Ethanol from sugar cane.

Gas turbines that can run either on natural gas or ethanol produced from sugar cane.

Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.

Renewable fuel with low carbon emissions.

Brazil is already doing it.

http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity

Any problems ?

• Brazil is already doing it.

Yeah, but, if Brazil jumped of a bridge…

rumpole said:

Ethanol from sugar cane.

Gas turbines that can run either on natural gas or ethanol produced from sugar cane.

Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.

Renewable fuel with low carbon emissions.

Brazil is already doing it.

http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity

Any problems ?

Brazil has knocked down over 100 percent of it’s pristine rainforest to grow sugarcane to make bioelectricity and ethanol.
It’s a win win because they get to sell all those acres and acres of grand old trees to make rocking chairs for the one percenters as well.

Peak Warming Man said:

rumpole said:

Ethanol from sugar cane.

Gas turbines that can run either on natural gas or ethanol produced from sugar cane.

Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.

Renewable fuel with low carbon emissions.

Brazil is already doing it.

http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity

Any problems ?

Brazil has knocked down over 100 percent of it’s pristine rainforest to grow sugarcane to make bioelectricity and ethanol.
It’s a win win because they get to sell all those acres and acres of grand old trees to make rocking chairs for the one percenters as well.

Maybe, but we produce 35 million tons of sugar cane already. I don’t know how much ethanol that would make. but I’m not suggesting clearing rainforest to grow cane or that ethanol would provide all our needs, but it’s better to put the sugar cane that we do produce into power rather than food and drink.

Peak Warming Man said:

rumpole said:

Ethanol from sugar cane.

Gas turbines that can run either on natural gas or ethanol produced from sugar cane.

Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.

Renewable fuel with low carbon emissions.

Brazil is already doing it.

http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity

Any problems ?

Brazil has knocked down over 100 percent of it’s pristine rainforest to grow sugarcane to make bioelectricity and ethanol.
It’s a win win because they get to sell all those acres and acres of grand old trees to make rocking chairs for the one percenters as well.

I suspect PWM may have his percentage number a little exaggerated, but nonetheless, it’s a fair point.

The solution would be to include in the carbon price a hefty penalty for removal of pristine rainforest (especially for percentages greater than 100), but how we implement that on a global scale is a bit of a problem.

Solutions to Australia’s power problems ?

Hmmmmmm, now let me think?

I know; we could build some new high efficiency coal fired power plants to take advantage of our vast coal supplies.

We could frac the vast gas deposits at our disposal, to utilise for cooking, heating, etc.

We could even build a few nuclear power plants & use our vast supplies of uranium to run them.

High cost solutions you just described.

More gas from offshore is a possibility instead of selling it o/s for peanuts.

rumpole said:

Ethanol from sugar cane.

Gas turbines that can run either on natural gas or ethanol produced from sugar cane.

Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.

Renewable fuel with low carbon emissions.

Brazil is already doing it.

http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity

Any problems ?

>Ethanol from sugar cane.
Already doing it. E10 & E80 fuel.

>Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.
Sugar mills already do this. They use the power to run the mill & any excess goes into the grid.

Elon Musk.

mollwollfumble said:

Elon Musk.

sibeen, don’t read this post!

If you want to grow the feed stock for biofuel production it would probably be more efficient to grow algae rather than land crops like sugar cane. You can get algae that produce vegetable oils which could be refined into ordinary petrol or diesel.

party_pants said:

If you want to grow the feed stock for biofuel production it would probably be more efficient to grow algae rather than land crops like sugar cane. You can get algae that produce vegetable oils which could be refined into ordinary petrol or diesel.

I believe gas turbines can run on a variety of fuels, so the more sources of fuel there are the less we need to rely on any one of them.

rumpole said:

party_pants said:

If you want to grow the feed stock for biofuel production it would probably be more efficient to grow algae rather than land crops like sugar cane. You can get algae that produce vegetable oils which could be refined into ordinary petrol or diesel.

I believe gas turbines can run on a variety of fuels, so the more sources of fuel there are the less we need to rely on any one of them.

The one in Darwin runs on gas & its waste heat is used to power a steam turbine for more generation.

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

stumpy_seahorse said:

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

Yes that pretty cool

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

thought it must have been them. there was a TV program that they featured in on telly some time ago.

stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

Thanks. This is exactly the sort of thing I’d waste my money on if I win the big Powerball jackpot tomorrow.

ChrispenEvan said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

thought it must have been them. there was a TV program that they featured in on telly some time ago.

yeah, I got the tour on saturday, they are trying to phase out international workers and hire more locals. they have a farm in holland running on wind power and a couple more in the early stages. This one supplies 15% of australia’s supermarket tomatoes and has only been open for just under 12 months.
They are trialling other veggies and looking to build more around SA

stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

thought it must have been them. there was a TV program that they featured in on telly some time ago.

yeah, I got the tour on saturday, they are trying to phase out international workers and hire more locals. they have a farm in holland running on wind power and a couple more in the early stages. This one supplies 15% of australia’s supermarket tomatoes and has only been open for just under 12 months.
They are trialling other veggies and looking to build more around SA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCup_B_RHM4

landline

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

Thanks. This is exactly the sort of thing I’d waste my money on if I win the big Powerball jackpot tomorrow.

coles put in $167mill from memory, it’s an impressive setup

Google Earth 32o32’53.75“S 137o50’37.44 E

ChrispenEvan said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

thought it must have been them. there was a TV program that they featured in on telly some time ago.

yeah, I got the tour on saturday, they are trying to phase out international workers and hire more locals. they have a farm in holland running on wind power and a couple more in the early stages. This one supplies 15% of australia’s supermarket tomatoes and has only been open for just under 12 months.
They are trialling other veggies and looking to build more around SA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCup_B_RHM4

landline

cheers

Tamb said:

rumpole said:

Ethanol from sugar cane.

