Old Koreelah Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Not so, GG. There are several viable alternatives to fossil fuels and the technology is rapidly improving. In a few years we'll wonder why there was so much resistance. Current nuclear power is expensive and the waste products are pretty much forever; what a legacy for our kids!
fly_tornado Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 wind and solar are now beating coal on price, as coal gets harder to find and more expensive to mine its game over
dutchroll Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 We are effectively sitting on a radioactive ball, why not make use of it. Geothermal = nuclear power (pretty much by fracking I might add) and somehow to greenies this is good. But do this above ground in a controlled manner and it is bad. If you don't like the extra CO2 (personally I think it is entirely beneficial) at this point you have two viable options: 1) Go aborigine, sit in a cave and rub sticks or 2) Nuclear energy What you think personally is irrelevant to what the best available scientific evidence suggests (and in this case, flatly contradicts it). We actually are making increasing use of geothermal energy but the practicalities of doing it have been hard to overcome. Geothermal is the extraction of heat from the Earth's mantle and crust. About half of that heat is produced by natural radioactive decay, but this occurs hundreds to several thousand kilometres underground. The heat is transferred up through the mantle mostly by convection, and some by conduction. When it hits the crust it slows down dramatically as the Earth's crust has very low thermal conductivity (hence why surface temperatures are not significantly affected by the interior heat of the Earth). Fracking injects water mixed with various chemicals at very high pressure to fracture shale rocks. Geothermal does not. Fracking forces the release of natural gas. Geothermal does not, as it is the passive capture of heat energy. Fracking can cause the chemical fracking mixture or the gas to contaminate water sources. Geothermal cannot. Geothermal doesn't have any real comparison to nuclear fission inside a reactor, which produces long-lasting and highly radioactive waste (geothermal processes do not) which must then be disposed of, and is protected from release to the environment by a steel wall somewhat thinner than the up to 3000 km of rock which covers the heat source for geothermal energy.
turboplanner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 There are several viable alternatives to fossil fuels and the technology is rapidly improving. What are they?
Old Koreelah Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 What are they? Turbs as you know we are already in transition from fossil fuels to renewables, but this welcome trend is constantly challenged by fossilised thinking. Renewables are contributing a growing proportion of mains electricity and better designs for vehicles and buildings is helping stabilise consumption even as our living standard increases. We could do far better. Remember the Oil Shocks of the mid 70s? The west woke up to how dependent we were on oil and coal, spawning many innovations. Every coffee table seemed to have a book on passive solar design. A few of us actually put those ideas into practice and proved them viable. The building industry didn't. Most of today's homes are still built with little regard to passive solar ideas; most are dependent on electricity for heating and cooling. With huge power bills no wonder people were attracted to Abbott's promise to kill the "carbon tax". Our home has all the normal mod cons but we use less than a quarter as much electricity as the average. Good design keeps our daily consumption around 3.4 units.
dazza 38 Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Books? yeah nah, dazz is very happy with reading the daily terror, tells him what he needs to think. Nobody tells me what I need to think. I am quite capable of making my own decisions thanks.
Gnarly Gnu Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 We actually are making increasing use of geothermal energy Ha ha my sides! We are? How much of Australias electricity comes from geothermal? ....but the practicalities of doing it have been hard to overcome. Oh yes. I wonder if you may have shares in Flannerys little outback geothermal stunt? Always just a few more sunsidies away from sucess. Being beaten up by reality is a naty thing to lefties but anyway at least Flannels did OK out of it.
turboplanner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Turbs as you know we are already in transition from fossil fuels to renewables, but this welcome trend is constantly challenged by fossilised thinking. Other than solar what are the renewables you are talking about? Renewables are contributing a growing proportion of mains electricity and better designs for vehicles and buildings is helping stabilise consumption even as our living standard increases. You're not up with the latest, it's all gone belly up. In Melbourne, if you have some solar power generation your electricity tariff INCREASES. Not surprisingly no one is all that keen on installing solar any more. Nor can you reasonably sell power back to the grid. That's as much a shock to me as it is to anyone else, but apparently the only generation method we have in Australia to cope with the major demand variations we use, is coal, and for very practical reasons. I'm not saying this is good and I'm not saying we don't need to take urgent action, but the family tariff bill in the cities is so much that the lower income demographic is in financial trouble, in the hundreds of thousands. So they aren't about to go out and borrow $6,000.00 to see their tariff go UP. In addition to that, there are now hundreds of thousands of "smart" meters which are smart enough to know when the air conditioning or heaters are on, and slug the consumer by the hour for the extra power they draw. And not one single company has made a profit out of wind farms, which of course don't provide power in the high demand periods. Oops!, sorry, they have all been making profits, but with the money us taxpayers have been giving them because wind power is such a good idea. We've made the Chinese manufacturers rich, we've made the wind farm, owners rich, but it's been like raising the Titantic for luxury cruises by operating a battery of pumps running full time. Our home has all the normal mod cons but we use less than a quarter as much electricity as the average. Good design keeps our daily consumption around 3.4 units. Good work, our house is based on solar design award ideas, and they work well, saving a lot in heating cost in the winter.
