Spain Builds Worlds Biggest and Stupidest Solar Project
February 19th, 2008
|
| Share |
It occupies 100 hectares of land; it took 400 workers just under a year to build; it cost… well, I’ve had trouble finding that out, actually.
Spain has now completed the largest solar photo-voltaic installation in the world when the switch was thrown on the facility located at La Hoya de Vicentes, Jumilla. The facility contains 120,000 total solar panels grouped onto 200 arrays and mounted on multi-access articulated platforms which track the sun through the day. The project has surpassed Waldpolenz Solar Park, which was supposed to be larger but is currently very badly behind schedule and over budget. This makes it the biggest and stupidest expression of solar technology… ever. Finally it’s been proven that not only Germans enjoy generating electricity by burning money.
Exactly how much this cost? Well, I’ve actually had a lot of trouble figuring that out. None of the pages on this project seem to want to come out and say what the bottom line cost is. I’ve seen figures of about 130 million euro awarded to the construction company, but that does not include the land or the taxation subsidies this has received from local and national authorities. If anyone has the numbers I’d appreciate them, but based on other installations of recent years, I estimate this had to be at least a quarter billion Euro in expenditure. That’s about 370 million US dollars. Again, this is only an estimate because while the project loves to publicize that it will produce up to 28 million US dollars in electricity revenue each year, they don’t seem to want to mention what the cost of building the damn thing is! (Oh and by the way. In Spain, solar electricity is paid at a premium through a subsidized electrical system, so that 28 million dollars is really not all its cracked up to be)
So how much power will this thing produce?
(You can check out this handy chart to see how much power we are talking about here)
20 megawatts is the peak output. Of course, that really only happens at noon on the summer solstice under prefect conditions. The actual output? Well, southern Spain gets a good 300 days a year of sunny weather, so with conditions that favorable, it might actually be able to do the seemingly impossible and break the 25% capacity mark. I would doubt that, however. If one applies the capacity factor of other solar projects in southern Spain, a more reasonable estimate is something like three or four megawatts. Yes, three or four megawatts.
Solar Energy: It’s great as long as you don’t use math. Or for that matter, actually consider how much energy you have in comparable terms. The “powers X number of homes” is something I’m getting really tired of, especially when they apply it to the maximum DC output of the installed panels, which is far from the full picture. The project claims to reduce CO2 by 42,000 tons a year, but I’m wondering if this little piddle in the ocean actually reduces CO2 at all. With the construction, fabrication of the panels, trees cut down and the pitiful power output, I’d be surprised if it gets much above break even, at best. It may have increased net CO2. But then again, it really isn’t about the environment is it? It never was.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 at 8:38 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
February 21st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
If concentrating solar in the middle of desert somewhere can become competitive with nuclear for power and heat production exluding the cost of transportation of electrical power and load balancing it may still be quite attractive for production of bulk chemicals.
We’re always going to need ammonia(N-fertilizer for agriculture and explosives for mining, construction and demolition make ammonia the second most produced chemical world wide). It looks like solid-state ammonia synthesis from nitrogen gas isolated from air, water, electricity and heat might become competitive with natural gas if prices keep going up and some of the research and pilot projects are successful.
Anhydrous ammonia is liquid under modest pressure and derivatives like ammonium nitrate and urea are solids, so it’s fairly easy to transport(much more so than natural gas, which is why ammonia production is a common use for stranded natural gas resources).
Aluminium production is another use that seems, at least superficially, well suited for soaking up cheap stranded resources or excess capacity.
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
STFU JACKASS
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2008 at 9:43 pm
is that all you have to say for your side? Boy, I guess you showed us, eh?
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2008 at 10:21 pm
DV82XL: I think the point has been made better than you ever could have by comment 51
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 am
Soylent there may be some use for solar to provide process heat but not for the smelting of metals in industrial quantities, the amount of energy needed for that is staggering. I’m not so sure if it would be cost effective for bulk chemicals ether. However I do think that there is a vast potential for solar desalination plants that has been overlooked in the rush to get on the solar-electric bandwagon.
