Jerry_Atrick

I don't recall anyone on these forums suggesting the extraction of energy from renewables is free.. maybe out in the big wide world they have.. .Clearly that is a fallacy. We have already dealt with the costs per mw/h of renewable sources v fossil fuels for electricity generation. And renewables generally win - although there are cases where it doesn't. But it is not just the cost of extraction - there is the cost of distribution and then there is the efficiency cost. And of course, the cleaning up costs and decommissioning costs.. Still for electricity generation, the costs generally favour renewables.. There is a cost that fossil fuels don't pick up (and to be honest, neither does the renewables pick up) and that is the inherent damage to the environment. There is no cost applied and effort performed to remove things like the additional CO2, which seems to be a major contributor to what is looking more like a looming climate emergency.. you know the thing the pesky scientists predicted using real facts and models.. and it seems to be coming a darn sight quicker than they had hoped. The cost of toxins such as nitrogen oxides and other respiratory and cancer linked toxins is early termination of people and in countries such as Australia, the taxpayer picks up the tab through the health service. Yes, this is also the case for the manufacture and operation of plant/technology for renewable energy extraction, but I would guess (but am happy to be corrected) it is a lot lower than that for fossil fuels - after all, accessing the renewable sources is a lot easier than accessing fossil fuels - I don't have to dig under the sea for it.. do I... And even sea born renewable energy - waves - are pretty accessible. But renewables don't pay for their emissions either (well, there is a carbon trading market, still, somewhere). But again, and I haven't done the research and am happy to be corrected - this cost from renewables technology is probably a lot less because they do a lot less of it. Yes, Li-Ion batteries - especially for cars - have a heavy CO2 footprint at manufacture - much more than an ICE engine. In early technology, the average technology meant it was about 5 years before the electric car broke even with the average emissions of ICE cars, after which the drop in CO2 emissions for the lifetime of a BEV over an ICE car increased dramatically. Here are the current numbers: The time even on a wholly coal grid is still 4 - 5 years, but batteries are lasting at least 8 (on average) and going a lot more.. So, even with the dirtiest grid, they are still doing well. But, we move to grids such as in Europe, Australia, Canada, and China, and the payback is down to 2 years, well within most ownership cycles of cars and well within the life of the vehicle. In Australia, the depreciation cycle is 5 years, so you are effectively getting, say 3 years almost emissions free driving in comparison. Obviously, the coal and gas and maintenance are emitting, as are replacement of service items - which are much less in a BEV than and ICE engined car.

Yes.. I know sometimes I argue against it, but since the press at best provides a tepid analysis of things Reform and Farage, in this case I would be completely for it as it does highly encourage people to put onto paper their vote and of course, that is one of its advantages - regardless of who is contesting.. As the press are not at all highlighting the low - even by Clacton standards - voter turnout.

I don't thing I disputed the energy density claim. And of course, there are fuels which are better suited for use cases. If I want to get to Australia, with current technology, avtur or Jet A1 id the best. I don't know anyone with any sanity that would suggest otherwise. But that doesn't mean fossil based fuel is good for all cases. Given the thermal inefficiency, there are applications where it is better. To take the logic a little further, coal has a much higher energy density than, I dunno, solar (in the case of the Solar Impulse 2 which flew around the world wholly on solar power (Rutans used 100LL Avgas); but I wouldn't try a steam engine in an airliner either because, although it is a fossil fuel, no one in their right mind would suggest it, right? Similarly, for cars, as the wheels support the weight rather than the wings and the force to overcome (in addition to drag) is friction - much lower than weight - battery technology is allowing denser storage of fuel (electricity) which is giving comparable mileage to ICE cars - not because of the density itself but because of both the thermal and mechanical inefficiency of the latter. So, for that use case electricity (which can be generated by renewables) is becoming a more efficient fuel for propulsion and drive train than fossil and mechanical means (yes, there are still mechanics in EVs.. but you should get what I mean). On wind generation in the UK, I agree - I should have used the word theoretically, because the generation capacity of the wind turbines installed is higher than demand. There are three main constraints to it being reality Wind does not blow all the time. However, for the UK, wind is a viable option as it does blow a lot of the time. The highest concentration of windmill installations are in and offshore Scotland. So, there is a concentration of the source of the power. Note, wind power generation in Scotland often exceeds demand. The planning in this country is poor, which is why a massive amount of renewable generation was installed before the grid was upgraded to be able handle it. That is not a failure of renewable technology; that is a failure of politics and planning. But if I am wrong on any of these, please feel free to explain why rather than just say it is BS. Saying it is BS does not mean it is. Proper credible explanation as to why, and I will happily change my position and concede I am wrong. Again, it depends on your use case. I think people are suggesting there are two camps - renewables or fossil fuels. I hope with what I wrote above addressed that.. but to repeat, we wouldn't put coal in an airliner and it has far more energy density than solar technology likely ever will (well, I have to check the convex cells.. They seemed pretty fearsome). But other use cases, such as cars (well, not all electricity is renewable - granted) and power generation - where other factors don't make density the major factor - then they can be better. And yes, in some regions, fossils will be better. Again, it is about the mix. Not justy blindly sticking with one. That is an economic thing - more supply than demand drops the price. That is not due to nuclear - that is due to more supply. Nuclear did bring a lot on at once. But in Australia, Solar is doing the same which is why you are able to get your electricity for FREE when supply exceeds demand. Re the Scottish Curtailment - we had already addressed that some time ago in this thread so I am not digging all the info out again,. but the above points cover most of it anyway.

