It talks of the crony capitalism of the USA - not New Zealand.
Here
our most common renewable energy is from water and wind.
Of course in New Zealand we have the water based energy companies
fighting off solar by upping the price for making a connection to self-generated energy, and lowering the price they are prepared to pay
for that energy - demonstrating that unfair market practices (promoted
by our current National-led government as a "competitive"model) are
more to blame for any problems than solar energy not being a practical alternative to fossil fuel for other countries.
Dream on, JohnO
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>economy and people.
wrote:
Not only is it a pipe dream, it is damaging - to the environment, the
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/sun-sets-on-solar.html
Not only is it a pipe dream, it is damaging - to the environment, the economy and people.
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/sun-sets-on-solar.html
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 15:42:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Now Johno that is a little hard (no pun intended) but your comments are correct
It talks of the crony capitalism of the USA - not New Zealand.
The point you are either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp is that >>renewable energy in the form of solar is uneconomic and either fails or drives
up prices, regardless of country.
Here
our most common renewable energy is from water and wind.
Of course in New Zealand we have the water based energy companies
fighting off solar by upping the price for making a connection to
self-generated energy, and lowering the price they are prepared to pay
for that energy - demonstrating that unfair market practices (promoted
And what *authoritative* source do you have for that allegation?
by our current National-led government as a "competitive"model) are
more to blame for any problems than solar energy not being a practical
alternative to fossil fuel for other countries.
The point you are apparently too stupid to grasp is that solar generation by >>power companies is uneconomic. Did you not read the article or did it have too
many big words for you to understand it?
- I know rather more about solar power than casual observers and in the New >Zealand environment the solar (electric as opposed to heating) industry is not >going to prosper much longer. Wind is the main contender and fortunately we >will never have to face the decision to use nuclear energy or not. The big >issue with so called sustainable electrical energy is storage. Wind, solar and >hydro energy do not have built in storage so you need ti use it or lose it. >That is slowly being addressed with much more effective batteries (which bring >their own problems with disposal issues). We could be diverting surplus power >to lifting water back into the dams but that is a fairly significant >investment. Overall we are very well off by world standards - something like >80% sustainable whilst Australia is less than 20%. Rich is wrong again. Solar >will live for a while but is never going to be long term unless there is a >major scientific breakthrough.
Dream on, JohnO
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Not only is it a pipe dream, it is damaging - to the environment, the
economy and people.
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/sun-sets-on-solar.html
Tony
On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 15:42:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Now Johno that is a little hard (no pun intended) but your comments are correct - I know rather more about solar power than casual observers and in the New Zealand environment the solar (electric as opposed to heating) industry is not going to prosper much longer. Wind is the main contender and fortunately we will never have to face the decision to use nuclear energy or not. The big issue with so called sustainable electrical energy is storage. Wind, solar and hydro energy do not have built in storage so you need ti use it or lose it. That is slowly being addressed with much more effective batteries (which bring their own problems with disposal issues). We could be diverting surplus power to lifting water back into the dams but that is a fairly significant investment. Overall we are very well off by world standards - something like 80% sustainable whilst Australia is less than 20%. Rich is wrong again. Solar will live for a while but is never going to be long term unless there is a major scientific breakthrough.
It talks of the crony capitalism of the USA - not New Zealand.
The point you are either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp is that >renewable energy in the form of solar is uneconomic and either fails or drives >up prices, regardless of country.
Here
our most common renewable energy is from water and wind.
Of course in New Zealand we have the water based energy companies
fighting off solar by upping the price for making a connection to
self-generated energy, and lowering the price they are prepared to pay
for that energy - demonstrating that unfair market practices (promoted
And what *authoritative* source do you have for that allegation?
by our current National-led government as a "competitive"model) are
more to blame for any problems than solar energy not being a practical
alternative to fossil fuel for other countries.
The point you are apparently too stupid to grasp is that solar generation by >power companies is uneconomic. Did you not read the article or did it have too >many big words for you to understand it?