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
In looking at the PV price Index on Solar Buzz, I found at the bottom of the index page the following statement:
“The Index is based upon a climate with 5.5 hours of sunshine average over the year. This is typical of locations like US Sunbelt States, much of Latin America, most of Africa, the Middle East, India and Australia. Mediterranean Countries, followed by Japan and then Northern Europe have progressively lower average hours.”
I understand this to mean that under favorable conditions in the American South, PV power sources can be expected to produce no more than an average of 5.5 hours a power a day. What, pray tell, do solar advocates plan to do for power the other 18.5 hours a day? Please don’t tell me that you are going to build windmills. That would be both costly and absurd.
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Case in point, at least for me. A while ago I found a study-report on the efficiency of wind-power in regard to CO2 reduction from the UK. This study was done under contract for the Renewable Energy Foundation for the prospects of wind-power in the UK. This is an organisation the PROMOTES renewable energy sources like solar and wind. It was pretty devastating. Consequently, the REF has removed all links to that study from their web-site. I’m left to assume it goes too much against their belief system, no matter what the actual reality is.
Fortunately I still found a copy of that report on another web-site:
http://www.windaction.org/documents/225
Because of the intermittant nature of solar, although not quite as unpredictable as wind, the same constraints apply, and the resulting savings in CO2 production will be similarly small or negligible. This is savings in operation, discounting the large energy use in their production. But after the mentioned study on wind, I don’t think another such study will be financed for solar, using real data instead of rosy projections.
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Didn’t you guys see the movie ‘Sahara’? There they had a CSP in the middle of the desert that they used to incinerate/vaporize toxic chemical waste. And it worked there, so its gotta be true, right? Although, if I remember correctly, they had trouble keeping up with the amount waste coming in and ended up stock piling it to the point that it leaked into the ground water and poisoned people hundreds of miles downstream. Don’t you just love movie science?
Although who needs science when you can go on blind faith and optimism? There’s a long human history of idolizing and worshipping the sun from Greek and Egyptian mythologies to the Incas to the self-toasting George Hamilton-ites of the 80’s and 90’s. Can you blame the environmentalists for jumping on that bandwagon? After all, there is no other object (that we know of…) in the solar system that is as vast and powerful as the sun.
It basically just boils down to a problem of energy capture and conversion, right? Anybody have a good set of plans for a Dyson sphere?
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Tsakanga said:
I would not call them environmentalists. Somebody once said, that there’s a big difference between environmental activists and active environmentalists. I consider myself the latter. The former are really less concerned about the environment, just about using it to promote their vision. Whatever that may be.
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I just saw this story on CNN.com
“Arizona to become ‘Persian Gulf’ of solar energy”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/22/solar.plant.ap/index.html
Looks like the US will also have a 1 billion dollar (estimated) solar plant that’ll supposedly generate 280 Megawatts. At least it’s a little bigger bang for our buck than the photovoltaic one in Spain but I still am skeptical as they don’t say what the average output would be. Seems like it ought to be more efficient than photovoltaic since it will “heat up liquids, which will spin turbines” rather than a conversion directly to electricity.
But I don’t see anything that makes me scream “‘Persian Gulf’ of solar energy”. That’s seems like very much of an overstatement.
From the article:
“A Spanish company is planning to take 3 square miles of desert southwest of Phoenix and turn them into one of the largest solar power plants in the world.”
“Abengoa Solar, which has plants in Spain, northern Africa and other parts of the U.S., could begin construction as early as next year on the 280-megawatt plant in Gila Bend — a small, dusty town 50 miles southeast of Phoenix.”