Gas turbines that can run either on natural gas or ethanol produced from sugar cane.

Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.

Renewable fuel with low carbon emissions.

Brazil is already doing it.

http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity

Any problems ?

>Ethanol from sugar cane.
Already doing it. E10 & E80 fuel.

>Burning sugar cane bio mass to produce energy.
Sugar mills already do this. They use the power to run the mill & any excess goes into the grid.

Yep. I worked on sugar mills nearly twenty years ago helping to set up on-site power generation from burning cane. So it’s not exactly new.

mollwollfumble said:

Elon Musk.

I’m not sure that burning one Elon Musk is going to provide that much energy.

be patient, eventually the switchflickers will get the chinese solution

stumpy_seahorse said:

The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

Hot house, was wandering around Glasgow in 1972 and came across their botanic gardens with a massive glass hot house.
They’ve done it up since then.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

I haven’t checked, but I don’t think 1000 ppm (0.1%) CO2 is a problem for human health.

The Rev Dodgson said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

I haven’t checked, but I don’t think 1000 ppm (0.1%) CO2 is a problem for human health.

0.04% – normal concentration in air
0.50% – starts to affect breath leading to increase in respiratory rate
5.00% – 300% increase in normal respiratory rate
10.0% – tolerable for short periods only
18.0% – irrespirable

the big problem is however that in a static environment CO2 tends to displace oxygen and thus can increase in concentration (in small areas) quite quickly… CO2 also has a higher relative density than oxygen so it tends to accumulates from the floor up (which means if you walk into a space filled with CO2, get overcome and fall over… it’s game over)

Australia has energy out the ying yang, a small population in a continent sized island full of resources. The only problem is how we managed to get in the mess of selling oceans of gas at such a discount that other countries who import it can get a better return for government than we do.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer

This chapter summarizes the relevant epidemiologic and toxicologic studies on carbon dioxide (CO2). Selected chemical and physical properties, toxicokinetic and mechanistic data, and inhalation exposure levels from the National Research Council (NRC) and other agencies are also presented. The subcommittee considered all of that information in its evaluation of the Navy’s current and proposed 1-hour (h), 24-h, and 90-day exposure guidance levels for CO2.
.
90-Day CEGL
LOAEL as the basis for the CEGL and adjusting it with an uncertainty factor of 3 for limited data on the effects of longer-term exposure yields a 90-day CEGL of 8,000 ppm.
.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

.

What method was used to raise the CO2 content in the greenhouses?

Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer

This chapter summarizes the relevant epidemiologic and toxicologic studies on carbon dioxide (CO2). Selected chemical and physical properties, toxicokinetic and mechanistic data, and inhalation exposure levels from the National Research Council (NRC) and other agencies are also presented. The subcommittee considered all of that information in its evaluation of the Navy’s current and proposed 1-hour (h), 24-h, and 90-day exposure guidance levels for CO2.
.
90-Day CEGL
LOAEL as the basis for the CEGL and adjusting it with an uncertainty factor of 3 for limited data on the effects of longer-term exposure yields a 90-day CEGL of 8,000 ppm.
.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5

I think you miss the point. CO2 is not going to kill us directly, but CO2 in the atmosphere will create a greenhouse effect to increase the temperature and create extreme weather events, and when that environment exceeds the limit of the conditions for which we have evolved, we then die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNSLfY0i5Ow

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

from whhat I saw, there was no additional CO2 needed.
I can see issues of it’s use inside enclosed greenhouses with staff working there though

We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer

This chapter summarizes the relevant epidemiologic and toxicologic studies on carbon dioxide (CO2). Selected chemical and physical properties, toxicokinetic and mechanistic data, and inhalation exposure levels from the National Research Council (NRC) and other agencies are also presented. The subcommittee considered all of that information in its evaluation of the Navy’s current and proposed 1-hour (h), 24-h, and 90-day exposure guidance levels for CO2.
.
90-Day CEGL
LOAEL as the basis for the CEGL and adjusting it with an uncertainty factor of 3 for limited data on the effects of longer-term exposure yields a 90-day CEGL of 8,000 ppm.
.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5

I think you miss the point. CO2 is not going to kill us directly, but CO2 in the atmosphere will create a greenhouse effect to increase the temperature and create extreme weather events, and when that environment exceeds the limit of the conditions for which we have evolved, we then die.

CO2 is a weak gas, increasing global mean temp by 1C maximum per doubling. But what you choose to believe in is the discredited hypothesis of net positive feedback & a concept that we live in a Goldie Locks climate where any perturbation will result in a weather created apocalypse.

You can create a concept, but reality will remain in my room.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I saw a good setup this week that used 12 hectares of mirrors to boil seawater. the steam drove turbines for power and the fresh water was collected.
The warm water was use to heat 4 greenhouses and then cooled and pumped back in for irrigation

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

Yes that pretty cool

What did they use the salt for?

The_observer said:

reality will remain in my room.

you have a room?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

reality will remain in my room.

you have a room?

it would be mean to call it a cell

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

Yes that pretty cool

What did they use the salt for?

Fish n chips

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Interesting, don’t suppose you got a link for that handy?

Yes that pretty cool

What did they use the salt for?

Well if they got it from seawater they could put the salt back into the ocean. Or they could sell it. Salt has commercial value.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Yes that pretty cool

What did they use the salt for?

Well if they got it from seawater they could put the salt back into the ocean. Or they could sell it. Salt has commercial value.

Well aware. Just that it wasn’t in the report.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

What did they use the salt for?

Well if they got it from seawater they could put the salt back into the ocean. Or they could sell it. Salt has commercial value.

