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. wilful Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    I have seen PV panels installed on south facing roofs. Which is pretty moronic.

    I happen to agree that massive subsidies for domestic PV is, from the perspective of reducing emissions at the least cost, a pretty stupid public policy idea. It is subsidising middle class home owners at the cost of cheaper renewable energy for all including poor people, renters etc. Of course, as a rational individual, I used the subsidy three times, if the government's handing out free money, there's no point not being in line. But the money would have been far better spent on a number of things, such as wind farms, insulation (Pink batts was an excellent program that reduced the number of deaths in the industry), large scale CST, 7 star ratings for houses, etc.

    So Runner, while I think that if you oppose renewable energy on any and all grounds, or think we can't afford it, you're a fool. But everyone else, if you think that renewable energy gets a free pass from proper good policy analysis, well that's almost as bad.

    Unfortunately Germany, while they've installed heaps and heaps of solar panels, their emissions have gone up. Because they are irrationally decommissioning nuclear power stations and are running coal fired stations harder. This is pretty sad.

    I don't like PV, I like any and all low/no carbon electricity technology. Whatever works best, cheapest, reliably.
  2. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    A fool often gets the last laugh at court.

    Small towns off the grid and the like it is cheaper that the lines to provide power. But will need back up.

    My opposition is not that they don't work technically, but they don't work cost effectively without disproportional subsides.

    As Germany slides into recession wait they like others will turn them back on or face made up penalties within the new socialist block called the EU.
  3. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:

    Still going on with this bullshit?

    The world has moved on, you obviously have not.
    Ruggo likes this.
  4. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    Runner, you keep banging on about socialism, but fail to understand that civilisation on ANY will REQUIRE a form of socialism to keep it anchored - otherwise you just get what the USA is today: a fucking dreamland where ordinary people are told "work hard and you can make it" by rich people who are unaccustomed (and indeed, incapable) of giving any integer of fucks about anyone else except the 1%.

    Contrast that to the Nordic nations, where yes the cost of living is high, but so is the quality of the health care and education.

    Your point about baseload is valid. But you're utterly mired in a belief that it will NEVER change. You can't actually see into the future, and if the world revolved around that kind of thinking, we wouldn't even have a fucking internet to argue on!

    I feel equal parts pity and frustration.

    Back over near the topic somewhere: I had to laugh last night while I was channel flicking - Mad Monk, dressed to the nines, presenting the Prime Minister's Award for Science.

    Wonder what he gave it out for - discovering fire? Making an electronic bible?

    Will there still be an award in future once he cuts half a billion from CSIRO?
    Gnostic, ChargerWA and boyo like this.
  5. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    It wouldn't be for describing Earth as an oblate spheroid.
    Ruggo and Pfitzy like this.
  6. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    Ask the UK why they have failed to fully enter the EU ? Even the Labour Party there have doubts about the centralized power of Brussells and its style of government. So if I keep banging on about socialism look at the red and green tape that now exists in Europe thanks to left leaning groups. I don't want that here. You might recall that the EU in Brussells decided that the English sausage was not good enough and was banned.

    I am happy with social welfare socialism but when it goes too far and I think on that issue they have I feel free to say so.

    The Nordic states have some uniquie characteristcs that are hard to replicate elswhere and if you look at the financial issues that they are facing change is happening too to their systems as well.

    The baseload bit is a key point as to why we are wasting funds on the alternatives. Your taking a page out of the movie Dr Strangelove when the pilot does the systems check and has 3 back up systems for everything. Economies of scale is what its about. You need to built baseload for when the rest don't work, so why build the rest with subdisies except where I had mentioned. 2 or 3 or more alternatives. When not suggest AC and DC power to every home as well?

    Not mired as I have suggested alternatives but they seem unacceptable to some bloggers.

    Feel free to get personal I won't.
  7. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:

    Do you read Wordsworth?
  8. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    Solar PV for daylight hours (it's always sunny somewhere - don't choose a cloudy/overcast example)

    Wind turbines (it's always windy somewhere - don't choose a windless example)

    Solar-thermal for baseload.