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
And the smallest U.S reactor is Point Beach-1 Wisconsin delivering 505MWs. Actually the plant houses two pressurized water reactors, totaling 1,034 megawatts of capacity total. The plant occupies about 3 acres by the looks of it, not 3 square miles.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Screw you and your superior power source… I want my 280 GREEN megawatts! So what if your reactor that produces 1,034 megawatts occupies 3 acres and the solar >1900 acres while only producing less than 1/4 the power… Screw the facts and screw reality. Screw the fact that nuclear doesn’t need a secondary energy source (probably, UGH! coal) when the sun is not hitting it with sufficient intensity. Screw the fact that nuclear is not really a producer of CO2. And screw the fact that green is not looking as green as it did when I was on the other side…
Ooops wait… OK… I just took my medication and am now thinking clearly… Sorry ’bout that.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tako Nigiri said:
Okay, will that be 280 ACTUAL megawatts or the theoretical peak output kind. Because that’s going to make the difference between whether you need 14 of these plants or a couple hundred. If it’s the pretend kind that’s always easier.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
You can all go to hell. Its ridiculous that people like this exist. I think free speech is great, but in this case it is so bad for the earth to even allow people who spout this garbage to live. You should be in jail or dead. that is not the law but it should be.
Considering the bad shape our world is in people like you people are not worth having. please go die and burn in hell.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Lord Borgo said:
People like you honestly scare me. The thing is that there are enough people in the world who are so convinced of this perverted line of logic and ignorance. I am afraid that this kind of conviction based on ignorance and lack of understanding is exactly what leads to witch hunts.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:10 am
It also leads to Lysenkoism, where ideology becomes more important than facts in the pursuit of science where rival views are rejected because they are seen as ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’ irregardless of the truth. This is the stage we are at now with wind and solar; supporters want to actively suppress any suggestion that ‘renewables’ aren’t the answer to everything believing that scientific fact can be subordinated to their faith.
You’re right Mervilin it is scary, Lysenkoism caused serious, long-term harm to Soviet biology. It represented a serious failure of the early Soviet leadership to find real solutions to agricultural problems, allowing their system to be hijacked by a charlatan — at the expense of many human lives. This misplaced passion for wind and solar is very similar, it is only going to delay the inevitable, and we are going to get the blame for not making these stupid sources work the way they expected.
Meanwhile the coal burns.
Quote Comment
February 24th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Lord Borgo said:
You go first. I’ll be right behind you. I promise
(okay, I lied, but it was for the greater good, right?)
Quote Comment
February 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Lord Borgo said:
At a slight risk of over-generalization (and repetitiveness since I’ve seen it commented many times), doesn’t it seem like the peace-and-earth loving utopianists are always the first to resort to threats, lies, personal attacks, and defamation as soon as anyone attempts to counter their however flawed views?
Quote Comment
February 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Note also their cutting prose and easy command of English syntax and grammar.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Name calling and death threats aside, did any one see the Modern Marvels episode last night on Renewable Energy? Apparently they’re having a ‘green week’ with all their MM episodes airing at 11pm ET this week.
They had some interesting points, like Iceland’s use of geothermal, but at the same time ideas that were a little disturbing in how off base they were. Like the piece on biofuels, they had an interview with a mechanic who, for a few hundred bucks, would convert your diesel engine to run on vegatable oil and stated with the conversion you could run your car on anything from soybean oil to used motor oil. Overall, the show gave a feeling of there’s all this free energy out there ripe for the taking and its as simple to capture as throwing up some wind turbines and solar panels or drilling some geothermal wells.
I tried finding the episode on the History Channel website but all I could come up with was the episode description below…
“In the young 21st Century, two realizations are dawning on the world’s population: we are hopelessly dependent on petroleum, which is only going to get more expensive; and global warming, caused mainly by our burning of fossil fuels, will impact civilization in ways that we’re only beginning to grasp. Stepping in to fight both of these massive problems are the rapidly evolving technologies that harness renewable energy. We will see how air, water, earth, and fire are transformed into clean, reliable sources of heat, electricity, and even automobile fuel. We’ll take an in-depth look at the most proven and reliable sources: solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, and tidal power. From the experimental to the tried-and-true, renewable energy sources are overflowing with potential… just waiting to be exploited on a massive scale. And unlike fossil fuels, they’ll always be there.”