Well aware. Just that it wasn’t in the report.

it goes into the settlement ponds.
The landline article boris posted the link to talked about selling it commercially, but they didn’t go into that on the tour

‘Clean’ coal-fired power will not work: industry insider

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/clean-coal-will-not-work-industry-insider/8618836

• ’Clean’ coal-fired power will not work: industry insider

It is also a stupid idea, like cleaning your room by pushing all of the mess under the bed…

furious said:

• ’Clean’ coal-fired power will not work: industry insider

It is also a stupid idea, like cleaning your room by pushing all of the mess under the bed…

Plus I wonder how well it would be monitored or would we trust them to do it properly

This anti-coal fundamentalism is stupid.

If coal fired power + sequestration is the cheapest way of reducing CO2 emissions, now or at any point in the future, then that technology should be employed. It probably isn’t, but we can’t be certain of that.

How come there is not a single politician in the Libnats with the guts to argue for a market driven solution to the problem, by recognising the likely future costs of CO2 emissions now?

The Rev Dodgson said:

This anti-coal fundamentalism is stupid.

If coal fired power + sequestration is the cheapest way of reducing CO2 emissions, now or at any point in the future, then that technology should be employed. It probably isn’t, but we can’t be certain of that.

How come there is not a single politician in the Libnats with the guts to argue for a market driven solution to the problem, by recognising the likely future costs of CO2 emissions now?

The problem is that we are trying to replace a cheap reliable electrical resource with a busted arsed unreliable electrical resource that may go weeks without working at all, now that’s tricky to sell to the punters.
So what we’ve done is paint the former as the greatest evil ever and the latter as something all goodness and light that will power Australias future but we don’t tell them that it will be only powering some of the time.
So far I think we’ve got away with it.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This anti-coal fundamentalism is stupid.

If coal fired power + sequestration is the cheapest way of reducing CO2 emissions, now or at any point in the future, then that technology should be employed. It probably isn’t, but we can’t be certain of that.

How come there is not a single politician in the Libnats with the guts to argue for a market driven solution to the problem, by recognising the likely future costs of CO2 emissions now?

The problem is that we are trying to replace a cheap reliable electrical resource with a busted arsed unreliable electrical resource that may go weeks without working at all, now that’s tricky to sell to the punters.
So what we’ve done is paint the former as the greatest evil ever and the latter as something all goodness and light that will power Australias future but we don’t tell them that it will be only powering some of the time.
So far I think we’ve got away with it.

No, the problem is that we are currently using an energy source that is only cheap because significant future costs are hidden. When one political party decided to do the right thing and make these costs visible (if only partially), the other political party then cynically decided to take cheap political advantage by hiding them again, and pretending that they had thus made them go away.

So far it looks like they have got away with it.

furious said:

• ’Clean’ coal-fired power will not work: industry insider

It is also a stupid idea, like cleaning your room by pushing all of the mess under the bed…

That’s not really a very good analogy as CO2 already exists in large quantities in many stratigraphic sequences and this notwithstanding CCS has a long history of proven technical application.

The question is, like the Good Rev points out, can we make CCS technology economically viable?

Now it appears as though economic application of CCS for thermal (coal) power generation may not be possible, but that being said, CCS has applications far greater than in just the power sector. There is broad application in the oil and gas, steal and concrete industries as well and as such I think it’s in our best interests to have high functioning CCS technology as one of the tools for carbon abatement.

All in all, I think the best way to address this issue is build market based infrastructure that very squarely places a price on carbon. Industry shouldn’t be allowed to simply create a false economy by placing a zero cost on carbon emissions – after all, we don’t do this with any other industrial pollutants.

Are so called new clean coal technologies all about CCS or something else?

Perhaps energy production needs to come under basic human right and profit making a secondary consideration.

diddly-squat said:

All in all, I think the best way to address this issue is build market based infrastructure that very squarely places a price on carbon. Industry shouldn’t be allowed to simply create a false economy by placing a zero cost on carbon emissions – after all, we don’t do this with any other industrial pollutants.

Couldn’t have put it better myself :)

Cymek said:

Perhaps energy production needs to come under basic human right and profit making a secondary consideration.

What benefit do you see in that?

More efficient hiding of the costs perhaps?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps energy production needs to come under basic human right and profit making a secondary consideration.

What benefit do you see in that?

More efficient hiding of the costs perhaps?

I don’t know but should everything be based on the ability to make a profit or should some things be provided as cheap as possible out of human decency. Problem I suppose is human would take advantage and waste it.
I have wondered if you were a super rich tech genius and offered to build power plants and give everyone free electricity would you actually be allowed to do so.

Peak Warming Man said:

Are so called new clean coal technologies all about CCS or something else?

a combination of supercritical boiler technology and CCS

Cymek said:

Perhaps energy production needs to come under basic human right and profit making a secondary consideration.

there is nothing wrong with making a profit from business.. the problem, is that many industries (thermal power included) have been allowed to simply emit carbon on the basis that this emission has a zero cost – which quite obviously is not the case.

The engineer in me screams at the politicking here because the the obvious lowest cost solution is to let the market decide which business proposal (or more likely which mix of business proposals) offers the best overall margin.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps energy production needs to come under basic human right and profit making a secondary consideration.

What benefit do you see in that?

More efficient hiding of the costs perhaps?

I don’t know but should everything be based on the ability to make a profit or should some things be provided as cheap as possible out of human decency. Problem I suppose is human would take advantage and waste it.
I have wondered if you were a super rich tech genius and offered to build power plants and give everyone free electricity would you actually be allowed to do so.

Providing everything as cheaply as possible is what the market system does.

