 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: OzOz Date: Aug 17, 2006 08:33
Don Lancaster tinaja.com> writes>Not even wrong.
>
>Fully burdened, properly amortized PV efficiency is currently NEGATIVE.
>
>Not one net watthour of pv electricity has ever been generated.
>Nor is any EVER likely using conventional silicon pv technology.
>
>Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
1) Your personal rant.
2) No figures worth talking about.
3) You assume I am talking about silicon, and probably wafer silicon as
well.
I will readily accept, however, that PV is not a viable technology right
now.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
|
| |
|
| | 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: lucasealucasea Date: Aug 17, 2006 10:39
> Don Lancaster tinaja.com> writes>>Not even wrong.
>>
>>Fully burdened, properly amortized PV efficiency is currently NEGATIVE.
>>
>>Not one net watthour of pv electricity has ever been generated.
>>Nor is any EVER likely using conventional silicon pv technology.
>>
>>Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf>
> 1) Your personal rant.
> 2) No figures worth talking about.
> 3) You assume I am talking about silicon, and probably wafer silicon as
> well.
>
> I will readily accept, however, that PV is not a viable technology right
> now.
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
| | 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Dan BloomquistDan Bloomquist Date: Aug 17, 2006 11:55
> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology inevitably
> advances. His arguments are entirely grounded in the status quo because he
> lacks the vision to imagine that status quo ever changing. (And he manages
> to be insulting and pompous into the bargain.)
Isn't this the second time you've done this or was that someone else?
Technology does not trump the laws of physics.
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: lucasealucasea Date: Aug 17, 2006 12:58
"Dan Bloomquist" lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:AY2Fg.7839$oa1.3035@news02.roc.ny...>> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology
>> inevitably advances. His arguments are entirely grounded in the status
>> quo because he lacks the vision to imagine that status quo ever changing.
>> (And he manages to be insulting and pompous into the bargain.)
>
> Isn't this the second time you've done this or was that someone else?
>
> Technology does not trump the laws of physics.
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: EeyoreEeyore Date: Aug 17, 2006 16:52
> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology inevitably
> advances.
Your main problem is a naive belief that scientists will find easy and
comforting 'answers' to *everything*.
Graham
|
| |
| 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: EeyoreEeyore Date: Aug 17, 2006 17:12
> My comment was in response to Don's "Nor is any EVER likely using
> conventional silicon pv technology" So what--that's the status quo? In
> 1930, he could as easily have said "We'll NEVER get to the moon using
> current propulsion technology"
Your naivety is that you can't understand that in 1930 ppl *knew* how to get to
the moon. It simply wasn't technically feasible then.
No-one knows how to improve photo-diode efficiency from its current level due to
the constraints of basic solid state physics.
One can only perhaps hope that the manufacturing cost will reduce. That's all.
Graham
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dirk Bruere at NeoPaxDirk Bruere at NeoPax Date: Aug 17, 2006 18:38
Eeyore wrote:
>> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology inevitably
>> advances.
>
> Your main problem is a naive belief that scientists will find easy and
> comforting 'answers' to *everything*.
TV and drugs go a long way in that direction.
Dirk
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: lucasealucasea Date: Aug 17, 2006 20:30
>> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology
>> inevitably
>> advances.
>
> Your main problem is a naive belief that scientists will find easy and
> comforting 'answers' to *everything*.
As a scientist who routinely makes finding solutions to complex issues
(including energy) look easy, I have confidence that we will find answers.
I doubt they will be comforting, but we will continue to advance technology,
and I guarantee that the status quo will be in no way a useful benchmark for
the new economy after oil runs out.
Eric Lucas
|
| |
| 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: lucasealucasea Date: Aug 17, 2006 20:31
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4kkk00FclnpfU4@individual.net...> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology
>>> inevitably
>>> advances.
>>
>> Your main problem is a naive belief that scientists will find easy and
>> comforting 'answers' to *everything*.
>
> TV and drugs go a long way in that direction.
I'm happy for you that you have found your particular solutions, but in my
case, it's hard work at the lab bench.
Eric Lucas
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreEeyore Date: Aug 17, 2006 21:54
>>> Don's main problem is his lack of vision to see that technology
>>> inevitably
>>> advances.
>>
>> Your main problem is a naive belief that scientists will find easy and
>> comforting 'answers' to *everything*.
>
> As a scientist who routinely makes finding solutions to complex issues
> (including energy) look easy, I have confidence that we will find answers.
> I doubt they will be comforting, but we will continue to advance technology,
> and I guarantee that the status quo will be in no way a useful benchmark for
> the new economy after oil runs out.
|
| Show full article (0.85Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
