Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:06 am
Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1890
Yup. If one looks at the actual figures for Germany, there's almost no evidence of the economy tanking. Certainly, that is, compared with Australia. So, when someone makes one assertion that isn't backed up by facts, you really have to doubt anything else they say.Algernon wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:33 amTypical distraction. Pluck out the dumbest conspioracy theory you can to get a rise out of people.
Back to the topic at hand.
Your expert is full of shit.
Germany's emissions went up - then came straight back down again and are continuing to do so.
Germany's economy didn't tank. Despite the headwinds or covid and the gas supply crisis, it is growing and at the same time still paying down national debt.
You don't need nuclear " in the mix" in developing economies. If that were the case, Australia today wouldn't be a developed economy.
Your expert tries to argue nuclear is cheaper than renewables by stripping out overheads such as the 25 billion required to build the reactor in the first place.
If you want to tell us windmills cause more cancer than Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, then that's on you to find it.
What he means is, and those who genuinely believe in nuclear take note, that the Coalition's plan is to promise nuclear, but when they get in dump it because it can't be done in time (Labor and the Greens' fault, of course), and build coal plants. They will drop nuclear...or draw it out so long it might as well be dropped...so that more coal is sold.
I don't think they'll immediately abandon it if elected, but there is absolutely no way the first plant goes online before the 2040's at the earliest, and the costs will be many times higher than initial estimates.rubberman wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 2:44 amWhat he means is, and those who genuinely believe in nuclear take note, that the Coalition's plan is to promise nuclear, but when they get in dump it because it can't be done in time (Labor and the Greens' fault, of course), and build coal plants. They will drop nuclear...or draw it out so long it might as well be dropped...so that more coal is sold.
How do I figure this out?
Easy.
1. We know nuclear cannot be built in time.
2. We know existing power stations are on their last legs, witness the multiple long and expensive outages.
3. The Coalition doesn't like renewables. See reports from Littleproud this week.
4. Gina, a coal miner, supports the Coalition financially.
5. So, nuclear cannot be delivered in time. The Coalition doesn't like renewables, all that's left is coal and gas. One of which coincidentally profits a substantial Coalition donor.
6. Once new coal plants are built, there's no longer a need for nuclear for another 40-50 years.
If i was trying to get a rise out of people, it couldn't have been easier with you and the two trolls both reacting to something in an article.
You, and a couple others, routinely dismiss experts who you don't agree with.Back to the topic at hand.
Your expert is full of shit.
Not my expert.Germany's emissions went up - then came straight back down again and are continuing to do so.
Germany's economy didn't tank. Despite the headwinds or covid and the gas supply crisis, it is growing and at the same time still paying down national debt.
You don't need nuclear " in the mix" in developing economies. If that were the case, Australia today wouldn't be a developed economy.
Your expert tries to argue nuclear is cheaper than renewables by stripping out overheads such as the 25 billion required to build the reactor in the first place.
If you want to tell us windmills cause more cancer than Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, then that's on you to find it.
rubberman wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 2:44 amWhat he means is, and those who genuinely believe in nuclear take note, that the Coalition's plan is to promise nuclear, but when they get in dump it because it can't be done in time (Labor and the Greens' fault, of course), and build coal plants. They will drop nuclear...or draw it out so long it might as well be dropped...so that more coal is sold.
How do I figure this out?
Easy.
1. We know nuclear cannot be built in time.
2. We know existing power stations are on their last legs, witness the multiple long and expensive outages.
3. The Coalition doesn't like renewables. See reports from Littleproud this week.
4. Gina, a coal miner, supports the Coalition financially.
5. So, nuclear cannot be delivered in time. The Coalition doesn't like renewables, all that's left is coal and gas. One of which coincidentally profits a substantial Coalition donor.
6. Once new coal plants are built, there's no longer a need for nuclear for another 40-50 years.
CItation needed. Both South Australia and Queensland seem to be tracking very well in regards to their targets.
The cost renewables isn't cheap either. How many billions have been poured into setting up renewables, and how many billions more are going to be spent so that we have a reliable and stable grid with capacity?claybro wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 10:18 am1. We also know the renewables required, the transmission and the storage cannot be built in time, or are even possible with current battery performance.
2. Existing power stations are most definitely on their last legs, due to a hostile legislative environment promoting renewables making investment in coal, or even maintenance beyond a bare minimum untenable.