You can of course subsidise some things to redistribute the cost, which arguably makes sense in the case of things like education and medicine, but I don’t see why you would do that for energy supply.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps energy production needs to come under basic human right and profit making a secondary consideration.

What benefit do you see in that?

More efficient hiding of the costs perhaps?

I don’t know but should everything be based on the ability to make a profit or should some things be provided as cheap as possible out of human decency. Problem I suppose is human would take advantage and waste it.
I have wondered if you were a super rich tech genius and offered to build power plants and give everyone free electricity would you actually be allowed to do so.

We used to have a totally government owned power grid in NSW. The problems started when politicians on both sides decided privatisation would be a good idea. They were obviously wrong. Going back to totally public ownership would be nigh impossible considering the money from the sale has already been spent elsewhere, but government invests billions in infrastructure, I see no reason why some of that shouldn’t be in generation. It is an essential service afterall.

rumpole said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What benefit do you see in that?

More efficient hiding of the costs perhaps?

I don’t know but should everything be based on the ability to make a profit or should some things be provided as cheap as possible out of human decency. Problem I suppose is human would take advantage and waste it.
I have wondered if you were a super rich tech genius and offered to build power plants and give everyone free electricity would you actually be allowed to do so.

We used to have a totally government owned power grid in NSW. The problems started when politicians on both sides decided privatisation would be a good idea. They were obviously wrong. Going back to totally public ownership would be nigh impossible considering the money from the sale has already been spent elsewhere, but government invests billions in infrastructure, I see no reason why some of that shouldn’t be in generation. It is an essential service afterall.

I tend to agree that the goverment brave enough to take it back on would gain political points.

rumpole said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What benefit do you see in that?

More efficient hiding of the costs perhaps?

I don’t know but should everything be based on the ability to make a profit or should some things be provided as cheap as possible out of human decency. Problem I suppose is human would take advantage and waste it.
I have wondered if you were a super rich tech genius and offered to build power plants and give everyone free electricity would you actually be allowed to do so.

We used to have a totally government owned power grid in NSW. The problems started when politicians on both sides decided privatisation would be a good idea. They were obviously wrong. Going back to totally public ownership would be nigh impossible considering the money from the sale has already been spent elsewhere, but government invests billions in infrastructure, I see no reason why some of that shouldn’t be in generation. It is an essential service afterall.

Yep, privatisation of essential services is crazy and is just a lazy short term budget fix by governments looking to get re-elected.

Peak Warming Man said:

rumpole said:

Cymek said:

I don’t know but should everything be based on the ability to make a profit or should some things be provided as cheap as possible out of human decency. Problem I suppose is human would take advantage and waste it.
I have wondered if you were a super rich tech genius and offered to build power plants and give everyone free electricity would you actually be allowed to do so.

We used to have a totally government owned power grid in NSW. The problems started when politicians on both sides decided privatisation would be a good idea. They were obviously wrong. Going back to totally public ownership would be nigh impossible considering the money from the sale has already been spent elsewhere, but government invests billions in infrastructure, I see no reason why some of that shouldn’t be in generation. It is an essential service afterall.

Yep, privatisation of essential services is crazy and is just a lazy short term budget fix by governments looking to get re-elected.

hear hear.

So called hidden future costs.

Calling a naturally occuring gas, vital to life, an industrial pollution.

Yep, create a concept & reality leaves the forum.

The_observer said:

So called hidden future costs.

Calling a naturally occuring gas, vital to life, an industrial pollution.

Yep, create a concept & reality leaves the forum.

Too much of its not good though

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

So called hidden future costs.

Calling a naturally occuring gas, vital to life, an industrial pollution.

Yep, create a concept & reality leaves the forum.

Too much of its not good though

My son turned 21 the other day. I had a look at the UAH satellite data, the most accurate temp data set there is, & since he was born there has been an increase of just over one tenth of a degree C, 1/10 of 1C in 21 years. If there hadn’t been a strong El nino last year it would be ZERO.

OH John, but its worse than we thought.

LOL

>Yep, privatisation of essential services is crazy and is just a lazy short term budget fix by governments looking to get re-elected

at sometime the utility/ies went from asset, to in some sense liability, about the time global capital (or private capital) started to dominate over democracy.

welcome the forgetory, that australia was built on (very good) essential services provided by government shall be obliviated from your mind, for which there are ideological devices.

transition said:

>Yep, privatisation of essential services is crazy and is just a lazy short term budget fix by governments looking to get re-elected

at sometime the utility/ies went from asset, to in some sense liability, about the time global capital (or private capital) started to dominate over democracy.

Were they a liability or an established valuable asset easily flogged off to fix budget problems caused by successive government mismanagement, cash convertors

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Yep, privatisation of essential services is crazy and is just a lazy short term budget fix by governments looking to get re-elected

at sometime the utility/ies went from asset, to in some sense liability, about the time global capital (or private capital) started to dominate over democracy.

Were they a liability or an established valuable asset easily flogged off to fix budget problems caused by successive government mismanagement, cash convertors

might’ve answered that in the following/previous post

(sorry, this was meant to go here..)

observer,

Do you have any type of insurance?? say home and contents, or health, or insurance on damage done to, or by your car, or maybe even income protection or life insurance?? If you do, then like many other people you choose to manage the risk of potentially large future costs by inuring a smaller cost now.. make sense right, hedge your bets so to speak…

Your stance on climate change is like saying that you don’t want to pay your premiums now because you know you’ll never have to make a claim at any point in the future and in fairness to you, that’s a valid stance if the only person affected by you being wrong is yourself… but that simply not the case is it…

Peak Warming Man said:

Yep, privatisation of essential services is crazy and is just a lazy short term budget fix by governments looking to get re-elected.

