Posts by Andrew Stevenson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Will they be protesting for, or against, the arrays? (The bananas will be out in force no doubt)
Much as you would hope for this kind of behaviour, it is more likley protesting will be done from the arm chairs
-
What happens if one of the large arrays break up?
Stuff gets washed up on the beach or floats around being a danger to shipping.
The investors lose money and future consenting gets more difficult - meaning expensive and risky - so the whole industry is delayed. -
So, yes, if you can build a cost-efficient and reliable wave energy device then it is definitely worth it.
Which is easier said then done. There are a number of broken marine energy devices around the world that just could not stand up to the rigors of the environment.
As the oil industry has shown we can build structures that can survive in the sea under the worse conditions, but they do not move, while a marine energy device must move in order to generate electricity...
With NZ's abundant wave resources, which can do nasty things to a frigate on the bottom of Wellington harbour, any device will need to prove it can last it's design lifetime before it gets supported by commercial interests.
Investment in large scale infrastructure projects like this (lots of $ up front, cash flow over a long time) needs certainty. One of the main reasons why wind farms were delayed was the life of the turbines was not known in the field. Until this was established , costs for operation known and the best of breed systems determined, the risks were to great for investment.
It doesn't matter how wonderful a widget is, its got to prove itself for 10 to 20 years before serious money gets invested and larger scale operations commence. -
Yes much is promised by those developing new technologies, but little is delivered in comparison to those claims.
Provided a claim passes the sniff test (does not violate the laws of physics or requires super unobtanium to power it etc); a useful guide I've been told for evaluating a new technology at the laboratory/concept stage is to multiply any stated costs or time to develop by pi...
As Judi said in the first post, "the devils are always in the details" -
All very well to focus on the cells, but don't ignore the balance of plant required so you can use the power...
Batteries, if you are using a storage system, with their metal content require regular replacement that needs managing for toxicity effects.
And don't forget the cost component too - 40% to 60% of the capital with silicon cells is balance of plant, a large reduction in cell cost still won't make it cost effective compared to grid supplied power. -
The science isn't settled. We all know that.
I thought the point was the science is settled - G8 science acadamies, NASA, IPCC etc are 90% certain of predictions (and the cause being anthropogenic CO2). That's good enough odds for me, and like an earlier post said a lot of the actions you take to mitigate climate change save you money and make you healthier...
Let's not attack Garth or Jim or Augie, but do all we can to be better responsible citizens in this planet anyway.
I'm all for being responsible (in moderation); but if someone is wrong, and their being wrong affects others, isn't it the responsible thing to correct them?