1. 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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by boyo, May 12, 2014.

  1. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    "Open for business"


    As long as it's the RIGHT business.

    Renewable energy target in the spotlight

    From the comments:

    How lamentable that in our so called developed nation, government energy policy is essentially ideologically driven. As has been pointed out in the SMH and elsewhere, renewable energy could be a national export strength, providing much needed revenue and jobs and begin to address climate change in a serious way. But let's not mince words; the flat earth, Liberal Coalition simply is not interested and wants the future, discussion of energy options, climate science reporting and climate change-related problems to just go away. When it comes to intelligent energy policy, we are definitely NOT "open for business."

    No cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC, AND
    "We agree with the Government on the science of climate change. We agree on the targets to reduce emissions." Greg Hunt (Grattan Institute) August 19 2013
    “It has been interesting to note the claims being made about what the Coalition will or won’t do though. All of it is simply conjecture. Can I make clear, the Coalition supports the current [RET] system, including the 41,000 GWh target. We know and appreciate that the industry wants certainty.” Clean Energy Week 2013, Senator Simon Birmingham
    Australian's love renewable energy even the poll in The Australian voted overwhelmingly - 97% for more renewables last weekend. The RET is doing what it's meant to do - transition the economy to renewable energy. Sadly the people who fund the LNP coffers ie the fossil fuel industry don't like that.

    I don't think many people understand (including the govt) how far renewables has come and how fast it is changing. Clearly the hard to change, grumpy anti-renewable lobby don't read science magazines or keep up with the science world in general. I studied science and I have a degree in science communications and I have worked with the Academy of Science here in Australia. Let me assure the haters that renewable energy IS the future of energy. Storage of renewable energy is the big nut to crack, but solar thermal has shown it is possible on a large scale through storing energy in liquid salts and the like. I would suggest before people open their mouths on the subject actually doing some research and keeping an open mind. Our scientists here are doing amazing things, i know this for a fact.

  2. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    Thanks for the correction.

    The world is changing but is it the right direction?

    Here we disagree.

    With the alternatives you always need a back up to provide 100% power so the back up has to be big eonough to do that. So why build to systems? Have two cars one for the morning and one for the vening.

    For a small country town ots OK.
  3. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    I would argue that burning less coal is definitely moving in the right direction.

    Whether or not you disagree people are making individual choices to implement solar power. Increasingly we will see new commercial buildings utilising solar power and older ones retrofitting solar systems to decrease the cost of running tha building/household.

    This is already happening. There's no point deciding that you don't think it's a good idea. Society has to adapt to these new normals.

    You don't need backup power to provide 100% of the maximum power needed. The amount needed from coal or whatever is never the grand total of the total power used at peak time ever again because there are always varying degrees of electricity generated from renewables.

    When batteries become viable and people can store power it will change the game even more.

    Solar panels have now been developed that are clear. We will eventually have glass on commercial buildings generating electricity.

    You might not want to move on Runner, but the world is.
    ChargerWA and boyo like this.
  4. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:

    I am happy to move on but the technology you speak of such as batteries is well beyond my lifetime as a cheap and cost effective system. Batteries will just create even more pollution as I have pointed out before.

    Check the cost of a car battery for a hybrid car, from $1,000 to more than $6,000. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-battery-cost.htm

    House batteries. Well Residential units with a 20-kilowatt-hour story capacity - enough to power a typical house for 24 hours - will sell for $30,000 each. The hefty price tag should drop to $20,000 as ZEN scales up production, with an estimated pay-back period of 10 years based on savings consumers can make by avoiding peak power prices.
    Don't cook till late. How many batteries do you know that will last ten years without replacing? Will I spend $20,000 on standard power? No!

    Until the alternatives work 24/7 365.25 days a year they will need a max backup. So we build to the need, pay a subsidy for a second or third system. Why?
    Reminds me of the scene from Dr Strangelove where the pilot is reading out the systems check and has 6 backups for each thing. Over engineering and expensive.
    Lets say that the subsides given at the moment that could fund Gonski or the Disability scheme. Why the pay for a back up system over these
    worthy items?
  5. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    What were electric cars like a decade ago Runner?