Bloody lefty.

diddly-squat said:

(sorry, this was meant to go here..)

observer,

Do you have any type of insurance?? say home and contents, or health, or insurance on damage done to, or by your car, or maybe even income protection or life insurance?? If you do, then like many other people you choose to manage the risk of potentially large future costs by inuring a smaller cost now.. make sense right, hedge your bets so to speak…

Your stance on climate change is like saying that you don’t want to pay your premiums now because you know you’ll never have to make a claim at any point in the future and in fairness to you, that’s a valid stance if the only person affected by you being wrong is yourself… but that simply not the case is it…

We do kind of borrow the planet from our descendants, we should try not to wreck it too much and if possible fix the damage done previously.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

(sorry, this was meant to go here..)

observer,

Do you have any type of insurance?? say home and contents, or health, or insurance on damage done to, or by your car, or maybe even income protection or life insurance?? If you do, then like many other people you choose to manage the risk of potentially large future costs by inuring a smaller cost now.. make sense right, hedge your bets so to speak…

Your stance on climate change is like saying that you don’t want to pay your premiums now because you know you’ll never have to make a claim at any point in the future and in fairness to you, that’s a valid stance if the only person affected by you being wrong is yourself… but that simply not the case is it…

We do kind of borrow the planet from our descendants, we should try not to wreck it too much and if possible fix the damage done previously.

I’m not even really talking about that – fixing the mistakes of old is another thing altogether… I’m talking about strategies to manage risk

money has no memory, it’s one of the most powerful things about it, but too lends to some nasty obliviation.

diddly-squat said:

(sorry, this was meant to go here..)

observer,

Do you have any type of insurance?? say home and contents, or health, or insurance on damage done to, or by your car, or maybe even income protection or life insurance?? If you do, then like many other people you choose to manage the risk of potentially large future costs by inuring a smaller cost now.. make sense right, hedge your bets so to speak…

Your stance on climate change is like saying that you don’t want to pay your premiums now because you know you’ll never have to make a claim at any point in the future and in fairness to you, that’s a valid stance if the only person affected by you being wrong is yourself… but that simply not the case is it…

Wow, what a tired old argument/excuse.

If the cost of insurance was too expensive compared to, say, replacing my block of flats that have burned down, no I wouldn’t take out insurance.

Especially when its an insurance saleman who is telling me that its only a matter of time before fire hits, & whose also telling me that his premiums are cheap, when I know he’s lying.

1/
Forget privatisation. There is nowhere in Australia that has had a good experience with privatisation in the power industry. It’s essential fucking infrastructure.

2/
Abolish the state governments.

dv said:

Abolish the state governments.

Yeah because the feds are doing such a good job of it.

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

(sorry, this was meant to go here..)

observer,

Do you have any type of insurance?? say home and contents, or health, or insurance on damage done to, or by your car, or maybe even income protection or life insurance?? If you do, then like many other people you choose to manage the risk of potentially large future costs by inuring a smaller cost now.. make sense right, hedge your bets so to speak…

Your stance on climate change is like saying that you don’t want to pay your premiums now because you know you’ll never have to make a claim at any point in the future and in fairness to you, that’s a valid stance if the only person affected by you being wrong is yourself… but that simply not the case is it…

Wow, what a tired old argument/excuse.

If the cost of insurance was too expensive compared to, say, replacing my block of flats that have burned down, no I wouldn’t take out insurance.

Especially when its an insurance saleman who is telling me that its only a matter of time before fire hits, & whose also telling me that his premiums are cheap, when I know he’s lying.

You own a block of flats ?, are you a slum lord ?

Tas govt really wants a Basslink 2. Basslink 1 costs lots of money. It was built by Halliburton and sold to a company that is in a small office somewhere in Singapore.

We had quite a while with Basslink down last year when, it seems, they tried to sell too much electricity into the mainland grid and fried the cable.(There is also a theory that the cable was dredged. Who knows? Not the public.) We demolished our pondages to sell high.(pondages are up in the meantime.)

In someways we were better off without Basslink.

Basslink 2 is planned to leave Tassie at Stanley, hop to King Island and hit Victoria far to the left of Basslink 1. I suppose that is to get it closer to SA. King Island is wind farming, could wind farm more and is in a windy place.

It does occur to me that much more electricity could be generated in Bass strait. The amount of water moving through there should have potential. The big tides should also have potential. If any of this is correct there should be the potential for a Basslink 3 to go through Flinders Island to Wilsons Prom.

Coal for power generation : waste of time. Millions of moving parts, high maintenance costs, toxic pollution, ash and coal dust enters workers lungs. Assume terrible management.

Wind: nice but current turbines use the stupid design where all maintenance is carried out at the top, difficult to replace turbines, kills birds, can be located in inconvenient locations. Requires constant wind, only of any use if you have an appropriate energy storage system. Moving parts – complicated maintenance. Should be using slower moving vertical turbines.

Solar: solid state no moving parts, hard for incompetent management to destroy. Easy maintenance, low labour costs. Requires appropriate energy storage system.

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

That may be true but the imperative was words to the effect, go hard, go early, go households.

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

That may be true but the imperative was words to the effect, go hard, go early, go households.

People rushed out and bought TVs – they are in the rubbish tip now.

Building a massive solar system would have created jobs and training – which have led to more money in households in a sustained way.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

That may be true but the imperative was words to the effect, go hard, go early, go households.

People rushed out and bought TVs – they are in the rubbish tip now.

Building a massive solar system would have created jobs and training – which have led to more money in households in a sustained way.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

That may be true but the imperative was words to the effect, go hard, go early, go households.

People rushed out and bought TVs – they are in the rubbish tip now.

Building a massive solar system would have created jobs and training – which have led to more money in households in a sustained way.

Yes, people did buy TVs. Probably the biggest beneficiary was Harvey Norman, but that was treasuries advice. When the economies were crashing infrastructure projects were too slow to restore confidence.

