Hasbeen

I agree ... “the use of hydrocarbons is just a passing phase”. Unfortunately, some people just don’t get it and are incapable of seeing past their own use-by date.

You obviously don’t think government should ’invest’ in new power sources; I would have thought it in the national interest.

Further ... you don’t think we have an energy problem – please don’t complain when your next power bill arrives.

I do understand you want absolute “proof” of the science ... and I do understand you have absolutely no clue about what you demand of science. Ergo, no one can prove the sun will rise tomorrow.

In reading your last post, following ‘your logic’, progress is impossible.

Now, you finish your last post asserting a correlation between breakthroughs and government funding wars:

>> Name one breakthrough that has come from government that did not relate to war <<

You are trying to change the playing field again, Hasbeen. I am not surprised.

ps: you obviously know what you are talking about when it comes to sailing, good stuff.

Btw, Hasbeen ... I DON"T HATE COAL! It will be around for a long time yet.

We just have to find a better way of supplying our energy needs ... it's ok, I accept that you just don't get it.

Hasbeen

I asked for your reference, not your supposition. You said, "Some people aquired some of them, still working, virtually for nothing, & tried to earn a living with them. It just don't work. They gave up." So why is the region in question still generating energy from wind farms? That doesn't sound like giving up. Give me some proof.

One more thing, this article http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/multiple-us-coal-fired-electricity-generating-plants-closing-what-gives.php reports on the proposed deactivation of 11 coal fired electricity plants in North Carolina. The number one reason, "The closing plants are very old, and are relatively inefficient, with many parts and components at the end of design life. Physical size of the property may not allow for large scale upgrades." Additionally, it has been reported that China has closed down a total of 7,467 coal fired generating units and is replacing them with larger and more efficient coal fired power stations. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/china-speeds-up-closing-inefficient-coal-plants.php)

Using your logic Hasbeen, this must mean that "They just don't work. They gave up." In the real world, technology gets outdated and has to be replaced with newer more efficient technology.

QANDA - not just T Boone Pickens (love that name), but also Warren Buffet has put $270 million of his own money into renewable energy, and the Google partners, Bill Gates and a lot of others are all investing in renewable energy and other clean technologies.

Hasbeen, not only Governments but some very smart (and very rich) people are backing alternative energy.

Whoops !
I said;
The reason wind generation is difficult and costly is that they only
achieve about 15 to 25% of nameplate output.
The reason is simple.
The out put is proportional to the cube of the wind speed.

Therefore a reduction to 1/3 in the wind results in a fall to one ninth
of the rated output.
*#*
Sorry I should have said that output falls to one twentyseventh !
*#*
With a wind sensitivity like that it is no wonder they are
uneconomical and difficult to control.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 24 May 2010 5:32:54 PM

I just don't see how they van ever be successful with characteristics
like that !

Mark Lawson says, inter alia, that:

"The Australian government has dived head-first into renewables
with both eyes shut, and with the general approval of the voters,
who mostly have no idea of what they have approved
or how much it will cost."

I don't agree with this statement.

So far as I can see, the only renewables into which the Australian government has dived head-first are, primarily, wind, and to a much lesser extent, photo-voltaic solar. Quite rightly, the article deals mainly with contention as to the real emissions reducing effect of incorporating wind-generated electricity into the grid supply. As to whether the Australian government has dived with its eyes shut, I would suggest that at least some of its members have had their eyes well and truly open with respect to the opportunities that have been able to be created with but the stroke of a legislative pen, in relation to wind-generated power.

With wind power it is possible for relatively small investors (compared to those required for the whole grid and large coal, gas, nuclear or geothermal power stations) to enter the energy supply industry. With a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) established, a commercial environment which more or less guarantees the investor in as little as one wind turbine a viable return, is created. I just wonder to what extent parliamentary, senior public service, political party, and political lobbyist retirement funds are represented in Australian wind farms. It would be nice to know, wouldn't it?

Mark's use of the term 'general approval of the voters' is possibly misleading. I suggest a majority of voters support the idea of adopting renewable energy into a publicly-owned electricity supply system, which is largely what they perceive the NEM to be. Some of the more informed voters would also have expectations as to the potential competitiveness of some renewables, such as HDR, with coal. I think voters know exactly what they approve, but have no idea as to what government has actually done and who stands, and to what extent, to benefit.

Martin N's post, of Sunday, 23 May 2010 at 11:15:22 AM, makes a telling observation with respect as to how the investment market sees wind energy competing, in an Australian context, with coal-fired electricity generation. It seems it doesn't. Such comparison, however, is perhaps somewhat of a red herring with regard to what Mark doesn't want to discuss, Large-scale Renewable Energy Targets.

Clicking the 'Visit this user's web page' icon at the bottom of Martin N's post, and upon arrival clicking the 'Preface' link, will take the viewer to this page: http://energyinachangingclimate.info/con03.htm

It is the preface to Martin Nicholson's book 'Energy in a changing climate'. An indication as to the content and coverage of that book is given in the 'Chapter Titles' link, which takes you here: http://energyinachangingclimate.info/con02.htm . For those intending to observe Hasbeen's exhortation to "..., wake up, do a bit of reading, ...", it seems on the basis of those chapter titles as if it might be a good place to start.

Martin Nicholson (OLO userID 'Martin N') makes the claim that:



"We need our governments to actively encourage the
development of new clean energy technologies because
private industry won’t do it on its own in the time required."



More informed voters know that Australian governments have committed upwards of $450M of taxpayers funds to the development of hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal electricity generation. They would also know that there are indications that HDR has prospects of being cost-competitive with coal-fired generation. They would also have reasonable expectations that upon scaling up, any existing substantially publicly-owned electricity distribution system would be the major customer for cost-competitive HDR generation technology. It is here those 80% of voters who favour grid electricity remaining a public utility may also expect to be beneficiaries, via electricity pricing, of that publicly-funded HDR technology.

In the light of such expectations, the apparent mothballing of Geodynamics Ltd's Hunter Valley, NSW, HDR prospect, one virtually right on the existing grid, in favour of its remote Innamincka prospect in SA, is disconcerting. NSW electricity not suitably privatised yet?