3. The coalition doesn't like renewables... Some do- some don't. During a decade of coalition government- Australia achieved more rooftop solar than most countries on earth. Most of the policy leading to the demise of the coal generators were maintained or increased during the decade of coalition government, excellerating the demise of the coal fired power stations, creating the issues we now have.
4. Gina is a miner, and a coalition supporter- no shit..., just as Twiggy and Mike Cannon Brookes continue to received hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidies for renewable projects which are yet to even get off the ground, Just as Alex Turnbull, the former prime ministers son is a hedge fund manager involved in renewables.- Grifting is not a left or right phenomenon.
5. Nuclear definitely cant get off the ground in time- nor can the renewables required. We are nowhere near rolling out the number of wind turbines, solar panels, storage batteries, transmission corridors...and snowy 2.0 boring machine is still stuck in its tunnel. The task required is simply not logistically, or financially possible-So the politicians are either willfully ignorant- or outright lying...no surprises there.
6. If new coal stations are built, as they are in their hundreds- every year around the world- Australias emissions would reduce, due to new coal plant technology. The alternative is gas....remembering the state governments want to ban all onshore gas exploration, so the more we use gas for electricity- the more shortages there will be for industry- in fact the stupid reporter on the ABC this morning, said the current gas shortages wont affect you and I...households- only the big consumers....what a stupid statement.
So yes- you are probably right- the end result will be new coal fires power stations- but out of necessity- not for the supposed conspiracy you think.
You're literally spreading disinformation by saying "cessation of Russian gas" when its on record it was blown up and we know who did it because they told us - and we know why.Algernon wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:33 amTypical distraction. Pluck out the dumbest conspioracy theory you can to get a rise out of people.
Back to the topic at hand.
Your expert is full of shit.
Germany's emissions went up - then came straight back down again and are continuing to do so.
Germany's economy didn't tank. Despite the headwinds or covid and the gas supply crisis, it is growing and at the same time still paying down national debt.
You don't need nuclear " in the mix" in developing economies. If that were the case, Australia today wouldn't be a developed economy.
Your expert tries to argue nuclear is cheaper than renewables by stripping out overheads such as the 25 billion required to build the reactor in the first place.
If you want to tell us windmills cause more cancer than Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, then that's on you to find it.
So, to put things into perspective.
What perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?claybro wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:13 pmSo, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%β¦ it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
Soβ¦ despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the β low hanging fruitβ of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.
Must be national as both black and brown coal.Nort wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:42 pmWhat perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?claybro wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:13 pmSo, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%β¦ it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
Soβ¦ despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the β low hanging fruitβ of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.
Its National. States cant be taken in isolation. They all rely on exporting/ importing power to each other, depending on regional weather conditions Furthermore- the more renewable generation that comes on line in Qld, and the more coal Queensland shuts down, will create an issue for NSW which is struggling with thier own transition, which then cascades to Victoria. Added to this, what the wind drought of the last three weeks has demonstrated is that calm conditions can exist over most of the continent, for days even weeks at a time. Doubling or even tripling the amount of wind turbines will not help in these conditions,- they are all experiencing the same calm, and from 4pm at this time of year- solar is effectively zero. Over to storage.... we dont have the technology to store days of shortfall in generation, no matter how many batteries are installed. All of this, before we get serious about fully electrifying every home, and vehicle- and switch everything to Ai and increase our population by another 10 million.Nort wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:42 pmWhat perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?claybro wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:13 pmSo, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%β¦ it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
Soβ¦ despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the β low hanging fruitβ of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.
claybro wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 2:31 pmIts National. States cant be taken in isolation. They all rely on exporting/ importing power to each other, depending on regional weather conditions Furthermore- the more renewable generation that comes on line in Qld, and the more coal Queensland shuts down, will create an issue for NSW which is struggling with thier own transition, which then cascades to Victoria. Added to this, what the wind drought of the last three weeks has demonstrated is that calm conditions can exist over most of the continent, for days even weeks at a time. Doubling or even tripling the amount of wind turbines will not help in these conditions,- they are all experiencing the same calm, and from 4pm at this time of year- solar is effectively zero. Over to storage.... we dont have the technology to store days of shortfall in generation, no matter how many batteries are installed. All of this, before we get serious about fully electrifying every home, and vehicle- and switch everything to Ai and increase our population by another 10 million.Nort wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:42 pmWhat perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?claybro wrote: βFri Jun 21, 2024 1:13 pm
So, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%β¦ it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
Soβ¦ despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the β low hanging fruitβ of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.