Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I heard, maybe incorrectly, that if it's too windy they have to turn the wind turbines off, out of fear of them catching fire.
Yep, and all those dead birds, the ones piled up beneath the turbines, they will catch fire as well. This will make for an awesome peri-peri smell spread across the entire country. We just need to find a country that will sell us chicken salt.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I heard, maybe incorrectly, that if it's too windy they have to turn the wind turbines off, out of fear of them catching fire.
Sort of.
Generally it is just a gearing issue on the turbine. High wind area runs different gears between the blades and the generator.
You then also change the blade AOA for windspeed to maintain a relatively constant revolution.
But when it gets too windy, they get the AOA to zero and a brake engaged that stops the blades turning.
You generally need consitency of wind, rather than high wind.
Plenty of ocean wind turbines survive typhoons in asia, it isn't impossible.
My maths above allows a 25% nameplate capacity for average annual generation. I am told this is about what they achieve with land based turbines. Offshore they get a bit more. Maintenance is also required.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
There are a number of things that Australia doesn't produce, stuff that we need to get of other countries. You know... via trade. That's where the World Trade Organisation comes in.
So, do you think we have to stop exporting coal, oil and gas to acheive net zero ?
What do we replace the trade export with ?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
So, do you think we have to stop exporting coal, oil and gas to acheive net zero ?
What do we replace the trade export with ?
I don't think net zero means we stop producing coal or gas to export.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Other countries going to net zero implies that they stop importing the stuff
Australia's coal exports create almost two and a half times the emissions Australians produce domestically.
How do we continue with this question of energy supply when half of the population want to go to EVs to save money? Will that amount of energy then required change things dramatically?
Maybe we can mandate that EVs cannot be driven when there is renewable energy available and must be charged instead?
I imagine that the amount of petrol used would amount to a huge impact on the grid if a lot of people bought EVs.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I don't think net zero means we stop producing coal or gas to export.
Yeah, I was asking remery to answer to counter-act his dumber answer above.
But like you say the much better option all round would seem to be new, modern gas plants to make up what renewables can't, and then reduce export of gas by the same amount that is then consumed, such that the total stays the same. Legislate to lock domestic gas price to cost of production+, not allow it to float to spot international indexes (and above).
Worse only in politcal way emissions are actually assessed.
I'm voting for myscreenname as energy minister.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Yeah, I was asking remery to answer to counter-act his dumber answer above.
But like you say the much better option all round would seem to be new, modern gas plants to make up what renewables can't, and then reduce export of gas by the same amount that is then consumed, such that the total stays the same. Legislate to lock domestic gas price to cost of production+, not allow it to float to spot international indexes (and above).
Worse only in politcal way emissions are actually assessed.
I'm voting for myscreenname as energy minister.
You do realise that the Earth is a rock right?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
You do realise that the Earth is a rock right?
Er... no.... I didn't. Composed of things including rocks, but not 'a rock'
Do you think it is a flat rock ?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Er... no.... I didn't. Composed of things including rocks, but not 'a rock'
Do you think it is a flat rock ?
No. Do you?
I like to not read anyones name on seabreeze and try to guess who said it after i read it
You adolf hitlers
Too punkindrublic to respond properly to the sleeve rolling up thing but the fun thing about building reactors is usually its completely illegal because you actually need a couple points of entry/exit so rather then build scaffold and an apropriate ramp to pull a body out of i just climb in and pull the ladder up behind me there for i have 0 points of entry or exit. This means no one can see in so i can take my shirt off and crank the smooth styleings of nina simone as i jackhammer and grind away at the concrete to prepare it for tileing.
The sleeves arent up theyre off theyre chops and theres nothing a little ol gram of meth in the camelback that cant be solved
Hope you realise now this is how all your valueable society is actually built. Every hospital and car ramp you entrust with your life ol frothy probably built it higher then the priestess of jazz
Don't look for me
I'll get ahead
Remember darling
Don't smoke in bed
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Mr Milk said..
The mistake in your assumption is that we have to hold 2% of a year's worth of generation in reserve. That would be 7 days without wind or any sun at all anywhere on the grid. A very low probability event.