dutchroll Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Ha ha my sides! We are? How much of Australias electricity comes from geothermal? Oh yes. I wonder if you may have shares in Flannerys little outback geothermal stunt? Always just a few more sunsidies away from sucess. Being beaten up by reality is a naty thing to lefties but anyway at least Flannels did OK out of it. "We" = the human race. Just like "the planet" is not "that which exists within the confines of the Australian coastline".
fly_tornado Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Nobody tells me what I need to think. I am quite capable of making my own decisions thanks. That's what I mean, books are over rated
turboplanner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Vehicles only account for 1/3 of emissions. Used to FT, used to. For the past few years, new motor vehicle emissions have been lower that ambient in urban areas, therefore cleaning up the air they drive in, and in rural areas they are so massively outnumbered by grazing animals, that they are negligible. Give is another ten years and the car park will have virtually turned over to the point where 90+% will clean the air as they drive, so will be a valuable asset.......and still running on oil.
Old Koreelah Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Other than solar what are the renewables you are talking about?... Almost 15% of Australia's electricity came from renewables last year. (Tasmania left us for dead with 95%) Wind energy has made a significant contribution to the grid, especially in SA (40% of that state's power came from renewables). Bio-energy makes up about 1%. People struggle with big electricity bills, much of it is from heating water, yet few homes and even fewer businesses use solar water heating. Where Australia was once a pioneer, we have been left far behind by other nations with far less sunshine. Australia has enormous potential for tidal and wave power, but little will happen without a bit of vision. Investment in new renewable generating capacity was growing strongly until it nearly totally collapsed last year, causing many job losses. Abbott has much to answer for. ... You're not up with the latest, it's all gone belly up. In Melbourne, if you have some solar power generation your electricity tariff INCREASES. Not surprisingly no one is all that keen on installing solar any more. Nor can you reasonably sell power back to the grid... You are correct, Turbs. Sensible countries encourage people to install PVs, but in Australia clean energy is being undermined by Fossilized Thinking. While the big Power companies' PR claim they love clean energy, they have been actively campaigning against renewables. ...apparently the only generation method we have in Australia to cope with the major demand variations we use, is coal, and for very practical reasons... Mostly correct at the moment, but we have a number of gas-fired turbines and quite a few hydro-stations to cope with peak demand. At least one power company is experimenting with large battery storage systems; their potential to store solar power for use at night is enormous. ... not one single company has made a profit out of wind farms, which of course don't provide power in the high demand periods. Oops!, sorry, they have all been making profits, but with the money us taxpayers have been giving them because wind power is such a good idea... Did any major new technology make a profit in its early days? The railways? Steamships? Coal-burning power stations? The Overland Telegraph Line? All were vital in national development, so government either chucked in money, cheap loans or some other incentives. What is Abbott's government doing? Closing down successful government programs for ideological reasons. Without a little vision from government, new, clean energy sources may never get off the ground.
Gnarly Gnu Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Just like "the planet" is not "that which exists within the confines of the Australian coastline". Because you believe we in Australia import a lot of electricity from other countries?
coljones Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Used to FT, used to.For the past few years, new motor vehicle emissions have been lower that ambient in urban areas, therefore cleaning up the air they drive in, and in rural areas they are so massively outnumbered by grazing animals, that they are negligible. Give is another ten years and the car park will have virtually turned over to the point where 90+% will clean the air as they drive, so will be a valuable asset.......and still running on oil. Air cleaning motor vehicles? Do you have an authoritative reference TP?
coljones Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Because you believe we in Australia import a lot of electricity from other countries? We actually export energy to other countries, mainly underpriced electricity embodied in part or fully refined products such as aluminium. we keep the pollution, they get cheap electricity by way of refined aluminium. I am not sure about tin and zinc smelting these days. We import electricity by having other countries refine our exported iron ore, uranium, copper etc.
dutchroll Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Because you believe we in Australia import a lot of electricity from other countries? Jesus I'm going to have to spell it out, aren't I? When.....I.....stated......that......"we"........are........using.......more.......geothermal.......I......meant......in........the.......sense.......of.......the........"industrialised world"........in........general........given.......that........emissions.........are........a........"global".......industrialised.........problem. It.........is.........an.........emerging.........and..........improving........alternative.......power.........technology.
