where is our electricity to come from?

[AndrewJ]

Gday Gary

But I think we can agree that in order for any profession to advance itself, there are general unwritten rules of conduct.

As an engineer myself, i absolutely agree, but the current trend is the products of scientific research gets converted to reality by engineers / technicians / tradesmen, but then "others" take it over for whatever gain they can get, and they have no concept of "conduct".
They also dont like to pass any credit down the chain for things that work . ( Most must have read Sun Tzu at some stage )
Just look at the current Chinese push for the "one road", whilst at the same time, effectively buying the allegiances of large chunks of the Pacific and Africa.
When a "democratic vote" on how to use this new world DC network comes around, who do you think will be in control???????

Andrew
( getting more cynical as i age )

[Visionary (David)]

[QUOTE=el_draco;1343199]I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between fusion and fission.... [/QUO

Your extraordinary arrogance in assuming anyone on this forum is unaware of the distinction between fusion and fission is breathtaking placing your hero call, fusion, fission at the bottom of the sandpit.

[raymo]

One of the hidden factors within the energy situation we find ourselves in
is that as the saying goes, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". All forms
of electricity generation currently utilised have a cost, whether it be
pollution of one sort or another, or a physical cost, such as the huge
rainshadows downwind of windfarms. Ocean [wave or tidal] derived power
systems are not exempt from this. The French tidal station that has been operating for many years has caused a minute but measurable slowing of the Earth's rotation, and it is only a modest sized station. I imagine the effect would be far greater if we had myriads of large stations around the globe.
I have to disagree regarding diesel outlasting petrol. Several large cities
around the world have already announced plans to ban all diesels by a
certain date, amongst them, Paris, Athens, and Mexico City. Even the latest hi-tech diesels can often be seen emitting a fine light brown haze of filth
when accelerating. Also ZF now produce modular electric drive systems
that can be made to fit virtually any existing bus [and soon, truck] chassis,
and can be retrofitted to existing diesel or petrol vehicles. I can't remember
it's name. but the biggest selling light truck in Europe is now available in an electric version, and is already outselling the diesel version.
It's all happening.
raymo

[raymo]

Given that this forum serves the mostly amateur participation in a
science that includes nuclear fission and fusion, I would imagine that
most of it's members would know the difference.
raymo

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by raymo

Given that this forum serves the mostly amateur participation in a
science that includes nuclear fission and fusion, I would imagine that
most of it's members would know the difference.
raymo

You have no conception how difficult it is for me to write, though I am legally blind I refuse to use speech to text. Writing even the dross I am penning now isn't easy and if from time to time I make an error I have learned to forgive myself, for the alternative is grim.
Your assumption that anyone on this thread would be unaware of the distinction between fusion and fission does indeed make you look & sound foolish.

[raymo]

I am truly sorry that you are legally blind, and can only guess at how
difficult it must be for you to write, but that makes no difference to my
statement that I imagined that most[not all] members would know the difference. Most[ not all]members[ except perhaps some newbies] are active in, and/or at least reasonably knowledgeable about, one or more of the following, Astronomy/Cosmology/Quantum Physics, all of which involve
knowing about both fission and fusion.
raymo

[Visionary (David)]

Raymo, we are at crossed purpose... in my garbled fashion I was trying to say..... "most Icers' are aware of the distinction between fusion & fission" I was not saying.... "most Icers' are unaware of the distinction between fusion & fission"
I will check and amend my post.
Cheers

[xelasnave]

Solar and wind, indeed any energy not being used pumps water up for hydro.
Replace city cars with electric mobility chairs, supply goods via internet connection and regional 3d printer.
It will be interesting as the world fills with more cars boats planes snowmobiles motor bikes 4wds race cars...

[xelasnave]

I would be working on building massive co2 extractors.