But the mistake in your assumption is that consumption is average. I was was working in average annual figures. Peak demand will be higher.
And also, the other mistake in your assumptions is that storage is used to only supply consumption. It is also need to act as a massive damper to stabilise the grid, both from excessive demand and excessive production.
I was looking around for peak and average demand figures and chanced upon an article which then links to a "model your own grid" game
reneweconomy.com.au/how-much-storage-whats-the-cost-now-you-can-build-your-own-integrated-system-plan/
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
Hey myscreenname,
It seems your anecdote about the difference between a computer and FormulaNova might be appropriate again ??
(oh, how I'm giggling to myself now....
)
Select to expand quotecammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Ahh, that's what the videos were about. I make it a point to not watch random videos posted up unless there is also a description or some commentary. Just like a random drunk at the pub yelling about something or other. Did you like my dog training video BTW?
Can you combine nuclear and renewables well? The problem with nuclear is that it is not able to vary production easily, at least that's what I have read. If you could/can do that, then maybe its not a bad idea.
But there seems to be a few people around that highlight that nuclear is not as cheap as it says on the sticker. Do we really think that even if we get through the political dramas that we would have an industry capable of delivery nuclear over the next few decades?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Ahh, that's what the videos were about. I make it a point to not watch random videos posted up unless there is also a description or some commentary. Just like a random drunk at the pub yelling about something or other. Did you like my dog training video BTW?
Can you combine nuclear and renewables well? The problem with nuclear is that it is not able to vary production easily, at least that's what I have read. If you could/can do that, then maybe its not a bad idea.
But there seems to be a few people around that highlight that nuclear is not as cheap as it says on the sticker. Do we really think that even if we get through the political dramas that we would have an industry capable of delivery nuclear over the next few decades?
I guess you still don't get the point hey.
I guess myscreename may actually be right about something.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Generally the Right are incapable of independent thought, like lemmings they just follow the leader.
^
Do they willingly and freely just follow the leader or is there some sort of punitive inducement that ensures they cannot do anything but just follow the leader ?
Left wing politicans have been blindly following the leader without fail since at least 1986.
When one doesn't, and has independant thought, it is such a rarity it becomes headline news. I guess they are not allowed to think by party decree.
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/labor-senator-defies-party-on-palestinian-recognition/104020950
It is the first time a Labor politician has crossed the floor while Labor is in government since 1986.
Labor party rules state that all members must vote in line with the position taken by the Labor caucus.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
^
Do they willingly and freely just follow the leader or is there some sort of punitive inducement that ensures they cannot do anything but just follow the leader ?
Left wing politicans have been blindly following the leader without fail since at least 1986.
When one doesn't, and has independant thought, it is such a rarity it becomes headline news. I guess they are not allowed to think by party decree.
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/labor-senator-defies-party-on-palestinian-recognition/104020950
It is the first time a Labor politician has crossed the floor while Labor is in government since 1986.
Labor party rules state that all members must vote in line with the position taken by the Labor caucus.
This idea of left and right is outdated. The whole concept of left and right is based on economics.
Now people apply left/right wing to anything that has zero basis in economics.Gay marriage for example, is often cited as being something that is a left wing ideal, it's not.
Someone on here posted an interesting podcast that explores this.
freakonomics.com/podcast/are-we-living-through-the-most-revolutionary-period-in-history/
Most things we debate as being left or right wing Ideals may be better described as being open/closed Ideals.
Just my 2 cents on left vrs right in 2024
I'd beg to disagree.
Here is a pictorial explaination of left vrs right :
Left:
Right:
Select to expand quotecammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Ahh, that's what the videos were about. I make it a point to not watch random videos posted up unless there is also a description or some commentary. Just like a random drunk at the pub yelling about something or other. Did you like my dog training video BTW?
Can you combine nuclear and renewables well? The problem with nuclear is that it is not able to vary production easily, at least that's what I have read. If you could/can do that, then maybe its not a bad idea.
But there seems to be a few people around that highlight that nuclear is not as cheap as it says on the sticker. Do we really think that even if we get through the political dramas that we would have an industry capable of delivery nuclear over the next few decades?
I guess you still don't get the point hey.
I guess myscreename may actually be right about something.
Yeah, I don't really accept the points in that video. I trained my dog using that leash method and she never really took to playing fetch. Yet I had another dog years before who naturally played fetch until he wasn't physically capable of chasing anymore. I think it is either a genetic thing or something they learn when very young.
I don't think Myscreenname expressed an opinion about training dogs. I somehow think he would be more likely to kick one as he gets angry walking along looking for cheap tobacco in the gutters.
Select to expand quotecammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Ahh, that's what the videos were about. I make it a point to not watch random videos posted up unless there is also a description or some commentary. Just like a random drunk at the pub yelling about something or other. Did you like my dog training video BTW?
Can you combine nuclear and renewables well? The problem with nuclear is that it is not able to vary production easily, at least that's what I have read. If you could/can do that, then maybe its not a bad idea.
But there seems to be a few people around that highlight that nuclear is not as cheap as it says on the sticker. Do we really think that even if we get through the political dramas that we would have an industry capable of delivery nuclear over the next few decades?
I guess you still don't get the point hey.
I guess myscreename may actually be right about something.
I second-guessed myself and watched those videos. Now I know why you didn't bother adding any commentary at all. There was nothing there. You could have just said 'UK politician backs nuclear' and 'US politician backs nuclear'. But they are just meaningless opinions with no substantive facts.
The dog training video was okay though. It demonstrated approaches and showed results. Both more interesting than "yay for nuclear".
Maybe nuclear will be a good idea when they can ramp it up within minutes and ramp it down again in order to compensate for lack of production with renewables. Maybe the new technology being developed will resolve those deficiencies? Are we there yet? It doesn't sound like it.
Funny, I think if someone turned around now and said "let's build a nuclear reactor in the middle of nowhere and run transmission lines back to civilization" there would be a few people that would support it. But it wouldn't be cheap by the sounds of it, and no one wants it except those people that don't live near it and have no chance of it being built near them.
Logically you could argue that a nuclear power station could be built at Lucas Heights. It's close enough to major population centres so it is easy to deliver the power, and easy to get staff, easy to get water. But it is so close to rich people that it would never fly. 'Safe' is 'Safe' right? Well, maybe not if you are rich and someone wants to build it near you.
^ See that. That's logical reasoning in text. Not a meme. Not a random video.
Imagine if we had a platform called TwiXter? We could just post random memes and stupid sentences instead.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
.... Do we really think that even if we get through the political dramas that we would have an industry capable of delivery nuclear over the next few decades?
Yeah I do really think that we would. And without much of an issue.
The negative talk about ability and capacity to build nuclear generators seems pretty nonsense. I don't know what basis it is being made on.
Between about 2010 and 2015 Australia managed to simultaneously build three LNG plants comprising two trains each. And on an environmentally sensitive island, not exisiting industrial sites. Total cost somewhere around $70 billion give or take. Whilst simultaneously building another plant with two trains on the west coast worth another $30 billion.
Plus, at the same time all the upstream work, which was offshore in WA, and multiple other major resource and infrastucture projects. So I have no idea why capacity should be an issue. We've successfully done more in the very recent past.
And LNG trains are atleast, if not more, technically complex than nuclear generators to build. Earthworks, concrete, structural steel, piping (lots of piping), instrumentation and controls, electrical - the skills of the workforce ain't no different. Import a few foreigners from overseas to provide advice on what went right / wrong on the last build and it really ain't rocket science. - Well Australia is doing rocket science in NT and SA, so if i it was, we ain't too dumb to do it anyway.
Biggest challenges I can see are things more like water, particularly at the Collie site for example where Muja boilers have always suffered corrosion issues, and millitant unions during the build.
But the two most important questions that I don't think have been answered (maybe they have if anyone could point me to the answer) are :
1) What is the net zero alternative to renewable backed up with nuclear (Mr Milks link above had a good summary of why batteries are not yet feasible)
2) Why isn't renewable backed up with gas acceptable, given Australia going from minor emmissions for electricity generation to net zero will not make one iota of difference to the world, but will make a big cost difference to Australia
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..
