What do we need all this baseload power for exactly? anyone planning any new blast-furnaces?

I mean there is the horrific energy subsidies we provide to the aluminium smelters, gotta think about that.

Article discussing how much energy we could extract from wind and waves, seems most other options hit a ceiling before solar.


As to using batteries as energy storage, I think they've still got a long way to go, a couple of quick and dirty figures from wikipedia..
Petrol = 47.2 MJ/kg
Li battery = 1.8 MJ/kg

Haven't read the thread but don't most people react to encouragement over force.

There is nothing in the middle of Australia, except sunshine.......am I right ?
There is too much water up northern Australia.........right ?

My simplistic view in our new INRS party is why we don't friggn build a massive solar power station out whoop whoop and pipe water from nth queensy. All built by friggn prisoners and part of that 35% of welfare monies.
Short term hit for long term gain.
Most visionaries were ridiculed at the time of their views.

INRS, you heard it here first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

What do we need all this baseload power for exactly? anyone planning any new blast-furnaces?

I mean there is the horrific energy subsidies we provide to the aluminium smelters, gotta think about that.

Indeed. The more I read about base-load power requirements, the more it seems it's primarily an artificial construct based on the ideal operation of coal-fired plants. That is, you don't turn them on and off every day because of the massive costs and lag associated with starting them up and shutting them down. Industrial consumption takes advantage of this excess capacity of 'cheap' power.

No one, except idiots, is advocating a single renewable source. Again, no one (except idiots) is advocating immediate transition out of or complete exclusion of fossil fuels. The point is that a carbon price will make it more economically viable for generation companies to invest in renewable technologies, whatever they might be at any particular location. I can't think of a more efficient way to effect that transition short of mandating it (imagine that debate!). It may not address the problem of over-consumption, but it does address one of (and I would guess the main) the primary pollution sources resulting from that behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Yeah, I suppose we are pretty short on sunny empty land in Australia.

And how do we get the power the 1000km+ to the coast without significant losses in efficiency and skyrocketing maintenance costs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipswinger

Haven't read the thread but don't most people react to encouragement over force.

There is nothing in the middle of Australia, except sunshine.......am I right ?
There is too much water up northern Australia.........right ?

My simplistic view in our new INRS party is why we don't friggn build a massive solar power station out whoop whoop and pipe water from nth queensy. All built by friggn prisoners and part of that 35% of welfare monies.
Short term hit for long term gain.
Most visionaries were ridiculed at the time of their views.

INRS, you heard it here first.

Same as above. Though i do agree with your vision of massive government spending on projects of national interest and employing prison labour. Jobs for the boat people too maybe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

Jobs for the boat people too maybe?

Now that there is an election winning platform. Get them damn immigants to generate it. Don't even need a solar power station. Giant Hamster wheel imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

Now that there is an election winning platform. Get them damn immigants to generate it. Don't even need a solar power station. Giant Hamster wheel imo.

Haha exactly what i was thinking. Counts as a renewable bio-fuel i think. I think the government will even give you $300 a week to house you very own bio-generator. Bring the power plant into the home!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

You think generating this sort of power with nothing but renewable energy is going to have no environmental side effects? You don't get something for nothing.

Of course not. I guess having been in this industry for 20 years I do know a little bit about it. You said "huge environmental effects". Coal fired power stations need replacing as well you know.

Coezi, why don't you read that link I sent you instead of making a whole bunch of wrong assumptions. If you had any expertise in this area you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.

yossarian, you are right base load power is a myth. There is no such thing. as you say, base load power is supply driven because you can't quickly change a coal fired power stations output. Power demand curves actually quite closely follow the sun. The only reason you have off-peak hot water is to give the coal fired power stations a load to power. Every night in Australia there are 8 million hot water systems being heated for one reason - they can't turn the power stations down. It is such a massive waste of energy, every single night.

I am an electrical engineer for a global large diesel engine company. We're selling more diesel generators now than ever before. We're selling cleaner and more efficient diesel engines than ever before. We sell hybrid gas diesel engines pure gas engines and gas turbine engines.