[xelasnave]

I think nuclear folk over look the high cost of their power.
Perhaps they overlook the high cost of accidents...there will always be accidents ... that's why they are called accidents.
The Russians will be in the big shed business for a long time ..
It is unbelievable its is used at all.
Get rid of coal oil and yellow cake get solar panels and a horse.
Alex

[astroron (Ron)]

If Australian governments could get away from their bloody big hole in the ground mentality (coal,gas etc) and back investment in renewable sources,
instead of fighting against them and withdrawing investment subsidies, Australia would be so much better placed for the future,re cost of power climate change.
Cheers

[jimmyh1555 (James)]

Oh dear, it was I who started this thing off
I was not "trolling". I am very concerned that all our cars seem to get bigger and fancier. I used to own an 848cc Mini. It would propel 4 of us at 70mph no problem. Why do we all seem to need gas guzzling monsters to drive around in.
Second point, if the planning authorities made us put solar panels on every new home, then before long we would not need power stations.
If gallon of petrol takes us say 40 miles (sorry, too hard to convert to metric), how many solar panels would we need to charge up the 4 litre 4WD with one driver, to go the same distance.
How many cars are there in the world, and how many solar panels or gallons of petrol would we need to power them?
Your answer, Xelasnave, is correct.......back to horses

[acropolite (Phil)]

Nuclear power is unpalatable, there is no way any nuclear facility can be guaranteed safe and accident free.

The economic costs of the Chernobyl and Fukishima accidents are staggering. The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe exposed some 10 million people to nuclear radiation in the surrounding countries, estimated costs of roughly $235 billion over the past 30 years and ongoing costs per year, the cost of the latest containment building alone is 1.5 Billion Euros. Some reading on costs and ongoing losses from that event.

http://chernobyl.undp.org/russian/do...nniversary.pdf

It's also been quoted that some areas won't be suitable for habitation for 20,000 years, given that the current "confinement" building has a design life of 100 years costs will continue to accumulate in to the future.

Figures vary on the Fukishima cleanup one source quotes the estimated cost of the Fukishima cleanup at 250 Billion (presumably $US) with a further 60 Billion compensation. Given the Japanese propensity to conceal the reality, I'd be surprised if the final figure isn't many times greater than that.

Equipment failures are inevitable, natural disasters, however slim the chances, are unavoidable, toss in the possibility of terrorist and military conflict and operator error and you have a recipe for disaster.

Google accidents at Lucas Heights, even our own facility has a poor safety record.

We haven't even mentioned waste storage issues.

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by jimmyh1555

Oh dear, it was I who started this thing off
I was not "trolling". I am very concerned that all our cars seem to get bigger and fancier. I used to own an 848cc Mini. It would propel 4 of us at 70mph no problem. Why do we all seem to need gas guzzling monsters to drive around in.
Second point, if the planning authorities made us put solar panels on every new home, then before long we would not need power stations.
If gallon of petrol takes us say 40 miles (sorry, too hard to convert to metric), how many solar panels would we need to charge up the 4 litre 4WD with one driver, to go the same distance.
How many cars are there in the world, and how many solar panels or gallons of petrol would we need to power them?
Your answer, Xelasnave, is correct.......back to horses

Jimmy, the reason why your post has elicited such response is that we live in a wholly secular age. In the place of garden variety religion, renewables, green politics have become the "new opiate". There always is an opiate, its now renewables. Inadvertently you have made a "heretical" statement hence the outpouring of high dudgeon.
The outrage we have seen highlights my reasonable concerns that science is now viewed via a window of belief. As a community of citizen scientists, we really should hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's a nonsense that renewables are cheap, renewables are only cheap when electricity is very, very expensive. Musk has sold a number of his battery packs to Island communities, communities where the alternative to renewables is very expensive, shipped, transhipped, landed diesel, then finally burnt diesel. Obviously, dumping Gov money onto renewables can also make renewables "inexpensive".
Australia is one of the World's largest exporters of energy, yet we have the most expensive electricity in the developed world, the very obvious "elephant in the room" is how can this conjunction hold? Where have we gone wrong? The answer is there if one, you cast aside your own political basis and recognize that we have been without sound governance for generations, culminating in the ineptitude of the Rudd Gillard fiasco, a Gov that' significantly responsible for our atrocious energy position & telecommunications "bewilderment". I can't see any way out of our current political mess, somehow we seem to have found ourselves at sea with Gilligan's Captian at the helm.
In terms of what we can do.... follow the maths, don't quote from sources that seek to distort the math, hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard one step above the political malaise that has created the mess we are in, you know, balance the equation.
Whenever religion intrudes into science the outcome is appalling. Let stay on guard and remember though we may love renewables, simply uttering the word "renewables" does not make for well-founded science.
Until such time that we have the next generation, or indeed the 2nd iteration of the next generation of batteries good luck driving to Melbourne in your brand new Mercedes in 2035!