Paul Kelly’s book Triumph and Demise explains all.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

That may be true but the imperative was words to the effect, go hard, go early, go households.

People rushed out and bought TVs – they are in the rubbish tip now.

Building a massive solar system would have created jobs and training – which have led to more money in households in a sustained way.

To boost the Australia’s economy and to stop it going into recession, the money had to be spent immediately and spread over the greatest range of businesses. It worked because we were the only developed country that did not go into recession.

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

Fuck Rudd; there’s only one reason why Australia has expensive electricity & an energy crisis.

Blame yourselves.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/6420/

I was saying at the time we should invest in renewables instead of spending money on tvs that will be in the tip in 5 years.

The solar panels and storage will give us 30 – 40 years breathing space.

Only employment creates financial stability. The economy works on 5.5 percent of the working population working so you’d only need to employ the difference.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

That may be true but the imperative was words to the effect, go hard, go early, go households.

People rushed out and bought TVs – they are in the rubbish tip now.

Building a massive solar system would have created jobs and training – which have led to more money in households in a sustained way.

To boost the Australia’s economy and to stop it going into recession, the money had to be spent immediately and spread over the greatest range of businesses. It worked because we were the only developed country that did not go into recession.

I disagree that was the reason we didn’t go into recession, we had some other major advantages, three strong banks that were not losing money and that the government guaranteed, no local housing implosion because values were still good and we don’t have no recourse loans, not much exposure to American insurance companies, no government debt as such and we were still selling resources.

If they had spent the insulation money on solar power Wookie would now be telling us they should have spent it on insulation.

There really wasn’t a solar storage solution back when the GFC hit, at least not in any way, shape or form a ‘return on investment’ solution. Even now the ROI is very problematical for a solar storage solution.

The main issue at the time was no one was lending because balance books of the big Americans were loaded or not (it was unknowable) with assets that were probably worthless.

wookiemeister said:

I was saying at the time we should invest in renewables instead of spending money on tvs that will be in the tip in 5 years.

The solar panels and storage will give us 30 – 40 years breathing space.

Only employment creates financial stability. The economy works on 5.5 percent of the working population working so you’d only need to employ the difference.

But in the situation of the time, that would have the wrong action. However, if you did in today’s economy, then probably what you say would be correct.

party_pants said:

If they had spent the insulation money on solar power Wookie would now be telling us they should have spent it on insulation.

If power was cheap and plentiful from solar you wouldn’t bother insulating any house

sibeen said:

There really wasn’t a solar storage solution back when the GFC hit, at least not in any way, shape or form a ‘return on investment’ solution. Even now the ROI is very problematical for a solar storage solution.

Battery systems already existed

It wouldnt take a quantum leap of thought to translate it to lithium

sibeen said:

There really wasn’t a solar storage solution back when the GFC hit, at least not in any way, shape or form a ‘return on investment’ solution. Even now the ROI is very problematical for a solar storage solution.

My sister and BiL got solar panels installed last month. The company recommended they not buy batteries for storage at this stage because technology is at a critical stage of development.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

People rushed out and bought TVs – they are in the rubbish tip now.

Building a massive solar system would have created jobs and training – which have led to more money in households in a sustained way.

To boost the Australia’s economy and to stop it going into recession, the money had to be spent immediately and spread over the greatest range of businesses. It worked because we were the only developed country that did not go into recession.

I disagree that was the reason we didn’t go into recession, we had some other major advantages, three strong banks that were not losing money and that the government guaranteed, no local housing implosion because values were still good and we don’t have no recourse loans, not much exposure to American insurance companies, no government debt as such and we were still selling resources.

Well most other countries nearly went to the wall. Sure it was not the only think that protected us, but it certainly helped considerably.

wookiemeister said:

sibeen said:

There really wasn’t a solar storage solution back when the GFC hit, at least not in any way, shape or form a ‘return on investment’ solution. Even now the ROI is very problematical for a solar storage solution.

Battery systems already existed

It wouldnt take a quantum leap of thought to translate it to lithium

Yeah…sigh

If only those damn engineering practicalities didn’t get in the way of blue sky mining…sigh

The other thing is this

In a free market system someone would have come up with a reliable storage system given that massive solar systems were being built.

During the day solar might charge up millions of battery systems and during the night coal would be kept on in a limited way to preserve system frequency / spinning reserve.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

There really wasn’t a solar storage solution back when the GFC hit, at least not in any way, shape or form a ‘return on investment’ solution. Even now the ROI is very problematical for a solar storage solution.

My sister and BiL got solar panels installed last month. The company recommended they not buy batteries for storage at this stage because technology is at a critical stage of development.

Yeppers. It is still a nascent technology no matter what Elon and his fanboys have to say.

In a capitalist system someone would see opportunity and start making and selling storage systems

You can build your own storage system

Each cell can be charged via a tp4056 pcb

5v / 1A to each cell

As solar prices go down we may find ourselves in the situation where government (of all types) subsidise coal generators because base load is still required but they are not selling enough electricity to make profits.

wookiemeister said:

In a capitalist system someone would see opportunity and start making and selling storage systems

Yeah, they’re doing that right now. But it is very early days and nowhere near cost positive for the consumer. Ten years ago it was an order of magnitude worse.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

To boost the Australia’s economy and to stop it going into recession, the money had to be spent immediately and spread over the greatest range of businesses. It worked because we were the only developed country that did not go into recession.

I disagree that was the reason we didn’t go into recession, we had some other major advantages, three strong banks that were not losing money and that the government guaranteed, no local housing implosion because values were still good and we don’t have no recourse loans, not much exposure to American insurance companies, no government debt as such and we were still selling resources.