Dream on, JohnO
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Not only is it a pipe dream, it is damaging - to the environment, the
economy and people.
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/sun-sets-on-solar.html
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 23:43:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netHere you are
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 15:42:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Now Johno that is a little hard (no pun intended) but your comments are >>correct
It talks of the crony capitalism of the USA - not New Zealand.
The point you are either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp is that >>>renewable energy in the form of solar is uneconomic and either fails or >>>drives
up prices, regardless of country.
Here
our most common renewable energy is from water and wind.
Of course in New Zealand we have the water based energy companies
fighting off solar by upping the price for making a connection to
self-generated energy, and lowering the price they are prepared to pay >>>> for that energy - demonstrating that unfair market practices (promoted
And what *authoritative* source do you have for that allegation?
by our current National-led government as a "competitive"model) are
more to blame for any problems than solar energy not being a practical >>>> alternative to fossil fuel for other countries.
The point you are apparently too stupid to grasp is that solar generation by >>>power companies is uneconomic. Did you not read the article or did it have >>>too
many big words for you to understand it?
- I know rather more about solar power than casual observers and in the New >>Zealand environment the solar (electric as opposed to heating) industry is >>not
going to prosper much longer. Wind is the main contender and fortunately we >>will never have to face the decision to use nuclear energy or not. The big >>issue with so called sustainable electrical energy is storage. Wind, solar >>and
hydro energy do not have built in storage so you need ti use it or lose it. >>That is slowly being addressed with much more effective batteries (which >>bring
their own problems with disposal issues). We could be diverting surplus power >>to lifting water back into the dams but that is a fairly significant >>investment. Overall we are very well off by world standards - something like >>80% sustainable whilst Australia is less than 20%. Rich is wrong again. Solar >>will live for a while but is never going to be long term unless there is a >>major scientific breakthrough.
Where do you think I was wrong, Tony?
Dream on, JohnO
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Not only is it a pipe dream, it is damaging - to the environment, the >>>> >economy and people.
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/sun-sets-on-solar.html
Tony
On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 15:42:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:that renewable energy in the form of solar is uneconomic and either fails or drives up prices, regardless of country.
It talks of the crony capitalism of the USA - not New Zealand.
The point you are either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp is
Has to be Richbots arshole as he is talking shit as usual.Here
our most common renewable energy is from water and wind.
Of course in New Zealand we have the water based energy companies
fighting off solar by upping the price for making a connection to
self-generated energy, and lowering the price they are prepared to pay
for that energy - demonstrating that unfair market practices (promoted
And what *authoritative* source do you have for that allegation?
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:Of course people are still installing PV; that doesn't mean that it is the best or that it will remain viable. Right now the pay back takes many years because of the high installation costs. As I pointed out the game changer will be storage. Wind energy is cheaper per household than PV and produces no hazardous waste (unlike PV). The battery revolution is beginning right now. Google Tesla for one of many initiatives.
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:best
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:Of course people are still installing PV; that doesn't mean that it is the
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
or that it will remain viable. Right now the pay back takes many yearsbecause
of the high installation costs. As I pointed out the game changer will be storage. Wind energy is cheaper per household than PV and produces nohazardous
waste (unlike PV). The battery revolution is beginning right now. GoogleTesla
for one of many initiatives.and
There is no "either or argument" - simply what are the best future options
I am one of many who believe that PV is not the best future option.
We haven't seen anything yet in NZ - Micro grids and the like will become common in the next decade (there already are some) and the economy of scale they provide is also driven by better battery technology.
Tony
On 12/08/2016 9:47 a.m., Tony wrote:Indeed, it is a form of micro grid as previously mentioned. There are some micro grids in New Zealand, usually installed when a developer builds a number of houses in a new subdivision.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:Of course people are still installing PV; that doesn't mean that it is the >>best
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
or that it will remain viable. Right now the pay back takes many years >>because
of the high installation costs. As I pointed out the game changer will be
storage. Wind energy is cheaper per household than PV and produces no >>hazardous
waste (unlike PV). The battery revolution is beginning right now. Google >>Tesla
for one of many initiatives.