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
What’s interresting is the use of “air, water, earth and fire”. The classical elements of the Aristotelian world view (also important for Astrology). As if the last 2000 years of scientific progress did not happen.
They also had an episode on the “compressed air” car. What stuck in my mind was that the reporter seriously suggested that a compressed air engine also can run the compressor itself to replenish the on board storage during driving. Of course that implies a perpetuum mobile of the first kind. In which some people still fervently believe.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Not to get too far off topic but… I used to like the History Channel a lot more than I do now. Many of the shows I’ve seen more recently have been filled with inaccuracies. I think they could do a little better research and fact checking than they do.
I do like “The Universe” though. It’s a pretty interesting show. I think its a little better researched as well and seems to have very current information.
OK, I’m going to “go die and burn in hell” now.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Tako, I agree. The History Channel has some good programming but just like everything else on TV, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I was a big fan of the History Channel, Discovery, TLC, etc. growing up (and they were one of the contributing factors in turning a passing interest in science and engineering into a passion and career) but since getting my engineering degree, my bullsh*t detector has gotten a lot more sensitive.
Point in case, this episode mentioned Iceland’s trying to go 100% renewable, which isn’t that far for them since fuel for cars and their fishing fleet are the last big uses of fossil fuels on the island. They didn’t go into the details but mentioned they’re looking to hydrogen as the alternative fuel. Granted it’d be H2 generated by geothermal so its not as bad as an H2 economy based on coal plants. But I’d think this is a case where plug-in hybrid (or straight electric) cars would be better. Its a relatively small island so that eliminates the long distance drawbacks of battery storage plus they already get close to 90% of their electricity from hydro and geothermal. Why go through the hassle (and efficiency losses) of generating electricity to make H2 (assuming an electrolysis type process) when you can just power your cars with electricity? Plus the electric grid is already in place, H2 stations would require a new infrastructure.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I never understood the compressed air car concept. Compressed air works okay for certain applications where you need a lot of power in a small package (pneumatic tools for example) and I can see how compressed air might be an okay choice for powering something like lifts or carts in a warehouse or something like that.
It is not a very good energy storage medium though. It’s very very lossy and it has dangers with that much pressure in a mobile package. The energy it stores it not that great and it does not work well in the cold. Also the compressor looses a lot of energy as heat and the air gets very cold as it decompresses which is more waste. I do not see why this is anything that you would want as a means of propelling a car.
Also, I don’t know that the new systems are that much better than anything that’s come before. There have been small compressed air locomotives for use in mines or somewhere else you could not have fires. This goes back to at least the late 1800’s.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Here are some links on the old compressed air locomotives and carts:
http://users.tinyworld.co.uk/ainskip/ThievesBridge/PartII.htm
http://www.cdmrr.com/porter.html
http://www.nrhs.com/web_exclusives/fireless_cooker/
Apparently before electric they had tried using compressed air driven trains or trams for street cars or subway applications. The popularity was limited for obvious reasons and because of electricity becoming avaliable.
Sometimes I wonder why so many fail to learn from history.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Compressed air is not free. While air motors and pneumatics are very simple and clean, compressed air is very expensive. The overall efficiency of a typical compressed air system can be as low as 10-15%. For example, to operate a 1 hp air motor at 100 psig, approximately 7-8 hp of electrical power is supplied to the air compressor. Air also needs to be treated to remove moisture, oil and dirt and the higher the quality required, the greater the energy consumed by the treatment system. Thus at the point of use, compressed air can cost more than ten times the equivalent quantity of electrical power.
What sort of voodoo mathematics are used to justify its use as a prime mover in transport?
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
DV82XL said:
Agreed on all points. I have no idea how it could be justified other than you could refill it in a shorter time then you can recharge most batteries and the technology of storing it and using it is cheap. The compressors are a bit more expensive with the moisture reduction and everything, but they’re not that bad.