We're at the forefront of Molten-carbonate fuel cell technology. We can run them on almost any type of fuel including bio-fuel and are reaching above 55% efficiency as we speak.

We can customise a power supply package to whatever you need. We've provided backup power for hospitals all the way up to prime power for entire communities, mine sites and even islands.

We can drop a power supply package almost anywhere on earth. The reason renewable energy is not in the market with us is because it can not compete and trust me when i say our customers will almost always try to go down that path first.

How many power generation sites have you commissioned in your 20 years?

That website is a joke. I'll stick to actually producing cleaner burning engines and increasing energy efficiencies and you can stick to your little left wing thumb-twiddling volunteer symposium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

I am an electrical engineer for a global large diesel engine company. We're selling more diesel generators now than ever before. We're selling cleaner and more efficient diesel engines than ever before. We sell hybrid gas diesel engines pure gas engines and gas turbine engines.

We're at the forefront of Molten-carbonate fuel cell technology. We can run them on almost any type of fuel including bio-fuel and are reaching above 55% efficiency as we speak.

We can customise a power supply package to whatever you need. We've provided backup power for hospitals all the way up to prime power for entire communities, mine sites and even islands.

We can drop a power supply package almost anywhere on earth. The reason renewable energy is not in the market with us is because it can not compete and trust me when i say our customers will almost always try to go down that path first.

How many power generation sites have you commissioned in your 20 years?

That website is a joke. I'll stick to actually producing cleaner burning engines and increasing energy efficiencies and you can stick to your little left wing thumb-twiddling volunteer symposium.

I have no doubt that you are doing what you are doing. It really has nothing to do with feasibility or to renewable energy scaling. You are confusing technical feasibility with demand. Awesome degree you did, three or four years and you're not even capable of defining the problem.

If you must know I've worked on landfill gas and coal seam methane projects with gas engine gensets in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, New Zealand and Indonesia. I worked on diesel engine fuel conversion projects 22 years ago.

I'll pass on to the University of Melbourne that you think their report is a joke. I'm sure they'll sit up and listen. The fact yuou think renewable energy is left wing is nothing short of moronic, tell that to GE.

You constantly misinterpret posts. This is what i was replying to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Coezi, why don't you read that link I sent you instead of making a whole bunch of wrong assumptions. If you had any expertise in this area you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

The fact yuou think renewable energy is left wing is nothing short of moronic, tell that to GE.

Did i say renewable energy was left wing? Or did i say you can stick to your little left wing thumb-twiddling volunteer symposium?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

You constantly misinterpret posts. This is what i was replying to.




Did i say renewable energy was left wing? Or did i say you can stick to your little left wing thumb-twiddling volunteer symposium?

fuck me you are a real dickhead arent you? you ask for info, dont read it, spout incredibly ignorant shite, and then slag people off who try and educate your obviously ignorant views
ignored

Oh i read it, and i think it is nothing more that the concoction of a left wing thumb-twiddling symposium. Deal with it.

I don't think i "slagged" anyone off yet, unlike you just managed to do. Maybe i missed it though.

In any case i hope you're sincere about the ignoring.

woah woah everyone calm down. Unlike most of the dissenters that usually visit this forum, I think Coezi actually asks some pretty valid questions and has some pretty valid points. Definitely not ignore-worthy, and a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of buffed et al.

I still disagree with him on the most part though

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberabit

my money for large scale solar is on concentrated solar, sunlight converted to heat, which can be stored then used to produce electricity 24/7. I read a while ago about CSIRO doing some interesting stuff on the enrgy storage side of it.

As to replacing vehicle fuel, the ease of handling and energy density of petrol is going to be very hard to beat, would be good to see solar energy being used to produce hydrocarbons.

I remember WorleyParsons were looking into concentrated solar thermal in the northwest of WA to supplement the North West Interconnected System. That and there are allegedly some damn good geothermal resources up in that area, down to around Geraldton way (mostly as in hot dry rocks for steam generation, but the potential for geothermal ground heat/absorption chilling in Perth is the biggy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

woah woah everyone calm down. Unlike most of the dissenters that usually visit this forum, I think Coezi actually asks some pretty valid questions and has some pretty valid points. Definitely not ignore-worthy, and a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of buffed et al.