My bad, I should have explained the point more clearly for you FN.
That being, Leftards around the world realise the only way to get to net zero is with Nuclear in the mix, why do Aussie Leftards not get that.
Ahh, that's what the videos were about. I make it a point to not watch random videos posted up unless there is also a description or some commentary. Just like a random drunk at the pub yelling about something or other. Did you like my dog training video BTW?
Can you combine nuclear and renewables well? The problem with nuclear is that it is not able to vary production easily, at least that's what I have read. If you could/can do that, then maybe its not a bad idea.
But there seems to be a few people around that highlight that nuclear is not as cheap as it says on the sticker. Do we really think that even if we get through the political dramas that we would have an industry capable of delivery nuclear over the next few decades?
I guess you still don't get the point hey.
I guess myscreename may actually be right about something.
I second-guessed myself and watched those videos. Now I know why you didn't bother adding any commentary at all. There was nothing there. You could have just said 'UK politician backs nuclear' and 'US politician backs nuclear'. But they are just meaningless opinions with no substantive facts.
The dog training video was okay though. It demonstrated approaches and showed results. Both more interesting than "yay for nuclear".
Maybe nuclear will be a good idea when they can ramp it up within minutes and ramp it down again in order to compensate for lack of production with renewables. Maybe the new technology being developed will resolve those deficiencies? Are we there yet? It doesn't sound like it.
Funny, I think if someone turned around now and said "let's build a nuclear reactor in the middle of nowhere and run transmission lines back to civilization" there would be a few people that would support it. But it wouldn't be cheap by the sounds of it, and no one wants it except those people that don't live near it and have no chance of it being built near them.
Logically you could argue that a nuclear power station could be built at Lucas Heights. It's close enough to major population centres so it is easy to deliver the power, and easy to get staff, easy to get water. But it is so close to rich people that it would never fly. 'Safe' is 'Safe' right? Well, maybe not if you are rich and someone wants to build it near you.
^ See that. That's logical reasoning in text. Not a meme. Not a random video.
Imagine if we had a platform called TwiXter? We could just post random memes and stupid sentences instead.
I don't know if nuclear sits well with renewables, does anything. Seems like the deficiency is a renewables problem not a Nuclear problem. In simple terms my understanding is coal, gas, nuclear all just heat water to make steam to spin a turbine that spins a generator. Is that wrong.
The proposal is to build them on old power station sites where the transmission lines already exist. Seems like a common sense approach
I am not pro nuclear for the sake of nuclear, just as happy with fossil fuels, cause I don't think the world is ending, but if we have to have net zero to keep all the chicken littles happy then why not Nuclear like the rest of the developed world. Its clean green and reliable.
100% renewables is a utopian dream, it might be doable for your camper van or a house in the bush, not for a modern industrial country. Can't be done. Has never been done. So WTF do you propose in order to get to net zero, sit in the dark.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
....Maybe nuclear will be a good idea when they can ramp it up within minutes and ramp it down again in order to compensate for lack of production with renewables. Maybe the new technology being developed will resolve those deficiencies? Are we there yet? It doesn't sound like it....
See, these are the arguments I don't really get.
Just to punch it in one more time, I am not sold on nuclear bieng the answer in Australia (I get it maybe elsewhere), so I am not arguing for it, I am just not sold on the argument against it.
But as to the argument, why should the nuclear be responsible for the failings of renewables ?
Rather than worrying about ramping nulcear generation up and down to cover the intermittent and unpredicatble nature of wind and solar generation, why not query why wind and solar isn't required to have a better way of feeding consistent and predicable power to the grid ?
Wind and solar is cheaper if the cost of having to make up for its failings goes somewhere else. Seems like a dumb argument.
The grid and our consumption of electricity is founded on the principal of relatively consistent and predicatable input. If you want renewables to compete on an equal footing you need to ask them to do that.
The alternative of wanting the entire system to be changed to work around renewables, is fine, but you have to accept it comes at a cost. Part of that cost is something like gas (which isn't zero emission), nuclear or somebody say what else. But that cost is as much associated with renewables as with anything else.
Edit : cammd beat me to it. I vote cammed deputy Energy Minister.