    Things are moving quickly and the greater the focus on an area the faster the progress generally.

    Wind power provided 40% of South Australia's electricity in July. This isn't just a fledgling fad that's going to pass.
  6. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:

    I agree on nuclear - though of course I'm concerned about the waste (maybe a space elevator before offloading it on the moon?).

    But you're not going to build them overnight, economically, with the current status quo. Nuke power stations are fragile because the cost of implementing all measures to prevent disaster is prohibitive.

    On to another point: I suppose I'm more concerned about resources in a global sense, particularly water. The fight for food will make the fight for oil look like a schoolyard parade.
  7. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    If they would make the decision rather than spend money on the alternatives then we could have nuclear quicker.

    Your right about water. As Africa develops and countries upstream start to dam and take water those below will miss out will see no aternative to violence.

    Oil may run out but the conversion of coal to oil will make coal even more valuable hence why nuclear/fusion
  8. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    Remember it took over a century to move from burn trees to coal.
    The car industry would not try to built it without a subsidy. Even then not always look at the funds provided by Gillard to make electric cars. Where are they now?

    They still need a battery recharge usually from a coal power station.

    The other problems about batteries will not go away

    Take away the subsidy and a different wind will blow throw the wind industry.
  9. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:

    Green energy technology are the new silicon valley industries. Australia must be on the front foot, our future lies here.
  10. WorkingClassRugger Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    Elon Musk and Tesla released all their patented designs and concepts online to foster further growth and innovation in the industry. Many manufacturers are now seriously moving toward at the very least hybrids with a number working on fully electric concepts.

    Renewable energy is the future. Not fossil fuels or nuclear. In fact I detest any thought of widespread nuclear alternatives. It's not a clean energy. All we would be doing is supplanting one environmental disaster for another. While their may be methods to accelerate its disposal they aren't being put into practice because they are prohibitively expensive.
    Gnostic, Pfitzy and boyo like this.
  11. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
  12. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:

    Head in the sand stuff.

    I like these comments -

    "Reading these comments and the first thing I think is "Where was everyone on election day?" Then I realised the people that need to have there eyes opened wouldn't be reading this article."

    "Idea - can we add something to the national curriculum that teaches Australians to vote based on policy and fact rather than because they do not like the current pm or their party? Look what has happened, it is a joke. We have a government that is sending Australia backwards. It is embarrassing to say the least. "
    fatprop likes this.
  13. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    Are they, and Warren Buffett, wrong?

    Storage of solar (both heat and electricity - solar-thermal and batteries), makes solar power worthwhile.

    "Battery costs have declined rapidly, and we expect a further decline of more than 50% by 2020."

    "The expected 50% reduction in the cost of batteries by 2020 will not just spur electric car sales, but could also lead to exponential growth in demand for stationary batteries to store excess power in buildings, says UBS."

    Big power out, solar in: UBS urges investors to join renewables revolution


    From the comments:-

    Yep, and watch this sort of response accelerate. The major capitalist players behaves as a herd afraid of missing out. Once the trickle becomes a stream it'll quickly turn into an overpowering tidal wave drowning all luddites.
    Ruggo, Braveheart81 and ChargerWA like this.
  14. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    Anyone got investment tips for getting into solar or other renewables? I'm a complete novice at money
  15. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    Well the review into the RET has recommened that due to the success of household solar, the government should phase out all schemes to reduce installation rates.

    As economic journalist, Greg Jericho said, the RET review reads like a Penthouse forum letter for coal fired power generation
    boyo likes this.
  16. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
  17. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    If the dismantling if the REC goes ahead as it looks likely, a shit load of businesses and their business models became obsolete over night.

    One of the most annoying parts of the review was the observation that RE doesn't create ongoing jobs. Surely even the geniuses who put that report together can appreciate the link between lack of maintenance and future cost savings coupled with the jobs it creates for the solar/alternative industry selling products to consumers.
    Ruggo likes this.
  18. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    Definitely not spending my bonus on solar panels this year then. Or investing in renewables

    Not until these idiots are voted out
  19. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
  20. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    Bring back pink batts

Share This Page