The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Inconvenient accounting for State renewables ambitions > Comments

Inconvenient accounting for State renewables ambitions : Comments

By Geoff Carmody, published 2/3/2018

Do state and territory claims for renewable energy add up to more than our national total?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
All of these RET-promising ratbags are going to end up with their trousers around their ankles; it's criminal that those of us who see the disaster coming will still have to pay for the ignorant stupidity and pick up the pieces.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 2 March 2018 10:04:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only one that seems believable? Is almost completely hydro powered, tiny Tassie?

As for the rest. there would seem to be a lot of book cooking/imaginative accounting going into these numbers?

Why? Because carbon free nuclear energy is not part of our policy! Why not? Because for peaceful purpose only, carbon free nuclear energy is not part of our policy!

Yes I know that's what you've already said. Let me rephrase the with, why ever not?

Off the record? Yes off the record.

Because nuclear energy regardless of purpose, no matter how safe and affordable, is never ever going to be part of our policy, even when we claim in public we are technology agnostic, judge us not on what we say but what we do or promote!

Coal, coal nothing but coal, beautiful coal.
Coal is so easy and good for the soul.
Come let us follow, down to the hollow.
Where we can shovel, millions of tons of sorrow.
Don't worry now, reserve it for tomorrow
Yet personally profitable, beautiful coal.

And incidentally, my personal at arms length bank balance/dividend stream.

Does that answer your question or explain the current energy crisis?

Sadly, yes it does and many other things as well, like unaffordable housing, congested cities and the list's yards long! Unlike my forbearance or patience!

A pox on both your houses and bring on the next election!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 2 March 2018 11:41:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If King Island can have a realtime dashboard as to where its power is coming from
http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/
then so should the ACT. That way we could see how they work around interstate connectors going down and also what percentage of a particular clean energy output they are consuming. For example if national hydro was 2,000 MW could ACT with under 2% of the population be consuming say 20%?

ACT might also explain why neighbouring Queanbeyan is so dreadfully dependent on coal when they share the same power lines. The Nemwatch website has been amended to include batteries so surely they could include interstate imports and exports.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 2 March 2018 12:32:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apart from fudged figures? Why renewables? Because they are not coal and carbon free! Always providing you exclude the carbon created in their manufacture!

Nuclear energy is also carbon free energy that's safer than coal. But also has safety problems created by the massive pressures they operate under! Plus the costs of eriching already costly fuel and the engineered safety that makes this energy so expensive and unreliable.

Even so, has not stopped a technically advanced Russian from stealing a march and now threatening reprisals if we in the west attack one of her alleged allies, even though constantly threatened by one of them, the stalking horse for a new axis of evil. Or try to lever the annexed Crimea back from them?

And clever given this power junkie followed through, what would be left of the world and who would Russia trade with then?

There is only one answer to this kind of threat! A total commercial boycott and trade embargo on Russia and all who do business with it!

And as that kicks in, crack on with our own nuclear development And let a sabre rattling Mr Putin know we have a doomsday bomb that can turn our small green planet into a star albeit, in steller terms, a very brief one.

And able to be deployed as the ultimate deterrent and or reprisal that will take out Mr Putin in the deepest hole he can hide in! Unless he's on the Russian space station and then where he'd survive for a very limited time!

Better dead than red!

This recent Russian revelation has made a complete nonsense out of the nuclear proliferation treaty and our continued observance of it!

We ought to crack on with ours if only to gain complete energy independence, that alone guarantees our security!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 2 March 2018 5:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reality is that renewable targets like all other virtue signalling has nothing to do with facts.

If SA Labor was entirely honest, it would need to include all the emissions from brown coal generated power it is forced to import, when generation is low and subtract the zero emission power wind power exported when the wind and solar generators generate more than SA can consume.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 3 March 2018 8:16:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes S.M., And never shall the word nuclear regardless of the compelling evidence, pass their lips? NEVER!

Even when those still able to apply logics rites and rational critical thinking to this conflated and deliberately convoluted debate! Understand our only possible and profitable future and that of the planet, rests solely and absolutely on AFFORDABLE, carbon free nuclear energy.

Some believe we can rely exclusively on solar energy and other renewables, because this is getting cheaper!? Even in the face of wages inflation of around 30% P.A. in China?

Maybe that price reduction had more to do with the removal of some subsidies? Which seemed to have proved we've been massively price gouged by this industry.

Why should the nations grans need to die of heat stroke during the next enduring heatwave, just so some solar power advocates can keep on making a price gouged and seriously subsidised profit/fortune?

And only possible if we delay and delay rolling out non coal dispatchable,base load power that even Gran can afford!

Alvin Weinberg, inventor and patent holder of the first nuclear reactor, said and I paraphrase, I believe our future is a nuclear one and based on molten salt reactors, and more specifically thorium powered reactors.

Now, you'd think the father of nuclear energy, would understand which nuclear technology was superior!?

And hard to understand why or alleged representatives don't and consistently refuse to even do more than commission an easily overlooked report. TBC.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 3 March 2018 10:04:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because I share Alvin wieberg absolute conviction on nuclear energy as our only possible prosperous future! I am passionate about for peaceful purpose only, nuclear energy and based on intrinsically/inherently safe, walk away safe. molten salt, thorium energy, on several grounds.

The first being the EXTREME DIFFICULTY of weaponizing this technology and the very reason it was abandoned in the seventies!

A trial reactor ran without incident or accident between the fifties and seventies and then only after around two decades of allied research!

Hard to continue when funding is pulled! The technology forbidden at the behest, one thinks, of big nuclear?

Thorium has produced power in a number of reactors, in many places around the world and could've at Oak Ridge! Except the funding was pulled just before power trials could commence?

We're not assisted by anti nuclear advocates, forever critiquing the potential of thorium power, with a litany of absurdities/falsehoods, that may have a splattering of undeniable facts in them!?

Look, there's some technical problems to overcome, not insoluble, maybe as simple as lining the exposed metal with super strong, easily manufactured, carbon based graphene!

As for the gamma radiation some endlessly waffle on about! Reasonably thick concrete walls eliminate that as a problem.

The only two problems the detractors found, save, we don't currently have a thorium reactor.

We also didn't at one time have a plane, a motor car, a submarine, a rocket and a man walking on the moon, so using Ludlum's logic, none of those things would be possible? Right?

We have a decade or more, before most of our current coal fired power stations will need to be decommissioned, due to age and the ever increasing cost of maintenance!

More than enough time to produce factory built mass produced thorium powered modules able to be deployed wherever we want them.

And where the heat generated would support the much more efficient, waterless bayden cycle.

And our economy wouldn't be harmed by the 3 cents per KwH that'd be possible, I promise! What are we waiting for? Permission?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 3 March 2018 11:02:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B, I admit knowing little about salt thorium technology, but what little I have learned about it has me strongly supporting it. You may know my attitude about debating when I am faced with intense opposition to an idea. Furthermore the opposition is based on a pre-concieved belief and strengthened by cherry picking articles which bolster their stance. You have studied and promoted this concept for a long time. My question to you is, why do you think it is that this technology is being deliberately avoided? Please be as honest and abusive as you like as I believe your answer demands an affirmative delivery.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 7 March 2018 3:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy