|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 22, 2010 10:21:43 GMT 1
Just caught the latter part of the last in the this series - about the photovoltaic cell lamp.
I don’t know how the prog started but the part I heard was sane and sensible enough - lauding the big difference that a small amount of off-grid electricity can make to poor people in sunny climes - most notably by powering mobile phones, which create economic opportunities, and by powering domestic lamps which enable people in sunny climes, where the sun sets early, to study and engage in economic activities at home in the evening. This clean source of light can also prevent the life threatening ailments that afflict people who are otherwise dependent upon the burning of kerosene for light. The solar cells can also be used to power torches - very useful where there are no street lamps.
Of course, the prog endecd with the usual paean about saving fossil fuel and therefore saving the planet, which is sad, because such micro electicity development and use replaces no fossil fuel at all. The personal, domestic, off-grid harnessing of solar and wind energy is an admirable development in itself and amongst the world’s poor is a life-enhancing advancement of opportunity, health and general convenience. It needs no further justification than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 11:20:36 GMT 1
Why would they say it did then?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 22, 2010 15:34:58 GMT 1
Because this is a "new" source of electricity, abacus, that was not previously provided by fossil fuel so it can hardly represent a "saving" in fossil fuel use, can it? To "save" on fossil fuel use there would have to be a "replacement" of current fossil fuel electricity generation by solar.
The photovoltaic lamps do "save" on kerosene, which is a fossil fuel - I had not considered that at first.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 15:58:06 GMT 1
Because this is a "new" source of electricity, abacus, that was not previously provided by fossil fuel so it can hardly represent a "saving" in fossil fuel use, can it? To "save" on fossil fuel use there would have to be a "replacement" of current fossil fuel electricity generation by solar. The photovoltaic lamps do "save" on kerosene, which is a fossil fuel - I had not considered that at first. This isn't really anything new. Solar panels are being increasingly used to produce power generated by the sun, in fact, the ultimate goal of human beings will probably be to obtain all of its energy needs from the sun. I think what we are seeing is just the beginning of that process, so don't knock it. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2010 8:59:24 GMT 1
I am not knocking anything, abacus. I am wholeheartedly behind any development which brings the world's poor into the realm of the amenities of the modern world. My doubt is that any "saving" of fossil fuel is involved.
I think off-grid micro generation is the best use of wind and solar energy. The attempt to make these intermittent sources of energy part of the grid is fraught with MANY difficulties as I have been discovering from reading John Etherington's "The Windfarm Scam". I will write a review of it when I find the time. Very busy with other stuff just now.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 24, 2010 12:44:45 GMT 1
I am not knocking anything, abacus. I am wholeheartedly behind any development which brings the world's poor into the realm of the amenities of the modern world. My doubt is that any "saving" of fossil fuel is involved. I think off-grid micro generation is the best use of wind and solar energy. The attempt to make these intermittent sources of energy part of the grid is fraught with MANY difficulties as I have been discovering from reading John Etherington's "The Windfarm Scam". I will write a review of it when I find the time. Very busy with other stuff just now. The only realistic alternative is nuclear, although I hate to admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 24, 2010 16:43:02 GMT 1
|
|