There is no "either or argument" - simply what are the best future options >>and
I am one of many who believe that PV is not the best future option.
We haven't seen anything yet in NZ - Micro grids and the like will become
common in the next decade (there already are some) and the economy of scale >> they provide is also driven by better battery technology.
Tony
Here's a future direction
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html
On 12/08/2016 9:47 a.m., Tony wrote:best
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:Of course people are still installing PV; that doesn't mean that it is the
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
becauseor that it will remain viable. Right now the pay back takes many years
hazardousof the high installation costs. As I pointed out the game changer will be storage. Wind energy is cheaper per household than PV and produces no
Teslawaste (unlike PV). The battery revolution is beginning right now. Google
andfor one of many initiatives.
There is no "either or argument" - simply what are the best future options
I am one of many who believe that PV is not the best future option.
We haven't seen anything yet in NZ - Micro grids and the like will become common in the next decade (there already are some) and the economy of scale they provide is also driven by better battery technology.
Tony
Here's a future direction
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html
On Monday, 15 August 2016 23:49:14 UTC+12, victor wrote:It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other countries.
On 12/08/2016 9:47 a.m., Tony wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:Of course people are still installing PV; that doesn't mean that it is the >> >best
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
or that it will remain viable. Right now the pay back takes many years
because
of the high installation costs. As I pointed out the game changer will be >> > storage. Wind energy is cheaper per household than PV and produces no
hazardous
waste (unlike PV). The battery revolution is beginning right now. Google >> >Tesla
for one of many initiatives.
There is no "either or argument" - simply what are the best future options >> >and
I am one of many who believe that PV is not the best future option.
We haven't seen anything yet in NZ - Micro grids and the like will become >> > common in the next decade (there already are some) and the economy of scale
they provide is also driven by better battery technology.
Tony
Here's a future direction
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html
That's clever.
However there's still the underlying problem that at today's prices, solar is >still more expensive that just buying from the power companies, so the >neighbour buying your excess would only be mitigating your loss.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 15 August 2016 23:49:14 UTC+12, victor wrote:
countries.It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other
Here's a future direction
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html
That's clever.
However there's still the underlying problem that at today's prices, solar is
still more expensive that just buying from the power companies, so the
neighbour buying your excess would only be mitigating your loss.
Tony
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 15 August 2016 23:49:14 UTC+12, victor wrote:
Oh but it is.It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, it >> might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>countries.
Here's a future direction
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html
That's clever.
However there's still the underlying problem that at today's prices, solar >>>is
still more expensive that just buying from the power companies, so the
neighbour buying your excess would only be mitigating your loss.
Tony
It isn't a micro grid.
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in othercountries.
Tony
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not true in terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size but I doubt it. Tony
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, it >> might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>countries.
Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ?
That its not new ?
Great thanks for the contribution
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netIf you had bothered to read the thread you would have noticed that I am >suggesting that there is no future for PV (Solar Power). And that has >absolutely nothing to do with the innacurately entitled "solar tax". It is to >do with far better existing and future energy technologies.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not true in >>>terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size but I doubt it. >>>Tony
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, >>>>>it
might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>>>>countries.
Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ?
That its not new ?
Great thanks for the contribution
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it: >>https://act.greenpeace.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1939&ea.campaign.id=52200&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=promo&utm_term=fbSolarEX001&utm_campaign=Climate&__surl__=IgOkg&__ots__=1471577358587&__step__=1
Tony
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not true in >terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size but I doubt it. >Tony
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, it
might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>>countries.
Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ?
That its not new ?
Great thanks for the contribution
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:38:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo?
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netIf you had bothered to read the thread you would have noticed that I am >>suggesting that there is no future for PV (Solar Power). And that has >>absolutely nothing to do with the innacurately entitled "solar tax". It is to >>do with far better existing and future energy technologies.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not true in >>>>terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size but I doubt it. >>>>Tony
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was >>>>>>installed,
it
might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>>>>>countries.
Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ?
That its not new ?
Great thanks for the contribution
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it: >>>https://act.greenpeace.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1939&ea.campaign.id=52200&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=promo&utm_term=fbSolarEX001&utm_campaign=Climate&__surl__=IgOkg&__ots__=1471577358587&__step__=1
Tony
Well in the meantime if it had any future teh existing electricity
companies are doing their best to shut it down.
As for future technologies, they may affect the future productivity ofMeaningless drivel but I said "existing" and future. Wind and hydro are in place now and they are improving dramatically every year but the big change in the future will be storage which is one if the very few advantages PV has today.
solar generation of course, but the one that shold really make a
difference is the future technology that will allow New Zealand to get
rid of all pests with just a few millin a year - National is onto the >reliance on future technology too!
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netIf you had bothered to read the thread you would have noticed that I am suggesting that there is no future for PV (Solar Power). And that has absolutely nothing to do with the innacurately entitled "solar tax". It is to do with far better existing and future energy technologies.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not true in >>terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size but I doubt it. >>Tony
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed, >>>>it
might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>>>countries.
Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ?
That its not new ?
Great thanks for the contribution
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it: >https://act.greenpeace.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1939&ea.campaign.id=52200&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=promo&utm_term=fbSolarEX001&utm_campaign=Climate&__surl__=IgOkg&__ots__=1471577358587&__step__=1
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was
installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here
and I suspect in other countries. Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ? That its not new
? Great thanks for the contribution
true in terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size
but I doubt it. Tony
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it:
https://act.greenpeace.org/
On 19/08/2016 3:30 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:I do not agree. PV technology is currently obsolescent, something may come along to change that but I believe it to be unlikely.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was
installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here
and I suspect in other countries. Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ? That its not new
? Great thanks for the contribution
true in terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size
but I doubt it. Tony
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it:
https://act.greenpeace.org/
The innovation is the peer to peer market, not the technologies of
generation and storage.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:designs
On 19/08/2016 3:30 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:I do not agree. PV technology is currently obsolescent, something may come along to change that but I believe it to be unlikely.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was
installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here
and I suspect in other countries. Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ? That its not new
? Great thanks for the contribution
true in terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size
but I doubt it. Tony
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it:
https://act.greenpeace.org/
The innovation is the peer to peer market, not the technologies of
generation and storage.
The technological changes that are imminent include better wind turbine
and dramatically improved storage.
Tony
On 19/08/2016 7:15 p.m., Tony wrote:Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was alwaya about better options.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 19/08/2016 3:30 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:I do not agree. PV technology is currently obsolescent, something may come >> along to change that but I believe it to be unlikely.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was
installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here
and I suspect in other countries. Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ? That its not new
? Great thanks for the contribution
true in terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size
but I doubt it. Tony
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it:
https://act.greenpeace.org/
The innovation is the peer to peer market, not the technologies of
generation and storage.
The technological changes that are imminent include better wind turbine >>designs
and dramatically improved storage.
Tony
You can use power ledger to trade that power too
ITS NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING SOLAR
Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was alwaya about better options.
Tony
On 19/08/2016 9:40 p.m., Tony wrote:Yes it is, I am still not convinced of the long term viability of PV but am happy that people are working at it.
Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was alwaya >> about better options.
Tony
Power Ledger will get used to trade power generated by PV panels too.
Which helps their return and reduces the need for buffer storage, so
good news
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 23:03:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThe issue has nothing to do with the government, the Greens or Labour. It is totally to do with whether PV technology has a future.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I am currenlty in Tasmania and have been surprisedathowmany buildings
On 19/08/2016 9:40 p.m., Tony wrote:Yes it is, I am still not convinced of the long term viability of PV but am >>happy that people are working at it.
Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was alwaya >>>> about better options.