Well most other countries nearly went to the wall. Sure it was not the only think that protected us, but it certainly helped considerably.

I received two payments. The first because of my poverty. I actually needed it. I paid bills. Later I realised that most of it went straight back to govt. Although it was to local and state govt. the second payment was to students. I was in Honours. I bought myself laptop and course materials.

Please note. No TVs were purchased..

AwesomeO said:

As solar prices go down we may find ourselves in the situation where government (of all types) subsidise coal generators because base load is still required but they are not selling enough electricity to make profits.

Except they have privatised it now so it isn’t government profits now.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I disagree that was the reason we didn’t go into recession, we had some other major advantages, three strong banks that were not losing money and that the government guaranteed, no local housing implosion because values were still good and we don’t have no recourse loans, not much exposure to American insurance companies, no government debt as such and we were still selling resources.

Well most other countries nearly went to the wall. Sure it was not the only think that protected us, but it certainly helped considerably.

I received two payments. The first because of my poverty. I actually needed it. I paid bills. Later I realised that most of it went straight back to govt. Although it was to local and state govt. the second payment was to students. I was in Honours. I bought myself laptop and course materials.

Please note. No TVs were purchased..

That was treasuries advice and intent, money given to low incomes would be the very next day back into the economy circulating.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I disagree that was the reason we didn’t go into recession, we had some other major advantages, three strong banks that were not losing money and that the government guaranteed, no local housing implosion because values were still good and we don’t have no recourse loans, not much exposure to American insurance companies, no government debt as such and we were still selling resources.

Well most other countries nearly went to the wall. Sure it was not the only think that protected us, but it certainly helped considerably.

I received two payments. The first because of my poverty. I actually needed it. I paid bills. Later I realised that most of it went straight back to govt. Although it was to local and state govt. the second payment was to students. I was in Honours. I bought myself laptop and course materials.

Please note. No TVs were purchased..

Yes the important thing at the times of recession is to get money circulating.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

As solar prices go down we may find ourselves in the situation where government (of all types) subsidise coal generators because base load is still required but they are not selling enough electricity to make profits.

Except they have privatised it now so it isn’t government profits now.

Didn’t say it was government “ profits” I was clearly talking about the government propping up coal generators to guarantee base load.

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

Well most other countries nearly went to the wall. Sure it was not the only think that protected us, but it certainly helped considerably.

I received two payments. The first because of my poverty. I actually needed it. I paid bills. Later I realised that most of it went straight back to govt. Although it was to local and state govt. the second payment was to students. I was in Honours. I bought myself laptop and course materials.

Please note. No TVs were purchased..

That was treasuries advice and intent, money given to low incomes would be the very next day back into the economy circulating.

I did it well.

Only employment brings stability

If the next day the paper/ internet was full of jobs and training for building/ installing solar systems it would have done more good.

People can plan if they have 5 years of guaranteed work ( or more)

Then

With lots of cheap power coming on line we keep manufacturing here and attract new investment

I regard these discourses as pure fantasy anyway

Power prices are only going to get higher as more people come into the country

Profit is made by creating scarcity

wookiemeister said:

Then

With lots of cheap power coming on line we keep manufacturing here and attract new investment

Australia first?

wookiemeister said:

Only employment brings stability

If the next day the paper/ internet was full of jobs and training for building/ installing solar systems it would have done more good.

People can plan if they have 5 years of guaranteed work ( or more)

Well that is not what they teach you in economics.

Being the evil person i am i would also insist everyone working in the solar project get vaccinated for a whole heap of things – ostensibly it would be to stop disease running wild amongst large working groups.

Disease rates plummet

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

As solar prices go down we may find ourselves in the situation where government (of all types) subsidise coal generators because base load is still required but they are not selling enough electricity to make profits.

Except they have privatised it now so it isn’t government profits now.

Didn’t say it was government “ profits” I was clearly talking about the government propping up coal generators to guarantee base load.

I suspect when we get to the point of most households using solar + battery storage then base load will become less and less relevant.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Only employment brings stability

If the next day the paper/ internet was full of jobs and training for building/ installing solar systems it would have done more good.

People can plan if they have 5 years of guaranteed work ( or more)

Well that is not what they teach you in economics.

Considering perhaps only ten people on the planet saw the GFC coming economics is a bankrupt and defunct subject

You need spinning reserve for emergencies

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

Except they have privatised it now so it isn’t government profits now.

Didn’t say it was government “ profits” I was clearly talking about the government propping up coal generators to guarantee base load.

I suspect when we get to the point of most households using solar + battery storage then base load will become less and less relevant.

You snuck in that battery storage, I was talking as things are now, solar power cheap and subsidised so people are taking it up, coal generators already going off line and reducing profits because they are selling less, yet there is still the need for power at night and when the sun doesn’t shine.

party_pants said:

I suspect when we get to the point of most households using solar + battery storage then base load will become less and less relevant.

It’s not like it’s a new idea. I was at a conference in 1991 where the point speaker was from CSIRO and exactly the ideas floated in this thread were raised.

The bit from going from grouse idea ………..to engineering practicality………to economically feasible………that’s the hard part.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Only employment brings stability

If the next day the paper/ internet was full of jobs and training for building/ installing solar systems it would have done more good.

People can plan if they have 5 years of guaranteed work ( or more)

Well that is not what they teach you in economics.

Considering perhaps only ten people on the planet saw the GFC coming economics is a bankrupt and defunct subject

I think you are mixing up the stock-market gamblers and corrupt bankers with the study of economics. Economics helps explain situations, it is not intended to predict their timing.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

Didn’t say it was government “ profits” I was clearly talking about the government propping up coal generators to guarantee base load.

I suspect when we get to the point of most households using solar + battery storage then base load will become less and less relevant.