I still disagree with him on the most part though

yeah nah
he is a troll

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipswinger

Haven't read the thread but don't most people react to encouragement over force.

There is nothing in the middle of Australia, except sunshine.......am I right ?
There is too much water up northern Australia.........right ?

My simplistic view in our new INRS party is why we don't friggn build a massive solar power station out whoop whoop and pipe water from nth queensy. All built by friggn prisoners and part of that 35% of welfare monies.
Short term hit for long term gain.
Most visionaries were ridiculed at the time of their views.

INRS, you heard it here first.

They were going to build a massive solar grid out at Coober Pedy. They'd fenced off the land, created roads, even laid some wires and infrastructure. I saw the site when I was up there. The locals and miners were happy. All was joyous.

Then Gillard took over and cancelled the funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coober_..._Power_Station

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

They were going to build a massive solar grid out at Coober Pedy. They'd fenced off the land, created roads, even laid some wires and infrastructure. I saw the site when I was up there. The locals and miners were happy. All was joyous.

Then Gillard took over and cancelled the funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coober_..._Power_Station

Nice.

INRS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

woah woah everyone calm down. Unlike most of the dissenters that usually visit this forum, I think Coezi actually asks some pretty valid questions and has some pretty valid points. Definitely not ignore-worthy, and a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of buffed et al.

I still disagree with him on the most part though

No sorry. I find it extremely unlikely that he read the 169 page report published by the University of Melbourne that I linked to, researched, authored and peer reviewed by about 50 people, some from oil companies, and supported by Sinclair Knight Merz..

Coezi is simply gainsaying, and with little support. His argument is also circular. he puts up the barriers but then criticises policy Australia is trying to put in place to reduce barriers.

One of the biggest problems in this whole debate is that a lot of ill-informed people have formed strong opinions about a really complex issue, and there is a common tendency: the people who oppose carbon pricing, challenge the opportunities in renewable energy, and generally argue for business as usual do so from a position of low levels of knowledge. When you seek to show them information, they refuse to digest it, and then start to make ad hominen attacks on either you or the source of the information.

You don't have to tell people working in the renewable energy industry what the challenges are in scaling up - they know better than anyone. Of course there is a place for improved efficiency in fossil fuel technology now and in the future. Sayng that you can't currently meet energy demand with renewables is arguing against an instantaneous step change from 100% fossil fuel to 100% renewable which is an absurd strawman that no one is suggesting.

hehe well it is a pretty big report (I'm about 1/4 way through it myself) and I wouldn't expect someone who is entrenched in their ideals to wade through it.

Thinking about signing up as a volunteer. It looks viable. Very viable. Not pie in the sky, but definitely doable. Would love to get involved

You know the tragedy of this is these groups are lobbying for the future - it's very weird.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opin...718-22944.html
scary, seriously worrying

comments hilarious as usual

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

comments hilarious as usual

"The Newman Foundation for Struggling Mining Magnates"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baax

when deisel gets taxed in two years the price of a bus ticket will rise but filling your single occupant vehicle won't

Go Card fares are controlled by the state government, the same one that controls Queensland's petrol subsidies.

If Go Card fares increase by more than petrol prices do in the next couple of years, it will the Newman Government's decision and theirs alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

woah woah everyone calm down. Unlike most of the dissenters that usually visit this forum, I think Coezi actually asks some pretty valid questions and has some pretty valid points. Definitely not ignore-worthy, and a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of buffed et al.

I still disagree with him on the most part though

the end of world is nigh when even bogans can get an engineering degree

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

One of the biggest problems in this whole debate is that a lot of ill-informed people have formed strong opinions about a really complex issue, and there is a common tendency: the people who oppose carbon pricing, challenge the opportunities in renewable energy, and generally argue for business as usual do so from a position of low levels of knowledge. When you seek to show them information, they refuse to digest it, and then start to make ad hominen attacks on either you or the source of the information.
.