[casstony]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

There's no need to figure out all the answers before embarking on the path to sustainable power. Simply bring renewables/storage on line as quickly as possible and progressively retire coal fired generators after the new tech is in place and working.
__________________
Tony

Waiting only works if the thermal generators will hang together long enough Tony - but many are already nearly stuffed. .

If needed, current coal fired stations can have their lives extended by re-tubing the boilers, putting new blades in the turbines, etc. Such life extension work was carried out at Hazelwood when I worked there and even Hazelwood was shut down long before it needed to.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Visionary

Jimmy, the reason why your post has elicited such response is that we live in a wholly secular age. In the place of garden variety religion, renewables, green politics have become the "new opiate". There always is an opiate, its now renewables. Inadvertently you have made a "heretical" statement hence the outpouring of high dudgeon.
The outrage we have seen highlights my reasonable concerns that science is now viewed via a window of belief. As a community of citizen scientists, we really should hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's a nonsense that renewables are cheap, renewables are only cheap when electricity is very, very expensive. Musk has sold a number of his battery packs to Island communities, communities where the alternative to renewables is very expensive, shipped, transhipped, landed diesel, then finally burnt diesel. Obviously, dumping Gov money onto renewables can also make renewables "inexpensive".
Australia is one of the World's largest exporters of energy, yet we have the most expensive electricity in the developed world, the very obvious "elephant in the room" is how can this conjunction hold? Where have we gone wrong? The answer is there if one, you cast aside your own political basis and recognize that we have been without sound governance for generations, culminating in the ineptitude of the Rudd Gillard fiasco, a Gov that' significantly responsible for our atrocious energy position & telecommunications "bewilderment". I can't see any way out of our current political mess, somehow we seem to have found ourselves at sea with Gilligan's Captian at the helm.
In terms of what we can do.... follow the maths, don't quote from sources that seek to distort the math, hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard one step above the political malaise that has created the mess we are in, you know, balance the equation.
Whenever religion intrudes into science the outcome is appalling. Let stay on guard and remember though we may love renewables, simply uttering the word "renewables" does not make for well-founded science.
Until such time that we have the next generation, or indeed the 2nd iteration of the next generation of batteries good luck driving to Melbourne in your brand new Mercedes in 2035!

I have only one thing to say about this post, and it is this,
Coal has been subsidized in this country for decades and is still being subsidized,AKA Turdbull wanting to give ADANI one billion Australian dollars,
The Queensland government building free ports and railway lines etc.
We should invest in renewable power as in the longer term it will pay for it's self in spades.
One doesn't get anything for nothing,there is always a cost even if the original source is free.

Cheers

[Visionary (David)]

Ron, you sort of illustrate my point.

[xelasnave]

I dont understand why it is Australians who must give up coal, given others will not.

25 million of us, the population of some cities in the world and yet somehow it is us who must give up coal. AND than to think we can influence others is silly.

We are shamed to feel guilty being told we are the highest per capita energy users in the world...so what ...someone twisting figures to promote their adgendah....

And the nuclear mob how they are always there to promote their clean energy ... of course its not about the money they just want to help.
How can you put coal and yellow cake in the same box... coal aint so good but one only have to look at what nuclear has cost millions of people and even now its poisen still leaks into our world via the ruins of various damaged palnts... and yet the NP mob still front up as an answer...I can understand that if you are heavily invested in something you have to promote it be it good or bad.

And give up cola before we introduct various efficiencies that would reduce our consumption...try solar hot water for everyone and turning off half the lights in the middle of the night...perhaps ban private vehicles in cities unless carrying full capacity of passengers ... only let electric cars into the city... I am sure just by undertaking an efficiency drive our consumption would reduce. Any effort would make the call for getting rid of coal seem meaningful.