You snuck in that battery storage, I was talking as things are now, solar power cheap and subsidised so people are taking it up, coal generators already going off line and reducing profits because they are selling less, yet there is still the need for power at night and when the sun doesn’t shine.

The best solution using current technology would be using gas instead of coal for base load. Gas turbines can be turned on and off with just a few minutes notice. Rather than subsidise coal we could subsidise the construction of a couple of trans-continental gas lines.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

I suspect when we get to the point of most households using solar + battery storage then base load will become less and less relevant.

You snuck in that battery storage, I was talking as things are now, solar power cheap and subsidised so people are taking it up, coal generators already going off line and reducing profits because they are selling less, yet there is still the need for power at night and when the sun doesn’t shine.

The best solution using current technology would be using gas instead of coal for base load. Gas turbines can be turned on and off with just a few minutes notice. Rather than subsidise coal we could subsidise the construction of a couple of trans-continental gas lines.

Works for me as well, thought the coal infrastructure is already in existence, they are the ones who will be putting up hands, and gas is problematic in that we seem to have already given all ours away and it is uber expensive so who is going to build gas generators to take over baseload? The gubmint would probably think subsiding an existing infrastructure cheaper than helping to build a brand new one.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

I suspect when we get to the point of most households using solar + battery storage then base load will become less and less relevant.

You snuck in that battery storage, I was talking as things are now, solar power cheap and subsidised so people are taking it up, coal generators already going off line and reducing profits because they are selling less, yet there is still the need for power at night and when the sun doesn’t shine.

The best solution using current technology would be using gas instead of coal for base load. Gas turbines can be turned on and off with just a few minutes notice. Rather than subsidise coal we could subsidise the construction of a couple of trans-continental gas lines.

This is getting outside my particular expertise, but I think that gas turbines are good at base load support, but not so good at base load.

For every unit of electricity produced by renewables we need a fossil fuel generated unit of electricity to cover for when the renewables don’t produce, we’re going to end up with a very expensive infrastructure.
Double the infrastructure we used to have for that unit of electricity.
It’s fucking madness.

Gas turbines are often kerosene

Good for short bursts during peak load and good return, bad for baseload and continuous power – kerosene is expensive

You also need water to cool the flame to control nitrogen oxides

wookiemeister said:

Gas turbines are often kerosene

Good for short bursts during peak load and good return, bad for baseload and continuous power – kerosene is expensive

You also need water to cool the flame to control nitrogen oxides

There are at least 7 that use natural gas instead of kerosene.

Peak Warming Man said:

For every unit of electricity produced by renewables we need a fossil fuel generated unit of electricity to cover for when the renewables don’t produce, we’re going to end up with a very expensive infrastructure.
Double the infrastructure we used to have for that unit of electricity.
It’s fucking madness.

Retire current coal fired stations and build a lesser numver to replace them

The older coal stations are maintenance problems.

Oh yes – ban the unions from them

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Gas turbines are often kerosene

Good for short bursts during peak load and good return, bad for baseload and continuous power – kerosene is expensive

You also need water to cool the flame to control nitrogen oxides

There are at least 7 that use natural gas instead of kerosene.

Good if you have a pipeline to the gas turbine plant

Burns cleaner, smaller footprint ( coal stations are huge)

What kills power stations is terrible management and Unions

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Gas turbines are often kerosene

Good for short bursts during peak load and good return, bad for baseload and continuous power – kerosene is expensive

You also need water to cool the flame to control nitrogen oxides

There are at least 7 that use natural gas instead of kerosene.

Good if you have a pipeline to the gas turbine plant

Burns cleaner, smaller footprint ( coal stations are huge)

What kills power stations is terrible management and Unions

we could always put sibeen in charge

Peak Warming Man said:

For every unit of electricity produced by renewables we need a fossil fuel generated unit of electricity to cover for when the renewables don’t produce, we’re going to end up with a very expensive infrastructure.
Double the infrastructure we used to have for that unit of electricity.
It’s fucking madness.

You have made a slight error of calculation there.

I’m sure you’ll find it for yourself, with a bit of thought.

Looks as if gas turbines have changed their wicked ways many are natural gas/ or coal seam gas

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

For every unit of electricity produced by renewables we need a fossil fuel generated unit of electricity to cover for when the renewables don’t produce, we’re going to end up with a very expensive infrastructure.
Double the infrastructure we used to have for that unit of electricity.
It’s fucking madness.

You have made a slight error of calculation there.

I’m sure you’ll find it for yourself, with a bit of thought.

Enlighten me.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

For every unit of electricity produced by renewables we need a fossil fuel generated unit of electricity to cover for when the renewables don’t produce, we’re going to end up with a very expensive infrastructure.
Double the infrastructure we used to have for that unit of electricity.
It’s fucking madness.

You have made a slight error of calculation there.

I’m sure you’ll find it for yourself, with a bit of thought.

Enlighten me.

Why, for every unit produced, would you need an extra unit for every unit not produced?

The arithmetic is baffling.

The ideal coal station will have air filters around the pmace and reduce dust and ash flying around.

It should be agreed that when maint costs reach a certain level the place gets closed

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

If Rudd had spent all that money on solar instead of giving everyone 900 dollars we would have the cheapest power in the world.

Fuck Rudd; there’s only one reason why Australia has expensive electricity & an energy crisis.

Blame yourselves.

Yes, the reason is that politicians sold off the generators and deluded themselves that they had solved the power problem for themselves because they could blame someone else when things went wrong until some company in France decided to remove 25% of Victoria’s power with a few months notice.

The politicians then woke up in a cold sweat and realised that they could lose an election over energy costs and are now in a shit panic running around like chooks and blaming each other instead of taking notice of expert advice when they asked for it.