I think this is basically one of the biggest problems with humanity. It certainly isn't restricted to this topic, so the challenge is how does society address it? Basically science needs to learn how market itself better to the public IMO. It seems as though this is gradually starting to happen, but of course there needs to be balance in the media. We've got people like Rupert Murdoch controlling the media and now Gina Rinehart entering the picture less than a year after Lord Monck-boggle-eyes visits and tells some of the richest most powerful people in the nation to start taking over the media in order to sway public opinion. I think universities and academics need to fight back somehow. Publishing in peer-reviewed journals just doesn't reach a wide enough audience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

I think this is basically one of the biggest problems with humanity. It certainly isn't restricted to this topic, so the challenge is how does society address it? Basically science needs to learn how market itself better to the public IMO. It seems as though this is gradually starting to happen, but of course there needs to be balance in the media. We've got people like Rupert Murdoch controlling the media and now Gina Rinehart entering the picture less than a year after Lord Monck-boggle-eyes visits and tells some of the richest most powerful people in the nation to start taking over the media in order to sway public opinion. I think universities and academics need to fight back somehow. Publishing in peer-reviewed journals just doesn't reach a wide enough audience.

There's a fair body of research out there on this issue with climate change. Without going into a lengthy exegesis, people don't really want to hear the message. This is reflected in the Murdoch press.

We don't want to change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

We don't want to change.

Relevant: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-math-20120719

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane

Relevant: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-math-20120719

Yep. Bill McKibben articulates it well. He runs http://350.org/

Here is a report on Australian attitudes in 2012 (it's an infographic fail though unfortunately)

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/c...ml/section/478

qustion time today brings the lols, summary from smh
3.13pm: Tpny Abbott.

The Prime Minister is haunted by her broken promise; a cold blooded deception.
The Prime Minister and the government just don't get it.
Does anyone think the Prime Minister would be the Prime Minister if she'd come clean about the carbon tax?
Whilever the current Prime Minister leads the Labor Party can't be the party of truth telling.
The Treasurer Wayne Swan knows the government is doomed and sang Springsteen to prove it. (Not sure about that last reference, anyone?)
I can be believed when I say I will repeal the carbon tax.
I am different. When I say something I mean it.



and tony windsors reply
3.29pm: And here, seconding, is Independent Tony Windsor.

Some facts, Mr Windsor contends.

One. The Prime Minister didn't win the election.

Two. Doing something about climate change was a condition of forming government.

Three. Tony Abbott said he would do anything to get that job.

Four. The only thing you indicated you wouldn't do, Tony, is sell your arse.

Five. I'm proud I supported carbon pricing.

Six. History will judge those with the guts to do something about carbon pricing.

Seven. You (Mr Abbott) are an absolute disgrace.

I really hope Windsor retains his seat, regardless of the tsunami that awaits Labor.

Media Player

Tony Windsor tells Tony Abbott some home truths - YouTube

http://www.watoday.com.au/environmen...821-24jnq.html

What, no 'going it alone' line?

Unfortunately the Greens may lose more of the control in the senate and Tony Abbott will be able to repeal the Carbon tax when he gets in. He will do whatever it takes to repeal that tax. I have no doubts about it. It'll be such a shame to lose something that's taken such an effort to finally legislate.

As someone said above, it's a worrying sign for the environment when the LNP are in power.

Unfortunately the Greens may lose more of the control in the senate and Tony Abbott will be able to repeal the Carbon tax when he gets in. He will do whatever it takes to repeal that tax. I have no doubts about it. It'll be such a shame to lose something that's taken such an effort to finally legislate.

As someone said above, it's a worrying sign for the environment when the LNP are in power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sounds_echoed

Unfortunately the Greens may lose more of the control in the senate and Tony Abbott will be able to repeal the Carbon tax when he gets in. He will do whatever it takes to repeal that tax. I have no doubts about it. It'll be such a shame to lose something that's taken such an effort to finally legislate.

As someone said above, it's a worrying sign for the environment when the LNP are in power.