And even if Australia could boast nil energy consumption do you think the rest of the world would notice? Folk who cry for rejection of coal in Australia seem to think our influence and contribution is meaningful when in fact we are 25 million in a world of 7 billion.

If you care make sure you have a solar hot water service and address how much energy you use and how much is really needed. You not the rest of the world...

And our cars, and our love of all things racing...its is a joke.

Why does every mother need a four wheel drive?

Ban car racing ... does anyone ever think about the carbon foot print there?
The fuel, the rubber the energy consumed getting from track to track. Oh of course they are conscience of carbon foot print and use ethanol...yes problem solved..er the mob will buy that.

So let the racing and big cars continue and close down coal...

Think about it..Australai gets rid of all its coal power stations, continues to let over powered cars and overkill as to car size remain and will still sell coal to anyone who will buy... folk need to step back and think what it is that they want to achieve...save the planet? forget it....if the use of coal and oil will see us out of the place then that is our future.

And when you get excited and driven to reply and say I am crazy would you please open with an introduction setting out all the things you do personally that reflects concern via personal choices.

It will not change.

Look at the photo I posted above...a 50 lane freeway traffic jam in China.

And to all those who say we must do something I say yes ..yes we should do something and an audit of your persoanl consumption and habits would be a great place to start...

Wring your hands all you like but the world is in a strange place, more and more want well more and more... The system, market economy, will supply more and more.
Do you think for a moment the power company is going to offer consumers tips on how to reduce consumption. WIll the car manufacturer boast that this year they reduced their engine capacities by half.

We wont run out of electricity in a market economy because there is a huge market for energy and someone will always be there to supply it... Whilst money controls the world I doubt if there will be a problem until the whole thing goes down the tube..

alex.





alex

Seriously will any action we take influence the rest of the world.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by Visionary

Jimmy, the reason why your post has elicited such response is that we live in a wholly secular age. In the place of garden variety religion, renewables, green politics have become the "new opiate".

I think that new "opiate" is a perceived "need to improve", or rather its temporary satisfaction. It manifests itself in bigger/fancier housing, bigger/fancier cars, bigger/fancier whatever and a generally more wasteful lifestyle with satisfaction cycles becoming shorter and shorter. It's a disorder that comes in many flavours. Some more damaging, some less. Most forms demand more resources, and renewables promise to deliver those with less weight on one's conscience. That's where they fit in, not a an "opiate" in their own right. Making petrol/diesel engines more efficient falls in the same category. And in both we try to extract benefits from it faster than they can be delivered, and without even considering keeping things as they are but with less strain on resources. 'Cause, you know, we gotta see/feel an improvement personally or it didn't happen, right?

Originally Posted by Visionary

As a community of citizen scientists, we really should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Absolutely, but statements like this ain't it

Originally Posted by Visionary

It's a nonsense that renewables are cheap, renewables are only cheap when electricity is very, very expensive.

You are ignoring at least two elements here, time and externalised cost.

On the latter:

Originally Posted by Visionary

dumping Gov money onto renewables can also make renewables "inexpensive".

Correct. And the same can be done by making someone else (cheap labour) or something else (the environment) pay for the difference between what your cheap fuel/power/clothes etc cost and what they should cost.

Originally Posted by Visionary

...yet we have the most expensive electricity in the developed world,

Really?

Dunno, those 20 countries with higher rates don't look 3rd world to me.

Originally Posted by Visionary

In terms of what we can do.... follow the maths, don't quote from sources that seek to distort the math, hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard one step above the political malaise that has created the mess we are in, you know, balance the equation.

[casstony]

I feel you contradict yourself a little Alex.

If it's good for an individual to limit their impact on the environment, doesn't it follow that it's good for Australia (or any other collection of individuals) to do the same? In any case much of the world is making efforts to move away from fossil fuels. The US has a ning-nong in charge at the moment but it won't always be that way.

I've got solar panels and I shift as much power use as possible to sunny periods. I look forward to installing battery storage when the price drops more and eventually owning an electric car charged from our own panels.

Edit: I also bought a small generator for this summer because Hazelwood was shut down a few years too early.