Marty_d

A recent Grand Designs episode showed a house with a new all-solar roof. Yes it was a big footprint but it was producing up to 250kwh a day. For comparison the average house uses about 8kwh. So for all new developments just legislate rooftop solar of sufficient capacity to power twice the number of dwellings, and a neighbourhood battery with the capacity to provide a week of power. Hey presto. No grid, bills that only cover maintenance of the system, and all clean.

Great, maybe you can buy it, subsidise the electricity costs and dispose of the waste. I'd rather have wind, solar and storage - battery and pumped hydro - which are all achievable at lower cost, have much lower ONGOING costs, and guess what - zero radioactive waste.

Over 150 roles in a 60year+ career. Whether he played the lead or a villain, he was always watchable.

Because it's a desert island, not a chocolate island?

ix

I call it upper-class welfare - enriching the shareholders at the expense of all taxpayers.

Why would you need a surfboard in the snow? 😄

It wasn't a bad tail!

Normal operating procedure for government (usually conservative) is: - use / waste taxpayer's money to produce the asset - charge taxpayers more money to use the asset - as soon as the asset starts making a profit, sell to private enterprise - private enterprise reduces service and raises prices. Either way the public is screwed. As soon as I can I'll be getting more panels, battery, and stop making the power company richer.

Yes, they are. But what worries me is the kind of unthinking agreement they'll get in a certain segment of the population. Hell, see the first response to the original post. What makes it worse is that they will appear to be striving to bring in a "clean" energy source, whereas they'll cynically drag it out, blowing out costs and wasting tens of billions of our money, to give their fossil fuel mates more profitable pollutin' time. I really hope a majority of Australians see through this charade and soundly reject the LNP.

I've been there but didn't kiss it Seeing a bunch of other tourists stick their lips on it kind of put me off.

If it makes financial sense, why won't private industry do it? There are heaps of wind and solar companies out there. Wind farm applications in many places around Australia. Yet the LNP, cheerleaders for free enterprise and unrestricted capitalism, are against that and only for expensive long term solutions which the government itself will fund? Why?? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/nuclear-investment-case-coalition-reactors-viable/103978266 I can't read your AFR post because it's behind a firewall. Could you tell me who the scientists are that the reporter used, and why they're more qualified than the CSIRO?

You're being agnostic, remember. To put it in a shopping metaphor (electricity being your product). You're at Coles, looking at the Electricity shelf. You know the product is exactly the same regardless of the brand. But different brands are different prices. Which one do you buy?

I think that says more about Toyota EV's than EV's in general. No one with a fully charged Tesla/BYD/MG would blink at a 200km round trip.

My question is based on cost. Let's agree that we should be agnostic on what the power source is. (Hey, even throw coal and gas in there if you want to). If you were presented with the following megawatt/hour cost chart, which one would you choose? And which would you NOT choose?

So... the fact that in order for these things to be financially viable they'll have to set electricity charges at roughly $200 per megawatt hour, plus inflation, for the NEXT 30 YEARS - while renewables are currently half that and falling, don't factor into your decision?

Voldemort has pegged his chances of electoral success firmly to replacing ageing coal fired stations with nuclear powerplants, and having no emissions targets at all. Now to my mind, this policy is driven by: ideology - "anything but wind, solar and storage" keeping the fossil fuel companies / Nationals happy - "don't worry about it mate. These things will take decades to build. Buying you some time to make more profits" politics - "we CAN'T agree with Labor, no matter what. We need a point of difference" What it's not driven by is: economics. CSIRO estimate each power station will cost $16b, and they want 7 of them. That's $112b (before blowouts), of which private enterprise won't touch with a bargepole, so they'll be government owned. (Aren't the libs meant to be the free market party? What is this, Stalinist Russia??) polling. They haven't done any. They can't even get the States to agree to have power plants on their land, much less the residents. climate action. It'll take 15 - 20 years to get these going. We know that solar and wind can be running much sooner and we all remember the SA battery... "100 days or it's free". In the meantime, no targets. As someone described it on the radio this morning, it's an exercise in economic and ideological stupidity. I agree with that sentiment. Interested in what others think too though. Do you like the idea? Would you vote for this?

If it's put up well and reasonably rigid, it should be ok. Wouldn't want to get any moisture behind it.

You already know that even if you're of average intelligence, 50% of the population is stupider than you. They exist, and worse, vote for people who really represent them.

Arguing with nutters is like wrestling with a pig Peter - you just get dirty and the pig likes it. In terms of "fundamentalist atheist" it's a true oxymoron, you can't be a fervent believer when the thing you espouse is a lack of belief. Something just made up by believers, much like Trump calling anyone with a normal point of view "antifa".

You'll see it looking at you Nev. Our brains are designed to see these in everything.

Neigh.

Where's the horse's space suit?

Oi! I resemble that remark.

How did I get the label of resident communist? 😄 My pitch to right wingers is to think about societal issues from an economic perspective. If you have inequality and a large pool of desperate and disenfranchised poor, you're going to get higher levels of crime, substance abuse and ongoing psychological and physical injury which adds cost to many government agencies including justice and health. Usually the cost of these is far higher than preventative action like, for example, universal free childcare / early education, school lunches, affordable housing, and free preventative medical care like dental and annual GP checkups. So as a pure economical argument it makes sense to look after the poor and reduce inequality.