    Geothermal for baseload (you don't need igneous rocks for this).

    Input costs are nil.

    There are no operational power stations in Sydney (I don't know about other state capitals) - all its power comes from outside the metropolitan area - therefore any new power facility can be the same.
  9. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    Solar without cheap storage is intermittent and number required is hugh. Try northern winter for no sun.

    Wind the size of each turbine is a football field and the number needed is hugh.

    Numbers of both required when compared to ONE nuclear/coal/gas could eat a small country's area.

    Input costs include the construction and maintainance and subsidies to build it is far from zero

    Thermal -- That is similar to what is suggested for CSG and look at the heat in that argument.

    Outside the city will still have massive costs to link the turbines etc together then transmit to cities. Heaps more cables that for ONE baseload system.

    As I said great technology for a remote settlement which can combine all, but 90% plus on us are coastal dwellers
  10. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    1. Wrong. Last time that I looked, Australia is in the SH.

    2. and 3. Most of Australia's land area is unpopulated.

    4. Input costs aren't construction costs.

    5. Geothermal is not like CSG.

    6. Australia has a national grid already. The cables already go from the existing turbines/power stations. They just to go from different ones.

    Every post that you make about renewable energy is why it can't be done - what a defeatist attitude.
  11. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    Arid with a highly reliable supply of both wind and sun. Don't let that get in the way of a good yarn about how great coal is though.

    If the well faults we will have a massive nightmare on our hands. The steam will condense back into water. Oh my god.
  12. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    To Ruggo and Boyo. Save the recopy.

    1. Was an indication with humour that the sun doesn't shine everywhere all the time.

    2. and 3 You can't have the plants in the middle of the country due costs e.g. cables retrasmission of power etc. So they will be in competition with national parks, particularly in NSW, food growing areas and residential.
    They occupy large areas. Still doesn't answer Numbers of both required when compared to ONE nuclear/coal/gas could eat a small country's area.

    Look at the figures and what scales would be required

    4. In my world on business they are an input cost.
    5. Sorry your wrong.
    So efficiency?


    Not all the energy of blowing wind can be harvested, since conservation of mass requires that as much mass of air exits the turbine as enters it. Betz's law gives the maximal achievable extraction of wind power by a wind turbine as 59% of the total kinetic energy of the air flowing through the turbine.[14]

    Further inefficiencies, such as rotor blade friction and drag, gearbox losses, generator and converter losses, reduce the power delivered by a wind turbine. Commercial utility-connected turbines deliver about 75% of the Betz limit of power extractable from the wind, at rated operating speed.

    Efficiency can decrease slightly over time due to wear. Analysis of 3128 wind turbines older than 10 years in Denmark showed that half of the turbines had no decrease, while the other half saw a production decrease of 1.2% per year.[15
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine Don't go on about wiki as it is a link on this site or is this site using a rubbish link?
    Size of farms and what they give



    Scotland is a prime example that if no market share, subsidy or a monopoly type situation you can't do it


    Works on a small scale but up scale causes the paradox of thrift
    Storage costs??
    Enjoy the reads.

  13. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    Nuclear power plants cost heaps of money to build, to fuel, and then to dispose the waste.

    These costs are conveniently ignored in your many diatribes.

    Not to mention that nuclear power is electoral poison.
    Ruggo likes this.
  14. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    All infrastructure costs heaps.

    No diatribes but expressions of an opinion.

    Nuclear would in a single plant be more efficient, cost less to run, build and maintain that the entire alternative system.

    There is not as much physical waste as you suspect as a pencil taken in come out as waste.

    It is electoral poison here as a successful program by a noisey minority have scared the rest and lets not forget that coal is still a lot cheaper. No coal then we would have walked down that path a long time ago. People like their powered lifestyle.
  15. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    Nuclear plants also take ages to build.
  16. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    Any longer to build that the thousands of turbines needed?
  17. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    Yes. And it's not renewable.
  18. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
  19. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
  20. boyo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:

Share This Page