|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 6, 2013 13:57:06 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 6, 2013 14:43:36 GMT 11
I believe we have reached a tipping point for renewable energy. I recently read a story (can't remember where) about a proposed wind farm for King Island which could supply 5% of Australia's current needs. The good thing is that this (renewable energy) has got a life of its own now and nothing that future governments do will stop it (Yes I am talking to you Tony Abbott!!!). It seems a no brainer to build a power station where your fuel is free (solar or wind) and what better country that Australia to do it in. It seems that the target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 will be reached and exceeded with ease. Here's hoping
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 7, 2013 15:21:37 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jun 8, 2013 2:31:09 GMT 11
Niether major federal political party has declared any intentions to take the necessary steps to increase renewable energy, and / or to reduce factors shown to contribute to climate change. Enough solar energy falls on the whole of Australia in two days to supply the energy needs of the world for a yearBut . . . . . . and Germany gets far less sun than Australia.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 9, 2013 20:12:22 GMT 11
Yes to all of the above, but I remain optimistic that we will muddle our way in the right direction and politicians will follow (it is rare for them to lead). But we do have a sorry bunch of pollies at the moment. No vision.
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 10, 2013 12:20:10 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jun 12, 2013 1:26:02 GMT 11
David, just because we may elect pollies, under the illusion that this is democracy, does not mean that they feel obliged to do what we want them to do.
In reality, we have a mediocracy, where the pollies live in fear of, and do the bidding of, the media.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 12, 2013 10:34:34 GMT 11
Couldn't agree more Brian. However, they do respond to grass roots movements that make the press. It is rare for them to deny climate change now like they used to. They now disagree on how to tackle it not its existence. Next they will be claiming how they supported the switch to renewables. You wait and see
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 12, 2013 11:49:53 GMT 11
;D
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 12, 2013 12:21:09 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jun 13, 2013 16:09:05 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jun 19, 2013 1:48:11 GMT 11
A similar problem is occuring in the vast Siberian tundra with what was once known as " perma-frost " ( permanently frozen - no longer ). The bad news is that methane is far worse as a global heating gas. The infinitesimal bit of good news is that methane does break down . . . after 15 to 20 years
|
|
marty
Half Charge
I like the idea of free transport....
Posts: 68
|
Post by marty on Aug 8, 2013 23:08:11 GMT 11
Niether major federal political party has declared any intentions to take the necessary steps to increase renewable energy, and / or to reduce factors shown to contribute to climate change. Enough solar energy falls on the whole of Australia in two days to supply the energy needs of the world for a yearBut . . . . . . and Germany gets far less sun than Australia. Beeing raised in Germany people are far more aware of these issues than over here. My aussie neighbour leaves the big screen plasma and A/C going when they go shopping. My mum gave me a lecture when I left the 60W bulb in my room on while having breakfast. They could have easily sold the idea of a carbon tax by saying: look, we take money from those who burn fossil fuels and give it to people that come up with innovations for renewable energy and zero emission vehicles ($100 off registration is hardly pushing anybody to look over the fence, I recon) Or are there any other incentive I don't know about? Are there any good deals going for putting solar panels on the roof in VIC?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Aug 9, 2013 9:39:44 GMT 11
I like your style Marty!
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Aug 9, 2013 10:32:05 GMT 11
I was a small child in England and it was my Dad that hounded me about turning out the light when I left the room.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Aug 9, 2013 10:37:02 GMT 11
Yep, I grew up in hippy California and conservation was ingrained in us from birth!
|
|
|
Post by brunohill on Mar 14, 2020 14:28:32 GMT 11
At this instant in time renewables are generating 40% of Australia's electricity. I wonder what the record is?
|
|
foggy
EV Enthusiast
Posts: 11
|
Post by foggy on Apr 1, 2020 17:20:17 GMT 11
I have been for most of my life a green energy supporter. Have the first electric car on the Gold Coast. The first 4 kw array in my neighbourhood on my roof and solar water of course. Do so much recycling, repairing, and repurposing, i could start a museum of invention iom sure. Lately though i have come across data that makes me think large scale solar and wind are possibly not the best option. My doubts started after looking at a video on the U by a cove called 'THOUGHTY 2' The data presented has been hard to cross check , because it would seem that nearly everyone in authority who talks on this subject doesn't care to use metrics we can compare. Some might talk of deaths per petawatt hour, and when you try to find this measure in some contrary view they are using some different mesure? All that said, as far as i`ve been able to investigate, there looks to be a good case for the urgent adoption of a particular type of nuclear tech called Thorium molten salt, i think is the name. It does have waste , but instead of being toxic for hundreds of thousands of years, this stuff is about 300. The design of the reactor itself is also PROOF against meltdown. It is possible to make bombs from Thorium, but apparently it is a lot harder, which is apparently the big reason it didn't get further than one working reactor in the 50`s . Thorium is said to be one of the most abundant minerals on the planet, so for our purposes is just about limitless. Don`t take my word for any of this, but do try to research it yourself. As i said, it is hard to get real objective and comparable facts about topics on this subject because both sides default religiously to unchangeable mindsets that see the others as trying to pull a swifty. The one unarguable agreement that should be obvious though is that we have to ditch coal and oil.
|
|
|
Post by brunohill on Apr 2, 2020 14:12:07 GMT 11
Maybe some other alternative is required to look after base load, one that you can turn down when it is not required would be good. There are still many renewable alternatives rather than just wind and solar though. King island is probably one of the best sites in Australia. It is located roughly between Melbourne, Adelaide and Tasmania. It is one of the windiest spots, it has some of the highest tidal currents and wave energy in Australia. The sun even shine there sometimes. I am not sure where the undersea cable runs between Victoria and Tasmania but a second one may be useful. In areas that had more rain more hydro power maybe an option. I often wonder how much water runs in and out of Lakes Entrance, Port Philip Bay, Western Port, with tides going in and out. Even man made sea lakes and walls with gates could capture tides to make reliable predictable 24/7 base load power that could also be turned up and down when required. Pumped hydro could be pumped sea water. Even though we may have plenty of suitable sites for pumped hydro I am not sure we have enough fresh water.
