News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Algernon]

I don’t get what’s so bad about literally just legalising it? No one says as soon as it’s legal that we’re mandated to build any, it’s literally just changing a political decision made nearly 30 years ago

I think the key there is in the process. There's a big difference in it not being a big deal legalising it and a big deal in it just being legal.

Considering the proponents' vested interests, the process would be a slow and long one to ensure the can gets kicked as slowly down the road as possible and plenty more coal gets burned in the meantime.

To that end, the Greens would surely step up and fill the role of полезные дураки with grace and aplomb. Fighting tooth and nail against nuclear, the nats using it as an excuse not to allow renewables, and smoke still billowing out the chimneys while neither zero emissions path is taken and sealing earth's future for my kids.

[rubberman]

I just feel kind of uneasy about running 100% on a form of generation that completely relies on perfect weather to operate efficiently. It also doesn’t help that quite a few people I’ve spoken to about this (not on here) act as if this is intermittency is some kind of advantage and go on about really crazy stuff that makes it seem their aim is more towards complete deindustrialisation and other malthusian “degrowth” ideals

For sure, if that was the plan, but it isn't. You build so that peak capacity in ideal conditions is above usual requirements, with the overall networks designed such that they can supply power in the worst case weather scenarios.

Trying to explain something to people who are determined to misunderstand is a futile exercise. The best you can hope for is that impartial observers are able to be swayed. The nuke lovers will say that "suppose the wind never blows." There's no hope for rational debate.

[abc]

I just feel kind of uneasy about running 100% on a form of generation that completely relies on perfect weather to operate efficiently. It also doesn’t help that quite a few people I’ve spoken to about this (not on here) act as if this is intermittency is some kind of advantage and go on about really crazy stuff that makes it seem their aim is more towards complete deindustrialisation and other malthusian “degrowth” ideals

For sure, if that was the plan, but it isn't. You build so that peak capacity in ideal conditions is above usual requirements, with the overall networks designed such that they can supply power in the worst case weather scenarios.

Trying to explain something to people who are determined to misunderstand is a futile exercise. The best you can hope for is that impartial observers are able to be swayed. The nuke lovers will say that "suppose the wind never blows." There's no hope for rational debate.

tell me how many more wind turbines you need to exceed capacity when there is no wind blowing...

this should be an easy one for you

[Algernon]

Depends. How many solar panels, hydro dams, pumped hydro dams and grid scale batteries do you have?

[abc]

Depends. How many solar panels, hydro dams, pumped hydro dams and grid scale batteries do you have?

hydro dams? You do realise South Australia is mostly desert and there's nowhere left to build hydro dams

how are those solar panels going to work in the middle of the night?

grid batteries? oh my stop

[Algernon]

Stop what? When the NSW interconnector and goyder south are complete in a couple of years, SA will blow straight past 100% renewables.

You're 20 years too late to building nuclear in Australia and your prime example to do so (the french) started to build theirs in the late 50s. And good on them! Their electricity is about 1 6th the carbon intensity of Australia despite renewables gradually reversing its upward trend and finally turning it in the right direction.

[abc]

Stop what? When the NSW interconnector and goyder south are complete in a couple of years, SA will blow straight past 100% renewables.

You're 20 years too late to building nuclear in Australia and your prime example to do so (the french) started to build theirs in the late 50s. And good on them! Their electricity is about 1 6th the carbon intensity of Australia despite renewables gradually reversing its upward trend and finally turning it in the right direction.

stop making me laugh

carbon intensity?... what relevance is this metric to anything?

[Algernon]

Ok boomer.

[rubberman]

Ok boomer.

Hey. I'm a boomer, and even I get basic arithmetic and physics. The problem here is people who don't want to understand.

Every second spent explaining is wasted. They don't want to be informed.

[abc]

Ok boomer.

What are your qualifications here out of curiosity? Do you have a degree in physics by any chance?

[Spurdo]

Personally, I wish we could’ve done like Spain and got in early on that Concentrated Solar Power technology. IIRC, the CSIRO have made quite a lot of discoveries with it, but nobody seems to want to get involved with it. There also seems to be quite a bit going on with Geothermal as of recently that if all goes to plan could be a massive game changer.

[abc]

Personally, I wish we could’ve done like Spain and got in early on that Concentrated Solar Power technology. IIRC, the CSIRO have made quite a lot of discoveries with it, but nobody seems to want to get involved with it. There also seems to be quite a bit going on with Geothermal as of recently that if all goes to plan could be a massive game changer.

The reason we haven't gone down that path is because there isn't an industry for creating solar panels when all you need it low tech mirrors and Simon Holms a Court isn't invested in it.
The technology that wins is the one that makes the most money for the right people.

[Nort]

I just feel kind of uneasy about running 100% on a form of generation that completely relies on perfect weather to operate efficiently. It also doesn’t help that quite a few people I’ve spoken to about this (not on here) act as if this is intermittency is some kind of advantage and go on about really crazy stuff that makes it seem their aim is more towards complete deindustrialisation and other malthusian “degrowth” ideals

For sure, if that was the plan, but it isn't. You build so that peak capacity in ideal conditions is above usual requirements, with the overall networks designed such that they can supply power in the worst case weather scenarios.

this highlights how absurd your position is... no matter how much capacity you build you cant make the wind blow

That's why you don't just rely on wind, and where you are using wind generation have it spread across a variety of locations.

Can you share an example of the weather conditions that you think could lead to no wind across the state?

[abc]

For sure, if that was the plan, but it isn't. You build so that peak capacity in ideal conditions is above usual requirements, with the overall networks designed such that they can supply power in the worst case weather scenarios.

this highlights how absurd your position is... no matter how much capacity you build you cant make the wind blow

That's why you don't just rely on wind, and where you are using wind generation have it spread across a variety of locations.

Can you share an example of the weather conditions that you think could lead to no wind across the state?

You cant have turbines everywhere. You do realise you've got to build electricity networks to all of these turbines - they probably don't teach such technical details in what has substituted our education system in this generation.

There are times of the year where there is virtually no wind across the majority of the state.

[Nort]

this highlights how absurd your position is... no matter how much capacity you build you cant make the wind blow

That's why you don't just rely on wind, and where you are using wind generation have it spread across a variety of locations.

Can you share an example of the weather conditions that you think could lead to no wind across the state?

You cant have turbines everywhere. You do realise you've got to build electricity networks to all of these turbines - they probably don't teach such technical details in what has substituted our education system in this generation.

There are times of the year where there is virtually no wind across the majority of the state.

We don't need to have turbines everywhere, you do what we already do, which is having them spread across a variety of high value locations.

If there are those times of the year when wind generation is not viable then it should be very easy for you to show examples, since the breakdowns of energy sources to the state grid are well recorded.

Since you asked about education systems, when I went to university the onus was on providing references and evidence to back up claims, with those statements being made with no ability to back them up were effectively worthless. I look forward to you schooling us with that evidence.