turboplanner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Air cleaning motor vehicles? Do you have an authoritative reference TP? These are the emission reductions since 1992, roughly to scale. You can then compare then to online EPA recorders. EMISSION - GRAPH2.pdf EMISSION - GRAPH2.pdf
turboplanner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Australia has enormous potential for tidal and wave power, but little will happen without a bit of vision. Investment in new renewable generating capacity was growing strongly until it nearly totally collapsed last year, causing many job losses. Abbott has much to answer for. The tidal and wave power machines all failed, which is why you don't hear to much about them these days; perhaps someone will come along with a better desdign, but right now no one seems to be interested. How did Abbott get into this discussion? The government certainly has decided not to waste our money on wind farms, because all of them came from the same suppliers, all had the same problems, none showed any promise of evolving into profitable generation, so it was inappropriate to waste taxpayers' money. You are correct, Turbs. Sensible countries encourage people to install PVs, but in Australia clean energy is being undermined by Fossilized Thinking. While the big Power companies' PR claim they love clean energy, they have been actively campaigning against renewables. Not surprisingly, but they are becoming less and less affordable, so there are opportunities for practical solutions.
coljones Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 These are the emission reductions since 1992, roughly to scale.You can then compare then to online EPA recorders. I don't want to put words into your mouth but the implication I got from your prior post was that trucks were taking in pollution and reducing it. "For the past few years, new motor vehicle emissions have been lower that ambient in urban areas, therefore cleaning up the air they drive in," I can't see a truck putting out less CO2 than it takes in while the engine is going. The major components of exhaust gases are CO2 and H2O in greater concentrations than the surrounding air. Exhaust gases can kill. Ambient air is pretty clean. Yes I do understand that NOx and particulate emissions are going down due to better engines, better fuel and exhaust scrubbing but by and large CO2 emissions are a function of fuel consumption. Any ambient CO2 will pass through an engine and be added to the CO2 produced by that engine.
coljones Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The tidal and wave power machines all failed, which is why you don't hear to much about them these days; perhaps someone will come along with a better desdign, but right now no one seems to be interested. How did Abbott get into this discussion? The government certainly has decided not to waste our money on wind farms, because all of them came from the same suppliers, all had the same problems, none showed any promise of evolving into profitable generation, so it was inappropriate to waste taxpayers' money. Not surprisingly, but they are becoming less and less affordable, so there are opportunities for practical solutions. The Green Energy Finance Corporation was actually making a profit. Perhaps the banks and sharks wanted a slice of the action and leaned on Tony. Governments making a profit? Why not? Social good and money for other things - sounds pretty good to me!
Old Koreelah Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The tidal and wave power machines all failed, which is why you don't hear to much about them these days; perhaps someone will come along with a better desdign, but right now no one seems to be interested... ...and I don't blame them, given the anti-renewable rhetoric and actions of the Abbott government. Many early railways failed miserably. Early steamships broke down, companies went bust...but people persevered until they succeeded. How did Abbott get into this discussion? The government certainly has decided not to waste our money on wind farms, because all of them came from the same suppliers, all had the same problems, none showed any promise of evolving into profitable generation, so it was inappropriate to waste taxpayers' money... Good grief Turbs, you must hate wind turbines. 40% of SA's power came from wind last year. The economic benefits of investment in wind farms are substantial. Not surprisingly, but they are becoming less and less affordable, so there are opportunities for practical solutions. Are we talking about the same thing? The cost of rooftop PVs has continued to come down and they are close to competitive with coal (presumably why the Abbott government has destroyed incentives, lest they lose donations from the dirty coal industry).
turboplanner Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 ...and I don't blame them, given the anti-renewable rhetoric and actions of the Abbott government The tidal/wave machines failed long before the Abbott government was elected. I don't think we are going to get anything useful out of this thread. Are we talking about the same thing? The cost of rooftop PVs has continued to come down and they are close to competitive with coal (presumably why the Abbott government has destroyed incentives, lest they lose donations from the dirty coal industry). Even after I pointed out that domestic tariffs are increased by electricity suppliers in Melbourne (none of them owned by Tony Abbott), and after I pointed out coal is the only power source that can produce enough electricity in our peaks, you somehow think one man is responsible for this. I'll leave you to your thoughts.
Old Koreelah Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The tidal/wave machines failed long before the Abbott government was elected. I don't think we are going to get anything useful out of this thread. Even after I pointed out that domestic tariffs are increased by electricity suppliers in Melbourne (none of them owned by Tony Abbott), and after I pointed out coal is the only power source that can produce enough electricity in our peaks, you somehow think one man is responsible for this. I'll leave you to your thoughts. Turbs before you take your ball and go home, we both know I didn't blame Abbott for failures of experimental machines, but his government should be making it easier for pioneers to innovate and invest. If our government gave the sort of incentives enjoyed by renewable energy firms in clever countries, Australia could soon wean itself off coal. You reckon Abbott's government has no influence over price rises? Get real.
facthunter Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 About 70% plus of the cost of electricity is posts and wires and the money the show that sends you the bill charges a lot of which is advertising to increase market share. Nev
Teckair Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 I don't think we are going to get anything useful out of this thread. Yep what we have here is mindless Abbott bashing.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now