Obelix Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Here we go!....Why? Youve been told many times why Pete - I refer you to my answers given earlier where I said I'd indicate your errors, to prevent the abuse I have received from you from repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 To be fair, in this case I don't think Pete was suggesting the energy comes from nowhere, just that it was free in monetary terms. He's still wrong, though. Putting aside production costs, all the systems he mentioned will carry a maintenance cost - the nearest to "free" being the solar panels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Anton Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 To be fair, in this case I don't think Pete was suggesting the energy comes from nowhere, just that it was free in monetary terms. He's still wrong, though. Putting aside production costs, all the systems he mentioned will carry a maintenance cost - the nearest to "free" being the solar panels. What if you nick the solar panels off your neighbours roof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 What if you nick the solar panels off your neighbours roof? Same as if you bought them but without the purchase cost; why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 A 'Free Energy Device' is a device that creates energy without any energy input, it creates energy from nothing. A perpetual motion device. Your system relies on the energy from the sun, wind turbine & water turbine. They just convert energy into electricity rather than create energy from nothing. Alternatively, and given that Pete isn't a physicist, he means "free" as in unmetered and low-to-no cost electricity, for which the three sources he cited qualify. In other words, he is using free in the sense that most people understand it (unless they are determined to do otherwise). They're not perfectly free, you need to invest in the equipment and the upkeep, but compared to burning fossil fuels or nuclear, they are as near free as it makes no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Sorry Lockjaw, just repeating your post there. But it's worth saying twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Alternatively, and given that Pete isn't a physicist, he means "free" as in unmetered and low-to-no cost electricity, for which the three sources he cited qualify. In other words, he is using free in the sense that most people understand it (unless they are determined to do otherwise). They're not perfectly free, you need to invest in the equipment and the upkeep, but compared to burning fossil fuels or nuclear, they are as near free as it makes no difference. Only if the equipment required actually lasts long enough to pay back for its cost of manufacture. Will it really keep working fault free for decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Alternatively, and given that Pete isn't a physicist, he means "free" as in unmetered and low-to-no cost electricity, for which the three sources he cited qualify. In other words, he is using free in the sense that most people understand it (unless they are determined to do otherwise). They're not perfectly free, you need to invest in the equipment and the upkeep, but compared to burning fossil fuels or nuclear, they are as near free as it makes no difference. Really? Have you seen how much it costs to buy them & maintain them? Needs a place to put them too. He'd probably need something to store any excess electricity too, as he could never predict how much electricity he'd be producing at any one time. The marginal cost might be close to zero, but he'd have high fixed costs. Compared to fossil fuels or nuclear it's very expensive for the amount of electricity produced & less predictable, so you either need backup generators or energy storage. There is no way to make a wind turbine cheaper than a gas turbine, when you still need a gas turbine for when the wind doesn't blow. The only way he might be able to do it 'for free' is with the green subsidies, but that just makes everybody else pay for it instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Alternatively, and given that Pete isn't a physicist, he means "free" as in unmetered and low-to-no cost electricity, for which the three sources he cited qualify. In other words, he is using free in the sense that most people understand it (unless they are determined to do otherwise). They're not perfectly free, you need to invest in the equipment and the upkeep, but compared to burning fossil fuels or nuclear, they are as near free as it makes no difference. If you have grid supply already then I've not see any system like micro hydro or solar that competes economically with nuclear or thermal fossil plants. The capital costs of installation and the running costs eats up any savings that you make - most of this stuff has a limited lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Really? Have you seen how much it costs to buy them & maintain them? Needs a place to put them too. He'd probably need something to store any excess electricity too, as he could never predict how much electricity he'd be producing at any one time. The marginal cost might be close to zero, but he'd have high fixed costs. Compared to fossil fuels or nuclear it's very expensive for the amount of electricity produced & less predictable, so you either need backup generators or energy storage. There is no way to make a wind turbine cheaper than a gas turbine, when you still need a gas turbine for when the wind doesn't blow. The only way he might be able to do it 'for free' is with the green subsidies, but that just makes everybody else pay for it instead. All true enough, if largely a repeat of my post, but an acknowledgement that you misunderstood Pete would have been appropriate, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.