Climate change?

HiE. I am thinking globally. In Germany, UK and the US the total amounts would be staggering.

True but the same could be said for the development cost of every power generation technology at the time... back then usually bought by govt owned utilities around the world at massive risk and cost to the taxpayer but for good (and often bad) reasons...

BTW I'm not advocating a cash splash on everyone's bright new power generation idea but I've been in this industry long enough to know that nothing noteworthy happens if govts don't step up and take a risk on new technologies. The private sector has proven time and again it is incapable of doing the heavy lifting on its own. The key is govts making this type of investment for the right reasons and on the right technologies. The Danes and the Chinese have both taken big risks on wind for example but it is paying them both back handsomely in international business (the Chinese story is yet to play out). Others have got pretty much nothing out of it by comparison...

Govts need to be sensible and strategic about how and why they play their hand in these investments and ours has been sensible (low cost for reasonable gain in decent large scale deployment) in wind and stupid (high cost and pretty much no gain) in rooftop PV.
 
This simple sentence proves without a doubt that you are arguing socialistic politics, not climate change.

As I said, I'm a veteran in this war and a large majority of "alarmist" posters I have crossed swords with are rusted-on labor, so much so they are defending Craig Thomson as simply sharing the spoils of power with the capitalists.

But I'm not saying that climate change is happening, and I have voted for both labor and liberal.

However, simply saying that the free market will fix everything is just blindly following an ideology. Just as assuming that workers controlling the means of production and sharing everything equally is blindly following an ideology. And both have been proven to be false.

I realise this goes against a simple black/white dichotomy, but the world revolves around varying shades of grey.
 
I realise this goes against a simple black/white dichotomy, but the world revolves around varying shades of grey.

You have a vast array of shades of grey IDEOlogy let me tell you. Is there some place else you can play...?

Takes me ages to sort thru the rubbishy argumentative posts to get the real story these days. Keep it simple and stick to the B&W please.

You have a comeback for every other persons post on here and it's clogging the system...give it a break and get a life outside sometime.
 
You have a vast array of shades of grey IDEOlogy let me tell you. Is there some place else you can play...?

Takes me ages to sort thru the rubbishy argumentative posts to get the real story these days. Keep it simple and stick to the B&W please.

You have a comeback for every other persons post on here and it's clogging the system...give it a break and get a life outside sometime.

No.

There's an ignore list on here if you want.
 
You have a comeback for every other persons post on here and it's clogging the system...give it a break and get a life outside sometime.

That's what I've been thinking about this poster for quite some Fence.

Every thread, every opinion, every poster, is argued and argued, taking the most ridiculous position every time.

Thread lengths seem to be quadrupling in just about every area.

Agreed also with your other correct assumption - it is physically impossible for much planning going on.....even with the BS excuse 'I'm efficient at my work at other times'. If I was his boss, or a ratepayer if he worked at a local council, and knew how much time he was on Somersoft, he'd be run off instantly.
 
Originally Posted by Ideo
I should have made it clearer - there should be more funding into R&D. Not just subsidies to manufacturers who are not innovators.
But the money IS being spent on R&D. It may as well be spent on R&B for all the life changing solutions that have surfaced.

Renewables have had plenty of seed capital and are only just surviving still because of the enforced uptake.
 
I think Ideo is an economist: Everything is "Yes! But on the other hand......." Never nails his colours to the mast.

This way you can agree/disagree forever. Beats working!

[I'm retired]
 
I think Ideo is an economist: Everything is "Yes! But on the other hand......." Never nails his colours to the mast.

This way you can agree/disagree forever. Beats working!

[I'm retired]

I'm semi retired. Kind of. Do 2 days a week and then either mess around on cars, on a house or if I'm under the weather due to long term issue, online.

Need to be in the office full time for the next few months starting next week. So I'm sure you'll be happy to see a decrease in posts :D
 
That's what I've been thinking about this poster for quite some Fence.

Every thread, every opinion, every poster, is argued and argued, taking the most ridiculous position every time.

Thread lengths seem to be quadrupling in just about every area.

Agreed also with your other correct assumption - it is physically impossible for much planning going on.....even with the BS excuse 'I'm efficient at my work at other times'. If I was his boss, or a ratepayer if he worked at a local council, and knew how much time he was on Somersoft, he'd be run off instantly.

Is this the sort of democracy your side of politics is offering, Dazz? Anyone that doesn't support the Abbott party line will be shouted down and pushed out of public discussion forums? It's not a very attractive spectacle you're putting on for the voters. I can not imagine anyone with an open political mind being impressed by these appalling comments made by you and The Fence here.
 
Who needs base load power?

A Lesson From Germany

Germany's power grid is in trouble, and federal regulators are warning something must be done before the onset of winter's usual skyrocketing energy demands. They say the current grid is unable to support the forced transition from nuclear to government-mandated "renewable" energies and must be expanded quickly to avoid blackouts.

"The situation of the power grid in the Winter 2011/12 was very tense," recounted a press release announcing publication of the annual report from the Federal Network Agency (FNA), Germany's energy regulating bureau. But the tension didn't surprise regulators.

Last August they recommended precautionary measures in light of the nuclear power station shutdowns forced by Germany's nuclear energy exit bill. The legislation, passed in July in a knee-jerk reaction to Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster, wiped out 40 percent of German nuclear capacity. This, along with the unpredictability of wind and solar power and February's unexpected gas supply shortage, forced the country to lean heavily on emergency reserves and imports from Austria.

"Reserve capacity in Germany and Austria was strained on multiple occasions," reads the FNA annual report. The agency recommends about 1,000 megawatts of reserve power to be on standby this coming winter. It also promises to implement "regulatory measures" to "ban the shutdown of conventional power plants" in an effort to meet demand.