When it was commonly used for propulsion it was entirely because of the inavailability of other energy. I think it might also have had something to do with the fact that most systems were steam at the time and you could use a lot of the same parts and technology as steam. A compressed air locomotive is a lot like a steam one so it seemed like it might be a natural choice for short hops inside shops or mines or where there was a fire hazard.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Yes, I agree on the low efficiency. It’s really simple thermodynamics, which does not scale much with size. Despite that, compressed air storage is proposed as energy storage method for wind and solar PV generation.
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I have no idea why it has been proposed for that kind of energy storage. The only idea I have is that it’s about the only thing left to think of. Batteries are too expensive and cumbersome, hydrogen is expensive and has poor effeciency, pumped storage has really bad effeciency and you need a large amount of space. What do you have left?
Besides, if you are using wind and solar you’re really not concerned about the math to begin with, are you?
Quote Comment
February 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
The Ideal Gas Law strikes again. This is high school physics; when your system compresses and expands a gas to do work you are trafficking in heat, as much as kinetic energy.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
In the meanwhile, the people that presented the “Solar Grand Plan” are putting together an organisation to promote it politically. Including CAES. With statements that, although CAES requires natural gas to drive the turbines, it has “173%” efficiency when combined with solar. Which just means natural gas turbines produce still large amounts of CO2. Which also means that by the realisation of that plan by 2050-2100, we produce MUCH more CO2 than today. And this with the assumption that the electricity use pattern will stay the same as today, not reverse to night-time peak when a large fleet of plug-in hybrid vehicles are deployed. But that would put even MORE load on the gas turbines.
I tried to argument the nuclear option with them. After I countered their proliferation based concerns with actual facts, they switched to the terrorist argument. And so it goes, the standard unfounded scare tactics used to burn large amounts of taxpayer money. I wonder if a dollar bill powered steam plant would not be a wiser and cheaper option.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Solar power is also quite a land hog. As photovoltaic cells are only really only about 10 percent efficient and, despite breathless reports to the contrary, have seen no real breakthroughs in 30 years, U.S. electric consumption would require a 150,000 square kilometer area of photovoltaics–an area the size of England–plus additional land for electricity storage and retrieval.
The photovoltaic industry would have to step up its production by 600,000 times its current output to produce the same amount of power as is generated by a single 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
They actually a little better, 12-14% instead of 10. But the reason you see not much progress (aside from lab models using concentrated solar), is that they are constraint by quantum mechanics to use only a small part of the solar spectrum. The second reason is electrical. Because of the diluted nature of solar power the ideal load to get maximum power out of a solar cell is impance matching. Which means the external resistance provided by the load matches the internal resistance of the solar cell. Which means 1/2 of the power produced by the quantum mechanical effects of the cell is wasted as heat inside the cell when drawing the maximum out. This limits the theoretical efficiency to 50% if the the whole solar spectrum is used (not possible by material) AND the whole qantum mechanical conversion efficiency of that would be 100%. Usually solar cells are not operated quite at the max power point as they would overheat. Where they are now is already an incredible technical achievement. I do not expect very much more in the future as we are already well into the regions of diminishing returns.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
KLA said:
Hmm. Has anyone seen the following?
What do you reckon? I took his figures and calculated $1.8Billion for an 85MW plant. Any thoughts? The suncube design uses a Fresnal lens to concentrate sunlight on high-effeciency high-temp solar cells.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Lets try that again…
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
For some reason, the youtube link isn’t being entered. you’ll find a link to it on this website.
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Solar photovoltaic arrays in field conditions deliver lower power than the nameplate rating. I used 10% as a working practical number because between system losses and aging of the PV’s over their installed lifetimes. I suspect 10% is all one can practically squeeze out of these installations lifetime mean based on an average degradation of 20% every 10 years which has been about what has been observed in the field. Assuming a MTBF of thirty years, which is what is promised.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Finrod, that is 85MW peak output, not integrated over a day, not over a year. In reality, even if you could store that energy cost free and with 100% efficiency, your actual AVERAGE delivery would be at best about 19 MW. So you are spending $1.8 billion for 19 MW dispatchable electricity. With actual storage losses and costs, it is double that cost for maybe 1/2 of the energy. So 3.6 billion for a sustained output of 8.5 MW dispatchable energy? Basically you can burn coal or you can burn money. The CO2 produced and the resource depletion in the end is the same, but you end up poorer in the second case.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
KLA said:
No, KLA. The 85 MW figure comes from a peak capacity of 1GW. In the youtube interview, he states that one of his units (with a peak output of ~285W) can provide 750KW.Hrs/year.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Pardon me! I mean a peak output of ~285MW, not 1GW.
