It's good for the environment, it's bad for the environment ... I swear I'm gonna stop listening and just do what I want!

MAKE YOUR SODDING MINDS UP!!!!!!!

1 - Boy Wonder - When the known facts change people revise their opinions. What do you do in those circumstances...?!

I found this guide to micro-renewables quite useful in choosing my own solar panel at home...

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/micropower

However in this article there are a lot of may and indicates but not many facts. I'd prefer to see a few more facts before I make my mind up either way -
How much energy does it take to produce an area of solar panel?
What sort of solar panels are they talking about - photoelectric or water-heating?
What time period do you have to use different types of solar panel for to recoup the environmental costs of manufacture when offset against the fossil fuels?
etc.

#3:

I'm with Boy Wonder on this.

If it was a case of revising opinions as new things were discovered then fari enough. However it is not. The propaganda changes either because the research hasn't been done properly in the first place, they have done the research in a different way and neglected to take into account different factors, they have added more importance to factors that are insignificant or some politician has wanted to change the spin.

Most of the advice you get about eating, drinking, smoking, driving, saving energy etc etc is all flawed and based upon the political mood at the time. I'll make my own mind up. I may be wrong sometimes but that's my problem and I'll take responsibility for it. I'm certainly not being led up the garden path by teams of "experts" who can't even agree on the time of day.

I read that the Danes had stopped building wind farms for the same reason - costs and poluttants in manufacturing outweighed the gains. However this is conveniently ignored by the vege-burger munchers...

"according to a study by scientists"

"The research was carried out by a team in Greece.."

Who is this reporter? Daniel Parker needs to connect this claim to a trackable group or institution for this article to have any meaning. This is as fresh as the Foreward in Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear', which claims that, tho' fiction, the work represents the findings of 'real scientists at real universities'. Oh my!

According the the US's NREL, or National Renewable Energy Labs, a solar electric installation will recover its embodied energy, including the aluminium and other 'balance of system' (BOS) components in 2 to 5 years, depending on which technology is used plus other particulars. Anything that requires a fuel input to operate is, by definition never able to recover all it's energy inputs, since they are continually being added on top, while pollution is spilling out the backside.

They don't mention the advantages that we can get from rooftop solar to gird against the increasing likelihood of grid failures (I'm assuming for UK, the US is certainly lagging), whether caused by intense weather conditions or underinvestment in maintenance, probably both. Distributed generation, with both Solar and Wind will help to level the loading on the wires so that overcapacity disruptions (meltdowns) can be lessened, and remote areas can continue self-generating when key links have gone down.

Here are two links with some checkable findings..
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/20theuropvscbarcelo...

http://ge5.green-e.org/myths/Myths-Solar.htm

Best Hopes for responsible reporting!
Bob Fiske

ThePeter;
I think you need to show a link for Denmark choosing to stop installing windpower. If the greens aren't mentioning it, it might be 'cause it's not actually happening. Wind is growing all over Europe and US, with Denmark ahead of most in installed capacity/capita. It's about the cleanest energy technology in existence. Do please prove me wrong, or just keep tossing around adolescent putdowns.. makes everyone else seem smarter.

Bob

Currently photo voltaic panels are only realistically justified for powering LED lighting or other low drain electrics where running cables would be prohibitive.

Hats off to Richard Branson for offering 25 M pounds for a reasonable way to tackle, stop, prevent climate change and/or its effects. Why can't some of our scientists find a way to make solar power viable? I believe the Spanish government in Andalusia is buying new technologies. There must be some hope in it. This is where science is useful and maybe young people will study it if they can achieve something beneficial.
But what we get is Richard Dawkins slagging off billions of people who take pride and believe in their cultural heritage. Sure a very few scientists have discovered and explained some wonderful things about the universe, e.g. Newton, but can any of Dawkins' millions of admirers explain one thing his scientific life has done for the general public. I mean he's not likely to win Branson's prize ever is he?.

Suck-McCrunchie: LEDs? wake up..
http://www.google.com/corporate/solarpanels/home

"In the last 24 hours, Google produced 5,287 kilowatt-hours of electricity from the sun."

Cramond,
You asked "Why can't some of our scientists find a way to make solar power viable?" The scientists are working to make it BETTER, but it is already viable. I only have a couple hundred watts worth, and it's not cheap.. but neither was College. Both are still viable and valuable. We're just so inured to cheap, abundant oil, that the little bit of juice coming from a Silicon panel doesn't impress most folks, until they have seen how many years it will keep doing it, while oil, natural gas and other sources that we pay this or that cartel for, have no guarantee that they will keep flowing. In addition, PV is simple -with no moving parts, and compact. It wouldn't be unreasonable to simply use panels AS your roofing Top Layer, since it lasts longer than most other roof materials, and could be replaced piece by piece, when one was either broken through or had finally stopped producing volts..

Best,
Bob Fiske

Bob,
Solar Tiling sounds a great idea, especially for new buildings and new roofs. I'll have to read up on PV, note your link.
We need not wait for a magic patent. Of course all people should take interest in solar power and learn as we develop. Great for schools, labs, homes, public buildings (including simple sunlight, for reading etc.). Stored solar power could soon be used for cars and eventually even for planes.
Cheers.

I'm with Mr. Fiske on this. There is absolutely no information in the article about who the scientists behind these statements are. They could be two kids in a garage for all we know. If they were credible then their names or at least organization would be included in the article.

Cramond;
Right. My biggest worry is that while this technology is actually expensive, there are folks waiting to buy in, on the promise that improved technologies will make it cheaper in the future. It's possible, especially if we do hit any kind of a serious energy crunch either with oil or electricity supply (and you in the UK are facing the retirement age of a few of your Nukes, I believe), that the prices we see for Solar today are actually the CHEAP ones, and that no matter how much better they can make PV in the coming years, that the demand for it will mean that the prices will only get higher. It seems like simple economics to me, at least with the assumption that demand has nowhere to go but up. (Historically some 30-40% growth/year in Solar lately)

I am advising friends to try (and very few have been able to) and plunk down the cash for just one or two panels right now. They'll work for quite probably some 30 years or more, quietly and dependably.. so if things DO go terribly, terribly wrong, or just get a bit sticky, you'll have the ability to keep radios, cellphones, a few lights going, maybe even a small fridge right at the outset. But think of how fast generators disappear from the shelves the day after a big storm or washout? If you wait before getting ANY kind of generating ability, you'll get a good price on some empty shelving.. I think it's a responsible hedge, but you have to look at it from the other side of that freak Hurricane, Embargo or Reactor-shutdown..

Regards,
Bob Fiske

I just read the article again.. and I'm just incensed! It's an outright falsehood!

"More energy is used to build, run, and recycle solar panels compared with that for fossil fuel systems, according to researchers."

Do please let the Scotsman know that this is simply unacceptable reporting! You've just had the North Sea oilfields start into terminal decline around 2001, (see Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet when they'd just sat themselves on the Stern-rails of the Titanic, way high up over the icy North-Atlantic) you've got radioactive chunks washing ashore near the Dounreay nuclear power station.. You people are facing some frightening power issues, and you have to tell your Publications to help share the real stories, not this kind of unsupported 'doubt-mongering'..

I hope that those trying for wave and tide power are having some luck, and some investment.. I think this will be just a critical piece of our energy possibilities.

Again,
with you in spirit (or spirits.. thanks for all the single-malts!)
Bob

A good report on solar panels in the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/20...