Tony
Power Ledger will get used to trade power generated by PV panels too. >>>Which helps their return and reduces the need for buffer storage, so
good news
Tony
have solar panels. I don't know if theyhave the same issues as NZ: >https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/grid-tied-pv-systems?gclid=CKD8jbfU0c4CFQGbvQodhmgDjw
I suspect the Green Bill would have had better success if it only
required say 95% of the wholesale price, or 100% plus an account fee
of a maximum level. There is no doubt that we do not have a truly
competitive market for hydro alternatives, leading to suboptimal
incentives for innovation.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I am currenlty in Tasmania and have been surprisedathowmany buildings
On 19/08/2016 9:40 p.m., Tony wrote:Yes it is, I am still not convinced of the long term viability of PV but am >happy that people are working at it.
Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was alwaya >>> about better options.
Tony
Power Ledger will get used to trade power generated by PV panels too.
Which helps their return and reduces the need for buffer storage, so
good news
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Why is that, Tony? My understanding is that those with their own hydro
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 23:03:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThe issue has nothing to do with the government, the Greens or Labour. It is >totally to do with whether PV technology has a future.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I am currenlty in Tasmania and have been surprisedathowmany buildings
On 19/08/2016 9:40 p.m., Tony wrote:Yes it is, I am still not convinced of the long term viability of PV but am >>>happy that people are working at it.
Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was alwaya
about better options.
Tony
Power Ledger will get used to trade power generated by PV panels too. >>>>Which helps their return and reduces the need for buffer storage, so >>>>good news
Tony
have solar panels. I don't know if theyhave the same issues as NZ: >>https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/grid-tied-pv-systems?gclid=CKD8jbfU0c4CFQGbvQodhmgDjw
I suspect the Green Bill would have had better success if it only
required say 95% of the wholesale price, or 100% plus an account fee
of a maximum level. There is no doubt that we do not have a truly >>competitive market for hydro alternatives, leading to suboptimal
incentives for innovation.
Tony
The issue has nothing to do with the government, the Greens or Labour. It is totally to do with whether PV technology has a future.
Tony
On Monday, 15 August 2016 23:49:14 UTC+12, victor wrote:still more expensive that just buying from the power companies, so the neighbour buying your excess would only be mitigating your loss.
On 12/08/2016 9:47 a.m., Tony wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:Of course people are still installing PV; that doesn't mean that it is the best
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
or that it will remain viable. Right now the pay back takes many years because
of the high installation costs. As I pointed out the game changer will be >>> storage. Wind energy is cheaper per household than PV and produces no hazardous
waste (unlike PV). The battery revolution is beginning right now. Google Tesla
for one of many initiatives.
There is no "either or argument" - simply what are the best future options and
I am one of many who believe that PV is not the best future option.
We haven't seen anything yet in NZ - Micro grids and the like will become >>> common in the next decade (there already are some) and the economy of scale >>> they provide is also driven by better battery technology.
Tony
Here's a future direction
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html
That's clever.
However there's still the underlying problem that at today's prices, solar is
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:38:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netIf you had bothered to read the thread you would have noticed that I am
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not true in >>>> terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size but I doubt it.
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was installed,
it
might have been Perth, but there are some here and I suspect in other >>>>>> countries.
Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ?
That its not new ?
Great thanks for the contribution
Tony
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it:
https://act.greenpeace.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1939&ea.campaign.id=52200&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=promo&utm_term=fbSolarEX001&utm_campaign=Climate&__surl__=IgOkg&__ots__=1471577358587&__step__=1
suggesting that there is no future for PV (Solar Power). And that has
absolutely nothing to do with the innacurately entitled "solar tax". It is to
do with far better existing and future energy technologies.
Tony
Well in the meantime if it had any future teh existing electricity
companies are doing their best to shut it down.
As for future technologies, they may affect the future productivity of
solar generation of course, but the one that shold really make a
difference is the future technology that will allow New Zealand to get
rid of all pests with just a few millin a year - National is onto the reliance on future technology too!
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 20:23:43 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:product. They are not paid for by the house's team themselves.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:43:02 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 10/08/2016 7:24 p.m., Tony wrote:
snipped
I don't get the either or arguments.
