a political issue.

Gee, I guess the Britons must have come to their own doubtful conclusions.

Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’, BBC poll shows

UK grows more skeptical on climate change: poll

        Bob Stedi said:

In about a decade, ie less time that what it takes to build a nuclear plant,

It takes 10+ years only in the USA. In other countries it takes 4-5 years.

The cost escalation of nuclear projects in the USA is unparalleled in the rest of the world. In China, a first-of-a-kind American design can be built at around $2200/kW, on time and under budget. An indigenous Chinese design was built for $1700/kW. In USA the costs have already escalated to more than 6000$/kW. Clearly there’s something wrong.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Incidentally the USA is probably the only country in the world with a fossil fuel lobby powerful enough to convince a substantial portion of the population that global warming doesn’t exist, or is a political issue. This might or might not be relevant.

        Byron Raum said:

The problem with this entire methodology is that it doesn’t seem to understand how new technologies work.

The problem is that renewable energy advocates don’t understand that no amount of innovation can change the laws of nature.

        Bob Stedi said:

Solar Power is going to be a major revolution, despite all the smug comments above from the guys who think that they are so clever at maths and whatever.

Solar power technologies have already been revolutionary – for satellites, remotely located low-power systems (such as seismic sensors, weather relay stations, railroad track break detectors, temperature-measuring bouyes and navigational hazard strobe lights) they’re absolutely unbeatable.

Rock outcroppings in navigational channels, for example, are hazardous enough that they have lights on them to warn ships at night. Decades ago, this required either a submarine cable be run to them or the Coast Guard or other entity had to visit them every few days to refuel generators or replace large batteries.

Solar power has revolutionized such things.

        Byron Raum said:

The problem with this entire methodology is that it doesn’t seem to understand how new technologies work. Whenever we have a new way of doing things, it will, at first, be considerably worse than the old way of doing things. It will be more expensive and often more messy. Over time, as people think about it, it gets more efficient.

It is true for any engineering field, and it is how science and engineering advance. The same sort of argument used here could have been provided to explain why steam was a much more superior technology. Or, why some idiot with an internal combustion engine thought he could beat a reliable and fast horse-driven carriage. Why would I ever need a telephone? I can send a letter whenever I want.

First, it’s not new – even remotely new. Secondly, there are certain things which are just inherent to the technology, like the need for huge areas of collectors. You can’t get around that, it’s just not possible. It’s the nature of the beast.

        Byron Raum said:

The problem with this entire methodology is that it doesn’t seem to understand how new technologies work. Whenever we have a new way of doing things, it will, at first, be considerably worse than the old way of doing things. It will be more expensive and often more messy. Over time, as people think about it, it gets more efficient.

It is true for any engineering field, and it is how science and engineering advance. The same sort of argument used here could have been provided to explain why steam was a much more superior technology. Or, why some idiot with an internal combustion engine thought he could beat a reliable and fast horse-driven carriage. Why would I ever need a telephone? I can send a letter whenever I want.

And if this was a remotely new concept, you might have a point. This is very old, very well understood technology. The only thing new about it is the claim that it is useful.