Agency head Jochen Homann fears a repeat of last season's power interruptions since new renewable power facilities will not be able to deliver next winter based on the existing infrastructure. He told reporters a mere 100 kilometers of new transmission lines are now operating, [100 kms? In Germany?] though 1,834 kilometers are needed, Reuters reported. More nuclear power plants will be phased-out in coming months, and FNA estimates it will take two years for new plants to meet the 12 gigawatts GW of scheduled closures. Based on projected demand, the agency estimates an additional 15-16 GW of capacity should also be built.

Blogger P. Gosselin credits this transformation of "Germany's once impeccably stable world-class power grid" with its "reckless and uncontrolled rush to renewable energies, wind and sun, all spurred on by a blind environmental movement and hysteria with respect to nuclear power." He quotes Steffen Hentrick of the Liberal Institute:

This shows not only how the replacement of conventional energy capacity through renewable energy is an illusion, but also how expensive the forced energy transition to renewable will be for citizens. The transformation of the energy supply, as it is now being conducted, cannot be supported by the arguments of environmental protection, supply reliability and economics, even when the reports of state officials allow us to see that none of these targets sells by itself.

Indeed, government representatives who met last week to discuss Germany's energy issues determined that by 2020, when all nuclear power is scheduled to be phased out, the country's power gap will equal the output of 15 power stations, according to Russian Times. The report said government officials and industry executives are scheduled to meet again May 23 to search for solutions.


http://thenewamerican.com/tech/ener...renewable-energy-future-a-lesson-from-germany
 
This, along with the unpredictability of wind and solar power and February's unexpected gas supply shortage, forced the country to lean heavily on emergency reserves and imports from Austria.

Germany gets bent over a barrel on gas supply - price and availability.

Anyway I agree changes to energy policy have to move slower than this. Fundamental modifications to a nation's power supply systems have to be telegraphed well in advance and phased in over time to avoid stranded assets and to give enough time for the required new developments to get approved and built.

Without gas as a fast acting backup, or coal power stations specifically designed / retrofitted for the purpose, transitioning to renewables en masse at this pace is self evidently a bad idea. Given our relatively very secure gas supply situation on the east coast (price may be a future issue but security of supply is not), there aren't many relevant parallels on this between Germany and Australia. We are swimming in too much base load supply already (Origin's Grant King says we won't need anymore under BAU until 2020 at the earliest and possibly later) and while it is a relatively easy proposition to convert a coal power station to backup duty it is pretty much impossible with nuclear - even if it was designed for the purpose from scratch. Nuclear just doesn't turn down, even on a diurnal basis, let alone in response to renewables. What we have in Australia can be converted to this purpose if desired.
 
while it is a relatively easy proposition to convert a coal power station to backup duty it is pretty much impossible with nuclear - even if it was designed for the purpose from scratch. Nuclear just doesn't turn down, even on a diurnal basis, let alone in response to renewables.

Why on earth would you build a nuclear power station and run it as a "back up"? I see no possible logic here. Once built it is VERY cheap power. The cost is very much in the capital.

You are too wedded to your outlandish "anti base load" idea to make sense.
 
Why on earth would you build a nuclear power station and run it as a "back up"? I see no possible logic here. Once built it is VERY cheap power. The cost is very much in the capital.

You are too wedded to your outlandish "anti base load" idea to make sense.

I'm just saying nuclear and renewables don't mix precisely because nuclear is base load and can't follow either renewables or the load. It's a disadvantage of nuclear when you want to introduce something else. So Germany couldn't use its nuclear fleet to backup renewables even if they wanted to. It's another example of how existing base load plant locks you out of other choices.

And how replacing nuclear with renewables is a bad idea if you don't have backups like gas turbines or fast responding coal plant in the mix. We don't have this problem fortunately...

BTW a typical load duration curve for Australia (in this case SW WA) can be seen in page 17 of this document. Not much room in there for base load generators with a minimum load of 1300MW and a peak load near 4000MW... hopefully this helps you see what I'm talking about.
 
Acid rain is water and SOXs.

If CO2 dissolved in water it would no longer be in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, to produce carbonic acid
the equilibrium is small, the reaction does not proceed to any large extent, but it does occur, and may be the reason carbonated drinks are more acidic than non-carbonated
 
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, to produce carbonic acid
the equilibrium is small, the reaction does not proceed to any large extent, but it does occur, and may be the reason carbonated drinks are more acidic than non-carbonated
Of course! But leave your soda to go flat and see how it tastes - lousy, there is no acid tang left. At atmospheric pressure the vast amount of CO2 bubbles off quickly.

Don't insult me by insinuating that I don't know of it, but I also know the "acid rain" that was damaging The Black Forrest was NOT carbonic, it was sulphuric. If it was the former, why would it have been halted by putting scrubbers in the power stations?
 
I answered a single point only, about CO[sub]2[/sub] dissolving in water, and quoted that point in my answer.

any insult is entirely self generated
 
Something to cheer you up HiE

Filed Bankruptcy:

Solyndra
Beacon Power
Ener1
Range Fuels
Solar Trust of America
Spectrawatt
Evergreen Solar
Eastern Energy
Unisolar
Bright Automotive
Olson’s Crop Service
Energy Conversion Devices
Sovello
Siag
Solon
Q-Cells
Mountain Plaza

Teetering on the Brink:

Abound Solar
A123 Systems
Brightsource Energy
Fisker Automotive
First Solar
Nevada Geothermal
SunPower
Nordex
The Bard Group
Amonix
NRG Energy
Alterra Power
Enel Green Power
Sunpower Corp
 
Back
Top