• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Renewable energy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Thinking my bonus this year might go into a holiday, not solar, after all. The way things are going I'd better go see some of the world before governments everywhere fuck it up with pollution, burn it to a crisp with conflict, or cover it in disease.
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
I can't work Clive out, he's some sort of idiot savant. but I seriously doubt he will ever see a jail cell in his life time.

If he helps maintain the RET I'll like him better.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
A huge pile of cash is basically a guarantee you won't see the inside of the slammer, unless you're a visitor. The fat fuck wouldn't fit anyway!
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
The industry only exists due to heavy subsidies and as indicated before the Europeans are also pulling back as it is not cost effective when baseload is required. Alternatives will never provide baseload power to industrial and major urban areas.
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
Alternatives will never provide baseload power to industrial and major urban areas.

Yes it will, probably in the next 50 years.

45 years ago man landed on the moon with less computing power than you carry in your pocket.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Yes it will, probably in the next 50 years.

45 years ago man landed on the moon with less computing power than you carry in your pocket.
I've got 45c in my pocket. Those moon guys was clever!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Yes it will, probably in the next 50 years.

45 years ago man landed on the moon with less computing power than you carry in your pocket.

That is wishful thinking.

As I have said nuclear or fussion which is now getting same energy out as out in is a much better way that the side track of non baseload alternatives that rely on the variability of the sun or wind. As optomistic as a kid waiting on a windless day to fly a kite.
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
That is wishful thinking.

As I have said nuclear or fussion which is now getting same energy out as out in is a much better way that the side track of non baseload alternatives that rely on the variability of the sun or wind. As optomistic as a kid waiting on a windless day to fly a kite.
I just typed out a response, but decided to delete it because I have come to the conclusion that you are likely just a contrarian. A quick search of your recent postings reveals you only post in the Political sub forum and usually take the contrary position to the popular consensus.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
I just typed out a response, but decided to delete it because I have come to the conclusion that you are likely just a contrarian. A quick search of your recent postings reveals you only post in the Political sub forum and usually take the contrary position to the popular consensus.

Not so I have a consistant approach to schemes which don't make economic sense.
As to where I post it 's a forum with many places to express a view. I have expressed views in variuos places.

That said where I post is my business .
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Models can’t hide true RET cost

25 Aug 2014

Studies relied on by the renewable energy lobby to justify the continuation of the Renewable Energy Target make a lot of noise about the RET’s effect on the wholesale price of energy. But as shown in this newspaper today, force feeding up to 30 per cent renewables such as wind- and sun-generated electricity into the power grid may put downward pressure on wholesale prices amid weak demand by artificially boosting supply. But the effect of forcing more power into the system will then show up in other ways: by increasing retail prices through the cost of renewable energy certificates. Those increased prices will reduce gross domestic product, by depressing productivity and by pushing up prices and costs elsewhere in the economy. That is, it is a highly expensive way to reduce emissions.
As previously discussed in this newspaper, an ongoing review of the RET led by Dick Warburton to make recommendations about winding back or even ending the scheme has resulted in considerable argument over the scheme’s effect on the electricity markets. These arguments include contradictory findings by computer modelling groups, with the RET lobby relying on studies pointing to the effect of dumping a lot of additional capacity into the wholesale market at a time of stagnating demand. However, as the coverage in today’s Financial Review notes, retailers still have to buy the Renewable Energy Certificates required to meet their obligations under the RET from the renewable generators, and that is expected to cost $37 billion between now and 2030, or as much as the electricity itself. That is $37 billion that must be reflected in higher prices elsewhere.
The arguments over the Renewable Energy Target show just how deftly skilled lobbyists can distort the debate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the RET in any form will cost many billions of dollars in return for an hypothetical social benefit of the carbon emissions being offset.
The Australian Financial Review
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Not so I have a consistant approach to schemes which don't make economic sense.


I understand that Runner, and actually agree with you.

But the planet gives approximately zero fucks for economic sense. It measures its viability - as far as human existence goes - on the amount of life it can sustain.

So while Rome is burning to the ground, you'll excuse those of us who don't play the violin, hmm?
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
I understand that Runner, and actually agree with you.

But the planet gives approximately zero fucks for economic sense. It measures its viability - as far as human existence goes - on the amount of life it can sustain.

So while Rome is burning to the ground, you'll excuse those of us who don't play the violin, hmm?

No, spend on the ones that will work like nuclear and fussion to lower all gases not just CO2.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
You took me to task for posting the same thing twice - now you're doing it.

A tad hypocritical?
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
No, spend on the ones that will work like nuclear and fussion to lower all gases not just CO2.

The word is FUSION. It is not even close to being a possible way to generate nuclear power. The reaction is still entirely uncontrollable.

There is absolutely no political interest in pursuing nuclear power in this country. until there is it is absolutely pointless suggesting it as an option.

The world is changing Runner and the uptake of wind and solar power are increasing massively. Whether you want to accept that or not it is happening. A solution needs to be achieved where there is still viable electricity generation to cover baseload power requirements and for those that have no alternative source of power such as solar. The days of power generators producing all the power is over. Their share is only going to decrease and we need to find a workable solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top