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Apr 3, 2020 22:43:49 GMT 11
Lately though i have come across data that makes me think large scale solar and wind are possibly not the best option. My doubts started after looking at a video on the U by a cove called 'THOUGHTY 2' The data presented has been hard to cross check , because it would seem that nearly everyone in authority who talks on this subject doesn't care to use metrics we can compare. Some might talk of deaths per petawatt hour, and when you try to find this measure in some contrary view they are using some different mesure? All that said, as far as i`ve been able to investigate, there looks to be a good case for the urgent adoption of a particular type of nuclear tech called Thorium molten salt, i think is the name. It does have waste , but instead of being toxic for hundreds of thousands of years, this stuff is about 300. The design of the reactor itself is also PROOF against meltdown. It is possible to make bombs from Thorium, but apparently it is a lot harder, which is apparently the big reason it didn't get further than one working reactor in the 50`s . Thorium is said to be one of the most abundant minerals on the planet, so for our purposes is just about limitless. Don`t take my word for any of this, but do try to research it yourself. As i said, it is hard to get real objective and comparable facts about topics on this subject because both sides default religiously to unchangeable mindsets that see the others as trying to pull a swifty. The one unarguable agreement that should be obvious though is that we have to ditch coal and oil. All of these fanciful promises of safe forms of nuclear energy being just around the corner are just that - fanciful. Thorium Molten Salt reactors do not exist commercially. They are little more than lab experiments. Their promise will always remain in the future, because we now have other ways of generating electricity much more cheaply and with no unsafe byproducts whatsoever. I confidently predict that we will never see a commercially operated, grid scale Thorium MSR anywhere in the world, ever. It’s not because I’m religious about it, it’s because economics always wins in the end. In short, you have been conned.
|
|
|
Post by tomkauf on Apr 4, 2020 2:04:40 GMT 11
As a child of the 80s in Europe, Chernobyl was too close for comfort. I'd rather see a few more decades of coal, than any new nuclear power stations. But luckily, renewables are so cheap now, that all other forms of electricity production is losing out on price.
|
|
seb
Half Charge
Posts: 62
|
Post by seb on Apr 24, 2020 17:03:53 GMT 11
I wouldn't rule out the Thorium Molten Salt reactor. It just got dumped by Nixon because he had a friend with uranium, they could make weapons out of the byproduct, and the US navy really knows how to follow due process for safety. If they had put 1/2 as much effort on the Thorium one, we may be talking different story. There is research going on at the moment by fairly serious entities.
In any case there are now modular uranium plants that are orders of magnitude safer than traditional nuclear power stations. They are passively safe, in the sense that power fails, and they power down; so they don't need generators to stop them from exploding if they fail.
One would have to make an assessment with logic and risk. Fear could mean more pollutants because we don't want to risk alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by coulomb on Apr 24, 2020 19:42:28 GMT 11
I wouldn't rule out the Thorium Molten Salt reactor. No matter how clean (while operating) and safe, and even if it was remotely cost effective, what do you do with the waste? Leave it to future generations to deal with?
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Apr 27, 2020 14:52:11 GMT 11
I wouldn't rule out the Thorium Molten Salt reactor. If you think MSRs are a goer, then by all means invest your own money in it. Find a fund manager which deals in this sort of thing and talk to your financial advisor. A few years ago I moved all of my investments into Ethical and Sustainable funds which specifically exclude any form of nuclear power (as well as lots of other environmental- and society- or community-destroying industries), and invest heavily in wind and solar power, among other things.
|
|
|
Post by brunohill on May 16, 2020 1:06:03 GMT 11
Maybe some other alternative is required to look after base load, one that you can turn down when it is not required would be good. There are still many renewable alternatives rather than just wind and solar though. King island is probably one of the best sites in Australia. It is located roughly between Melbourne, Adelaide and Tasmania. It is one of the windiest spots, it has some of the highest tidal currents and wave energy in Australia. The sun even shine there sometimes. I am not sure where the undersea cable runs between Victoria and Tasmania but a second one may be useful. In areas that had more rain more hydro power maybe an option. I often wonder how much water runs in and out of Lakes Entrance, Port Philip Bay, Western Port, with tides going in and out. Even man made sea lakes and walls with gates could capture tides to make reliable predictable 24/7 base load power that could also be turned up and down when required. Pumped hydro could be pumped sea water. Even though we may have plenty of suitable sites for pumped hydro I am not sure we have enough fresh water. It would be handy if they routed this second cable past King Island. www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-13/new-modelling-raises-questions-about-tasmanian-energy-projects/12212176
|
|
|
Post by brunohill on Oct 10, 2020 13:25:57 GMT 11
At this instant in time the Australian electricity grid is running with 47.85% renewable generation. I wonder what the record is?
|
|
|
Post by dac1811 on Oct 11, 2020 10:50:51 GMT 11
I saw the NEM reached 52% renewables last week for several hours. I think it was a record.
|
|
|
Post by brunohill on Aug 24, 2021 4:10:29 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by chuq on Sept 9, 2021 14:52:28 GMT 11
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Sept 11, 2021 23:28:49 GMT 11
Check out this post in the Tesla forum: teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/5887597/A chart shows the renewable generation since 1998 and coal vs renewables over the same period. In August, for the first time ever, renewables generated half the total power that coal did. Expect to see records being broken on a regular basis from now on. The back of coal has been broken, there is no comeback from here.
|
|