After dealing with your style of forget-a-lot debate for months I've reserved my answers for those that aren't on some sort of personal pogrom. Its not like you will make a difference one way or the other.

Can you tell me (in the EU) the euro value of subsidies received by fossil fuels including your gas, which shockingly enough doesn't magically appear from thin air, but needs to be bought in, in 2008, versus the total subsidies received by the wind industry in 2008?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brilliant. Lets try this again. Do you live in Ireland, and have you got links to the insolation figures you supplied, I'd like to examine them more closely.

What if its not needed along its whole length? Surely the longest unbroken stretches will provide the most power, while coincidentally passing the most unpopulated localities? A HVDC line from Ireland to the UK cost around a billion, if I'm not mistaken. Imagine that over all the major roads and rail systems in the country, and thats just point to point.

You can't handwave distribution away.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well if we have succeeded in producing the juice we have made a big leap forward and can move onto the question of how to distribute it.

As for the insolation figures go and find them yourself and come back and tell us I was right.

No, we can't, until we've figured out how to produce the juice economically.

Pretty much your entire contribution to this thread hinges on those figures. You make the claim, you back it up.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can tell you the value of the subsidy paid by Irish consumers. ZERO.

A number of coal producing countries subsidise their coal industry to maintain their competitiveness. I have never argued otherwise. However this is irrelevant to this debate because as I said the Irish taxpayer pays no subsidy for fossil fuels.

But the Irish tax payer is subsidising wind-power both directly and indirectly.

You were very quick to dismiss Civic_critic2 based on figures he provided.

If you were willing to provide figures then we could compare.

Would you accept that the load factor for wind power currently installed in Ireland is approx 23% ?

Would you accept that the cost for MW installed for wind in Ireland is 1.5 million ?

Would you accept that based on those figures that the capital cost per MW output of wind in Ireland is currently averaging over €6,500,000

Suddenly Civic_critic2 figures don't look so bad do they ?

As has been pointed out to you again and again, WHEN those foreign subsidies are removed, you'll be paying for it very quickly. Because we IMPORT fuels. This is why Russia has the EU by the short and curlies, and has in fact exercised pressure on the EU by restricting gas supplies. But apparently you think gas comes from some magical reservoir of infinite depth.

What, the ones based on technologies in the research stage, if they exist at all?

Once again I am reminded what a huge waste of time it is to discuss these issues with you.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well nanosolar already said 2 years ago that they could produce solar panels for less than $1 per watt, cheaper than coal.
As of Q1 2009, FirstSolar are manufacturing panels at $0.87 per watt, having already broken the $1 barrier in 2008.
AVA Solar Inc has also joined the less than $1 per watt stampede.
From year to year and month to month the improvements in efficiency and manufacturing costs are rapid.

You really have no understanding of the market at all.

EU countries are subsidising their coal producers to make them competitive on the international market so they can compete with low cost countries such as China.

Remove the subsidies and China still produces cheap coal.

My figures are based on proven actual figures.

Instead of ignoring them would you care to dispute them ? Or do you accept they are true ?

If you bothered to read Civic_critic2 post here Britain's future power shortage could spill over on Ireland you would see that he also quoted actual current costs with current quoted efficiencies...

You are very quick to dismiss everyone else and ignore figures but get very annoyed when questioned yourself.

Taking the example of a 600MW system above which I costed at around $600 million on the basis of $1 per watt: using FirstSolar's cost decrease per watt down to $0.87 from $1 over the period 2008 - Q1 2009, that means FirstSolar can now produce 600MW of electricity for $522 million - a saving in production costs of $78 million dollars or 13% in less than 1 year. That's rapid development.

Eh they are selling for between $2.50 and $3 per watt. Also, the manufacturing costs are only part of the final cost of solar panels: Installation is costly too. To achieve parity with other power sources, First Solar would have to bring down manufacturing costs to about 65-70 cents per watt.

I have no understanding of the market? I'm not the one who thinks that coal produces the majority of the electricity in Ireland or the EU.

You still don't matter to anyone's energy initiatives. And you won't.

Okay, lets assume that the panels appear along the roadside fully wired up with no labour involved, all for the low low price of $0.87 per watt. First solar cannot produce 600MW of energy for $522 million. It can produce that for about six hours a day. If you wanted it to be 600MW regularly, you'd need to spend over $2 billion. And that ignores seasonal factors and bad weather. Add another 50% to account for that, $3 billion. Add another 50% for distribution, and you get $4 billion. Storage and capacitors (because you don't have sunlight at night), charitably lets say another 50%, $5 billion. Hmm.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.