It is... but re the carbon price in theory there is no environmental difference, because the Coalition has the same target. It just plans to reach it in a more expensive way. It's a farce of the highest order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

It is... but re the carbon price in theory there is no environmental difference, because the Coalition has the same target. It just plans to reach it in a more expensive way. It's a farce of the highest order.

If Turnbull was leading the Coalition I might believe that they are serious about reaching the same target. With Abbott as leader I think they are paying lip-service to the target and will find a way - probably a budgetary reason - to cancel their current policy. Abbott doesn't believe that Climate Change is real. He just doesn't (we all know this, no matter what he says). It's all science-y based and that's not his MO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

If Turnbull was leading the Coalition I might believe that they are serious about reaching the same target. With Abbott as leader I think they are paying lip-service to the target and will find a way - probably a budgetary reason - to cancel their current policy. Abbott doesn't believe that Climate Change is real. He just doesn't (we all know this, no matter what he says). It's all science-y based and that's not his MO.

The thing is that target isn't just a domestic political target it's an international political target. It would be a major political shit fight, trust me on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

The thing is that target isn't just a domestic political target it's an international political target. It would be a major political shit fight, trust me on that.

I don't doubt you. I do however doubt an Abbott Government would actually care what the international penalty would be should he still lead a government at the point at which they are calculating whether we have met our international obligations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I don't doubt you. I do however doubt an Abbott Government would actually care what the international penalty would be, should he still lead a government at the point at which they are calculating whether we have met our international obligations.

Your second point is actually why they wouldn't bother to change the target anyway. Besides, it's a domestic political strategy to not change the target so they can avoid any criticism of not doing anything.

They've outsmarted the govt by making the bone of contention the misnamed carbon tax, aided and abetted by the media.

I haven't been living in Australia long enough to know this but when Howard introduced the GST, was there a lot of negativity from the opposition with regards to it and did they talk about getting rid of the GST if voted into power?

Obviously the GST still remains and the sky hasn't fallen down so did Labor not adopt the same negative "no no no" attitude like Tony and his cronies are showing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sounds_echoed

I haven't been living in Australia long enough to know this but when Howard introduced the GST, was there a lot of negativity from the opposition with regards to it and did they talk about getting rid of the GST if voted into power?

Obviously the GST still remains and the sky hasn't fallen down so did Labor not adopt the same negative "no no no" attitude like Tony and his cronies are showing?

Pretty much. John Howard also said "GST would never become part of Liberal Party policy".

While it's all politics, I still think the coalition has hit a new low.

Aside from liberal party bashing (I hate them too but that's a bit off topic)...

I recently read an article that talked about exactly that and they made the point that like how labor wouldn't get rid of the GST even though they heavily protested against it, there is very little incentive for a government to get rid of the carbon tax. They thought that there is a good chance if liberal got in they would come up with some reason about how labour had set it up so it was impossible to get rid of it.

Plus wouldn't they have to wait until they had control of the senate at least? In two years we might have forgotten all about the carbon tax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sounds_echoed

Unfortunately the Greens may lose more of the control in the senate and Tony Abbott will be able to repeal the Carbon tax when he gets in. He will do whatever it takes to repeal that tax. I have no doubts about it. It'll be such a shame to lose something that's taken such an effort to finally legislate.

As someone said above, it's a worrying sign for the environment when the LNP are in power.

The Greens are polling at 11% in the latest news poll. They were 11.8% at the last election.

Quote:

LEIGH SALES: How do you know more what's to blame than Marius Kloppers, who I presume has read his own documents?

I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or bang my head against the table.

The Coalition won't scrap the carbon tax. They'll change it a little bit, but they'll cite some kind of budgetary problem that they'll blame on Labor and argue they have to retain it for revenue purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or bang my head against the table.

or this one:
TONY ABBOTT: And, Leigh, let me read you what Jacques Nasser said back in May. He said, "I cannot overstate how the level of uncertainty about Australia's tax system is generating negative investor reaction.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm

HE is the one creating the uncertainty because HE wants to repeal the law, there's no uncertainty from the current government it is the law now.

that's an excellent point. why weren't you on the phone to Leigh last night.