The Farage party are claiming it as a victory. But, the parliamentary investigation into his £5m undeclared gift has resumed and if found he violated the rules of parliament, a recall petition is put to the electorate and if a certain percentage agree, it will trigger yet another by-election. The reality is that Clacton is one of, if not the most deprived electorate in the UK and immigration, of which Farage is a one trick pony politically, is being blamed by Clactonians for all their problems will mean that the recall petition is unlikely to get the numbers. Reforms winning electorates are all in deprived areas, and is more a protest about them being relied upon for votes be Labour and the Tories more than anything else.. and I would say the apathy of the electorate is partially the result of decades, if not over a century now of being promised the earth and still being sucked dry compared to those who live in marginal electorates. Pork barelling is alive where it will buy a seat. But, Reform's claims to a mandate by the people of Clacton are as hollow as the promises made to the people of Clacton. with a 44% voter turnout against an average turnout of around 65%, it represents 27& of the voting public of Clacton who have voted for him. Of course, we can't predict which way the other 66% pg voters in Clacton would have voted if casting a ballot was mandatory - I would imagine the spoiled ballot count would be high despite the onerous requirement of putting a tick against one person only; but I have a sneaking suspicion Farage would have found the numbers far tighter than the headline suggests.

Sorry - couldn't resist A leader resigns and decides to not contest the next election. Hardly news, is it?

You out yourself on a sticky wicket

Wow.. For some totally random reason, a couple of weeks ago, out of nowhere, the thought of young talent time popped into my head. I can't think of the last time I would gave thought about it and I think I watched it once under duress (wasn't the sort of show teenage boys would watch)

Just catching up n this thread.. Are you saying my post was totally absolute rot or a specific component of it? Let's go through what I wrote: The direct subsidies to the coal (and fossil fuel industry are well documented at c. $16bn a year. Of course, I was lazy and used AI, but you can get a glimpse here: https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ But we are now replacing with a much more abundant supply where technology is allowing the dense storage of that fuel. Are you saying the supply of electricity os not more abundant than fossil fuel? The very term reneables sort of should put that to bed.. but lets take a closer look: Resource Availability and Supply Horizon Fossil Fuels (Coal, Oil, Natural Gas): Derived from ancient organic matter, representing a fixed finite supply locked in underground reserves that take millions of years to form. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Renewables (Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geothermal): Inexhaustible on a human timescale. The Earth intercepts solar energy alone at a rate roughly 10,000 times greater than total global energy consumption. [1, 2] Yes, AI generated, but ut sort of supports the virtually inexhaustible renewable supply v the exhaustible fossil fuel supply. Thanks for making me look. It looks like a lot of that fossil fuel energy density is lost as heat.. so the energy efficiency is much closer. That was a bit of an own goal. I don't need to cite sources for Germany shutting its nuclear generation facilities down in the aftermath of Fukashima. It i well known. It was around the time Merkel started going, IMHO, a little loopy. Are you saying Victoria (And NSW, and QLD) are getting free electricity because the supply is less than the demand? This should debunk that absurdity: Can you tell us hat you are reading that states different facts?

Those Victorians must be smart 😄

'twas not a formal statistical analysis.. I didn#' have the baggage capacity for that and I would be heartbroken with every one I would hand to people that I did not know.. But, it was a side by side taste test. As the chocolate is shaped differently here, it was hardly a blind taste test - and yes, I could have flaked the chocolate to make it a blind taste test, but I thought given the statistical population deficiencies, it was not worth the effort. In fairness, SWMBO has insisted for the most part that our kids wouldn't eat junk.. they are partial to dark chocolate as a result, but yes, the one who went for the UK version was a younger member of my family, and has a penchant - like me - for junk food. And I do mean junk when I say it. He liked the first taste of the Aussie one better, the but the after taste left it a little worse in the end. I think the one that did not like either could not bring themself to admit the Aussie one was better.. although in fairness that person prefers another brand of consumer cheap chocolate, so I may be being unfair to that tester. Newsflash: After hauling two packets of BBQ shapes across the world, I found that in my first sojourn into Waitrose since being back, they now stock them.. and cheaper than Aus normal retail price. I am going to launch a campaign to have Chokitos stocked in every supermarket now.

The final scores for the Cadbury Dairy Milk (Aus v UK) taste test are: I didn't like either: 1 UK better than Aus: 1 Aus better than UK: 2

You would have thought these countries would be perfect fits for solar + batteries?

And there's more.... But we are now replacing with a much more abundant supply where technology is allowing the dense storage of that fuel. That is because Germany shut a significant chunk of its energy generation capacity sans transitioning out. That is going to create a gap. Other countries, such as the UK effed up their markets politically, not because of renewables. Today the UK produces enough from wind alone to power the country.. Australia, using solar is now producing an excess supply so it is giving it away... It's not the fuels for generation - it is how it is managed.

Is someone still trying to fill in the gap?

If you recall, there was a huge incentive to get coal fired power going. It was called state ownership.. Once the risk was taken out of it, the private sector were availed the profits.