Renewable energy will come from many sources simultaneously
I saw a small part of an episode of "The Block", and notes that at
least one of the finished apartmenht was descrivbed as being energy
efficient - and that it had solar panels.
LOL - Dickbot's idea of proof - "I saw it on The Block" !!!
But Dickbot unwittingly just proves my point: Those panels are sponsored
On 19/08/2016 3:30 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 16/08/2016 4:16 p.m., Tony wrote:You are welcome - the report said "World-first trial" which is not
It is clever but not new. I don't know where the first one was
installed, it might have been Perth, but there are some here
and I suspect in other countries. Tony
No the blockchain isn't new. What's your point ? That its not new
? Great thanks for the contribution
true in terms of the technology. It may be new in terms of the size
but I doubt it. Tony
I don't know why you are worrying about solar power, Tony. The
economics are all against it:
https://act.greenpeace.org/
The innovation is the peer to peer market, not the technologies of
generation and storage.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 00:03:40 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netPV, in my opinion and the opinion of others with far more expertise than mine has a very limited future in this country. That is not true of all countries and Australia may be one of those. PV's future or otherwise is simply a matter of technology - nothing more. What do you fail to comprehend about such a simple statement?
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Why is that, Tony? My understanding is that those with their own hydro
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 23:03:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThe issue has nothing to do with the government, the Greens or Labour. It is >>totally to do with whether PV technology has a future.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I am currenlty in Tasmania and have been surprisedathowmany buildings >>>have solar panels. I don't know if theyhave the same issues as NZ: >>>https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/grid-tied-pv-systems?gclid=CKD8jbfU0c4CFQGbvQodhmgDjw
On 19/08/2016 9:40 p.m., Tony wrote:Yes it is, I am still not convinced of the long term viability of PV but am >>>>happy that people are working at it.
Well done - you finally caught up it never was about the PV, it was >>>>>>alwaya
about better options.
Tony
Power Ledger will get used to trade power generated by PV panels too. >>>>>Which helps their return and reduces the need for buffer storage, so >>>>>good news
Tony
I suspect the Green Bill would have had better success if it only >>>required say 95% of the wholesale price, or 100% plus an account fee
of a maximum level. There is no doubt that we do not have a truly >>>competitive market for hydro alternatives, leading to suboptimal >>>incentives for innovation.
Tony
source have similar difficulties with power companies in feeding power
back to the grid - which has discouraged some of that development.
On 8/21/2016 5:03 PM, Tony wrote:
The issue has nothing to do with the government, the Greens or Labour.And it hasn't.
It is
totally to do with whether PV technology has a future.
Tony
The main time that we need electricity is at night and in the winter.
Both preclude the use of PV produced electricity.
It's okay only during the day to assist the load but can never be used
as the base load.
Unless your technology is one lightbulb, a radio/TV and a charger for a cellphone
On 22/08/2016 8:31 a.m., george152 wrote:The point that so many people miss is that with solar power you really cannot go off grid at all unless you invest in significant storage and almost certainly over-invest in PV. The vast majority of PV suppliers oeverestimate the amount of PV panels that a house needs which makes it actually less viable than it should be - it simply compounds the issue.
On 8/21/2016 5:03 PM, Tony wrote:
The issue has nothing to do with the government, the Greens or Labour.And it hasn't.
It is
totally to do with whether PV technology has a future.
Tony
The main time that we need electricity is at night and in the winter.
Both preclude the use of PV produced electricity.
It's okay only during the day to assist the load but can never be used
as the base load.
Unless your technology is one lightbulb, a radio/TV and a charger for a
cellphone
Wonder if Rich will backup his claims of how wonderfull solar power is
by installing it and going off the grid. He could always install a pedal >generator to power his bridge when the sun goes down :)
Pooh
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 25 |
| Nodes: | 8 (1 / 7) |
| Uptime: | 161:22:29 |
| Calls: | 1,911 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,081 |
| Messages: | 935,407 |