Apologies.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
That is still extremely expensive compared to any other option except wind. Does the 85 MW include for 1.8 G$ include the storage cost? The options on the table for that are estimated to be about the same in cost for other solar plans as for the panels themselves. On top of that, with CAES it requires 1000 btu of natural gas per stored kW for the retrieval in the very best, most optimistic case.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
KLA said:
Nope. That’s just based on his qoute of $1800(Aus) for one suncube unit, peak output of ~285W. You might get a better deal buying bulk. I believe his scheme is to set up solar farms to provide power during the day. I haven’t seen anything which addresses the problem of storage.
The great advantage he claims is that a flat PV panel of the same performance currently costs ~$4500(Aus).
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
And the UV degrades these concentrated systems from two angles – the lenses breakdown and lose transparency and the cells age faster in the higher fluxes.
We’ve seen many claims for high perfomance solar converters that have not held up in the field. I would take this with a grain of salt.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Yes, you might get a slightly better deal. However, different than products that require a lot of manual labour, solar cell costs are mainly driven by material and energy costs in production, not labour costs. Large scale production only gets cheaper than small scale if manual labour can be replaced by automation. In semiconductor manufacturing that is already done to the extreme. The only reason semiconductor chips get cheaper (Moore’s law) is that a given area of silicon (a wafer) can yield more of them with advancing technology. However, when the area needed is fixed, as with solar cells, then higher demand will increase prices, as then shortage of raw material and energy to refine them drives up the price.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
DV82XL said:
He alleges an effective lifetime for these units of 20-25 years.
Being generous, we might then say that one unit can provide 18,750 KW.Hrs over its lifetime. I wonder if that’s enough to manufacture one of them to begin with, including the mining and whathaveyou.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I’m sorry I see more hype than science on the website of this product. It’s the same for all renewable startups – grandiose plans and optimistic claims that always seem to get revised down after the IPO.
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Why apologise?
I hope you don’t think I’m endorsing this!
Quote Comment
February 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
A parenthetic expression; I never thought you were supporting it!
Quote Comment
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
You can’t possibly believe anything that Greg Watson (CEO Green and Gold Energy) claims.
He is a serial con artist.
Check out his previous SMOT scam http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SunGrid/message/657
And the pissed off purchasers http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg05058.html
Then follow the sad saga of deception at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SunGrid/message/1110
(the next 20 or so posts show just what kind of a deluded liar Greg is)
Woof
Quote Comment
March 4th, 2008 at 1:42 am
The Ballad of Greg Watson
Come and listen to a story
Bout a man named Greg
A poor old aging scammer
Barely kept his fambly fed
And then one day he was looking at his roof
Said I’ll dream me up a sunball
And I’ll say that it’s the troof
Well the sunball turned to suncube
And to mark two three four five
And the money kept on flowing
It felt good to be alive
But those customers kept asking
When those suncubes they’d be getting
And they started asking questions
Bout the things Greg kept forgettin
Like….Proof Greg
Simple proof
Taint hard
Well now Greg he chucked a wobbly
And he said you won’t be gettin
Not a single bloody suncube
Cos it’s secret…I’m not tellin
But youse can all still buy a share
In my solar funny farm
And I’m keepin all the money
So there’s no cause for alarm
Gold
Green and Gold
YEE HARRRR!
— Rover D’og
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au
The Moving Finger Writes; and, Having Writ
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
– Omar Khayyam
Quote Comment