Moby T I fail to see the argument for photvolataic panels on houses. The system can not store the energy for later use. Not all localities feed unused energy into the grid. Hence, an empty house during the day has free energy it can't use. When the occupants are home late in the afternoon, the angle of the sun is less intense and not far of setting, hence the household will be using electricity from a fossil fueled power station. I respect that the households feeding unused energy into the grid during the day will be supplying it to occupied buildings,eg, shops/schools/hospitals/businesses etc and this will reduce the out put from the power stations and in turn reduce the carbon emissions. The panels I see on houses will not supply enough to meet a household's demand. I have seen some houses with 18 panels, obviously they would not instal this many unless it wasn't necessary. The 5 panel outfits you see are a waste of time. Can someone confirm they can support a 4 person household without 'cheating', meaning, aircons stay, tvs/computers/game consoles etc etc are as per normal. We haven't progressed to the stage where a SHWS can supply water without being boosted by fossil fuels, what chance have panels?. After all, an alternative energy source needs to perform just like what it replaces or people remain apathetic. Photovoltaic panels require sun. That means any tree in the way would have to be chopped. That will reduce a dwelling being shielded from the intense sun, hence increasing energy to cool the dwelling. Also, not good for the environment to chop down every tree in sight. Block sizes these days are smaller, hence multi storey dwellings are common. What happens if a development next door encroaches on 'your sun's rays?'. Has the local council thought of that? Will height restrictions exacerbate urban sprawl? The Government's EPA sets the rules. Aust has about 47 power stations and they are all fossil fueled. Why don't they set the trend? I have no choice but to use 'fossil electricity'. It is not an argument to say the Gov subsidises PVP because the price is still not cost effective when the amount of panels is increased to supply the average home. Also, there has been talk of the tariff amount being reduced. The Gov has a good proven crap record of introducing energy saving schemes and them leaving the home owner holding the baby. Fluffynymph is correct. Geothermal Turbines. It's a sealed system that basically self-perpetuates, clean and very energy efficient. Hydro/tidal electricity is a good option. They are definitely more logical than whacking a few panels on your roof. Obviously, if the technology can incorporate a capacitor to store the energy, I would buy them tomorrow! As to everyone declaring Nuclear Power, make an effort, that is so 1950's. And if you're ot willing to have it in your locality, don't bother arguing how safe and clean it is. Thank you and good night!
