On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 David writes
To pretend that anything is proven to be impossible shows ignorance
and arrogance (or perhaps a vested interest) .. I reckon much of the
solution lies in demand management, smart grids and other efficiencies.
..
David Boxall | When a
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 09:13 +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
One energy storage method you did not mention is compressed air:
http://blog.tomw.net.au/2013/12/bulk-energy-storage-for-renewable-energy.html
It wasn't supposed to be an exhaustive list :-)
In general, moving liquids or compressing
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 Michael writes
There's no reason we can't maintain a steady or shrinking environmental
footprint, while still having improving efficiencies - if we prioritise. These
articles stating renewables can't cope with infinite growth are garbage.
The only possible
On 24/11/14 08:17, Andy Farkas wrote:
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
... renewables will never
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 08:49 +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
says, it is difficult to use solar or wind power for on-demand power as
the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow, on demand
I'd like to see more study of small and large scale energy *storage*,
since the obvious way to smooth
On 26 November 2014 at 09:14, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 08:49 +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
says, it is difficult to use solar or wind power for on-demand power as
the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow, on demand
I'd like to see more study of
On 26/11/2014 9:14 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 08:49 +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
says, it is difficult to use solar or wind power for on-demand power as
the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow, on demand
I'd like to see more study of small and large scale energy
At 11:11 AM 26/11/2014, David Boxall wrote:
To get this a bit more on topic for Link, I reckon much of the solution
lies in demand management, smart grids and other efficiencies.
That helps a lot. Do you guys remember the oil shock and the reduction in
flights? Companies pulled way back and
On 24 Nov 2014, at 12:01 pm, link-requ...@mailman.anu.edu.au wrote:
Comment Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying
and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly
that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2
imagine if we were spending the money that asio nsa etc use watching people
all the money killing people instead
to collect and connect people doing interesting things with technologies,
ecologies, soil preservation, water remediation
connecting communities with sun or wind or distance or desert
On 24/11/14 19:41, Janet Hawtin wrote:
imagine if we were spending the money that asio nsa etc use watching people
all the money killing people instead
to collect and connect people doing interesting things with technologies,
ecologies, soil preservation, water remediation
connecting
On 24 November 2014 at 21:07, Michael wrote:
To respond to jore and common sense, of course growth is finite, but
remember that in addition to growth through expansion, there is growth
through efficiencies (productivity).
It's not even obvious that that growth is finite.
Economic growth is
The extreme version of this idea, that the modern industrial world has to
stop and we need to revert to some imaginary preindustrial pastoral
existence is even more whacky. If you really wanted to trash the planet,
kill a lot of people and upset everyone else that would be a good way to do
At 09:06 AM 25/11/2014, Jim Birch you wrote:
It's not even obvious that that growth is finite
We're back to definitions: growth of what and how and over what time period?
Economic growth through cuts (higher ratio of returns by reducing the
investment) can be destructive in the long term,
On 24/11/2014 8:17 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Comment Two highly
On 24-Nov-14 8:17 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
Looks like nuclear is the only realistic option. Fission then fusion,
maybe.
--
Regards
brd
Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Sydney
On 24/11/2014 9:09 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
On 24-Nov-14 8:17 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
Looks like nuclear is the only realistic option. Fission then fusion,
Ouch!
(But how authoritative is Mr Swift? Had he no interests in peat?!
Nicholas
Sent from A phone 7-)
On 24/11/2014, at 12:54 PM, Craig Sanders c...@taz.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
On 24-Nov-14 8:17 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
Renewable
On 24/11/2014 8:09 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
On 24-Nov-14 8:17 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
Looks like nuclear is the only realistic option. Fission then fusion,
At 02:53 PM 24/11/2014, David Boxall wrote:
In global warming, the nuclear power industry sees hopes of reviving
their moribund technologies. Reality keeps raining on their parade.
My reaction (without reading the article, I admit, because there is usually an
agenda running behind these sorts
20 matches
Mail list logo
