(04-08-2022, 06:33 AM)Mav link Wrote:Do you think it's a bit naive to be taking what Boris says to the bank? Boris, Scomo & Trump are birds of feather. Scomo has gone big on projects that will only start years into the future (if they ever do) and I guess Boris has learnt at the feet of the master.

(04-08-2022, 05:38 AM)kruddler link Wrote:The thing that is often overlooked with this whole power thing is its availability.
The sun doesn't shine for 24 hours.
The wind doesn't blow for 24 hours.
What do you do in the meantime? You need some HUGE batteries to cope.....and then we start into our battery debate again.

What happens if we put all our eggs into the solar basket and there is a volcano, or even an asteroid that plunges a city, state, country into darkness for days on end? Remember the volcano that shut down all of europe a few years ago?

Nuclear works, just like coal, whenever you need it too.

(04-08-2022, 08:44 AM)DJC link Wrote:Remember that there are other ways to store electrical energy than batteries; pump hydro, flywheel, compressed air, and thermal energy.  Then there's natural disasters and breakdowns taking out nuclear power plants.

A sensible approach would be to invest in everything but fossil fuel power generation.

(04-08-2022, 08:49 AM)kruddler link Wrote:A smart way would be to invest in something that gives you best bang for your buck that is reliable and a long term option with much less effect on the environment than fossil fuels.
That is nuclear power.

Power Output vs waste produced dwarves anything else.

(04-08-2022, 09:58 AM)LP link Wrote:The trouble is all those cost comparisons claiming solar and wind are much cheaper do not take into account the true cost of storage, the ongoing maintenance costs, and the effects of subsidies.

Nothing reported is like for like, it is very selective, and it's an indictment on all those involved in the debate so I trust none of them.

On storage like hydro and thermal, it's also not necessarily the best option. Raising and lower water levels or temperatures have a similar side effect that result in the emission of methane. Solar thermal has some advantages, but to build an array that can deliver power in daylight hours and still store enough thermal for overnight requires massive arrays on a scale well beyond the current capability, they also have environmental impacts and huge ongoing maintenance costs. Flywheels and compressed gases are an option for small distributed systems, like street batteries, but they all have issues related to the environmental impact, cost and ongoing maintenance, which are again not factored into the cost comparisons between renewable and alternatives.

Quote: Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21

(04-08-2022, 10:45 AM)DJC date Wrote:Yes that’s true LP, and particularly when you consider that:

Of course, a significant amount of the “renewable energy” subsidies is allocated to the fictional “clean coal” research effort.

(04-08-2022, 08:26 AM)capcom link Wrote:Bob Hawke floated the idea in the 80s EB .... somewhere om the border on NT and SA

(04-08-2022, 11:12 AM)LP link Wrote:No disputing that, now tell us the like for like!

(04-08-2022, 09:21 AM)DJC link Wrote:Not really, renewable energy sources are providing significant electrical energy now and the energy storage methods available mean that there can be ongoing access to electricity when conditions don't suit generation (are there many days when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, waves aren't generated, the hydroelectricity dams are empty and the tides don't turn?).  Nuclear power could be part of the mix but fusion rather than fission seems to be the way ahead ... and it doesn't leave dangerous waste for many lifetimes.

Nuclear fusion reactors, like the one being built in France, have a way to go but have the potential to provide truly clean energy.