Aidan since we're talking SA electricity the elephant in the room is that Olympic Dam in the centre of the state is the world's biggest uranium deposit. According to the state development department in 2016 it powered 22 gigawatt years or 193 Twh of clean electricity overseas. SA itself used 14 Twh of gas dominated electricity last year. Instead of playing around with batteries that can supply only a few minutes power on a hot day shouldn't SA go nuclear?

When SA can get below 40% gas dependence I'll be impressed. Note the 1969 built Moomba gas pipe is now half a century old. As we speak another issue about to bite SA is the wastage of water in the lower Murray. If anything SA is showing us what not to do.

Taswegian,
Nuclear power is an expensive option. SA has vast solar and wind resources, and although harvesting them was initially expensive, that's no longer the case - they're cheaper than all the alternatives, and getting cheaper still.

With hindsight, nuclear power would have been a great option in the late 20th century. But it doesn't make sense to start with it now we have a cheaper alternative.

> When SA can get below 40% gas dependence I'll be impressed.
I don't know what's so impressive about that. SA managed it last month. As more solar and wind farms keep being added, it's only a matter of time before we can sustain that figure for the whole year.

> Note the 1969 built Moomba gas pipe is now half a century old.
So?
You do realise SA's gas supply isn't entirely dependent on it, don't you? SA also has a gas pipe from Victoria to improve its energy security.

> another issue about to bite SA is the wastage of water in the lower Murray.
I presume you're referring to the presence of the barrage rather than the way the weir there is operated? (The latter is a problem that I think needs urgently addressing).

Again with hindsight, the barrage should have been constructed upstream of the Lower Lakes. But its final placement was not a unilateral SA decision, and since then it's the upstream states that have greatly expanded there water use. Meanwhile the ecosystem has adapted to the barrage being in its present location. Though moving it is something that should be seriously considered, it's something that should possibly be done after extensive consultation, not something that should be imposed.

Aidan your bland statements on the cost of power generation, like all your statements are merely assertions, with absolutely no backing to support them.

Because you read something on an activist web site does not make it true, in fact with out evidence to support these claim, they are sure to be totally wrong at best, & considered lies at worst.

Support your claims, of don't expect to be taken seriously.

Incidentally my joke that King Neptune must have given CO2 a paddle to stir ocean currents is at least as likely as any of your claims that CO2 can alter ocean currents without supplying a mechanism which enables it to do so.

I look forward to your next fantasy.

Hasbeen,
This site is not a scholarly work, and references are generally not well received here. If you were genuinely interested in the claims I'm making and wanted to check for yourself, I would take the time to supply references on request - indeed ISTR I previously posted a link to a CSIRO report that came to that conclusion. But when you reject anything that doesn't conform to your prejudices, no matter how good the source is, I have no desire to waste time with references.

Meanwhile, you're claiming CO2 to have the opposite effect on the amount of water vapour our atmosphere holds than what practically every meteorologist and physicist understands to be the case. Yet you've supplied no references. Previously you said you'd lost the document; now you claim there to be a second one but you won't say who it's by. It looks very much like a fear of scrutiny. Such ludicrous claims with a total lack of supporting evidence are (in your own words) sure to be totally wrong at best, & considered lies at worst! Support your claims or don't expect to be taken seriously.

>Incidentally my joke that King Neptune must have given CO2 a paddle to stir ocean currents is at least as likely
>as any of your claims that CO2 can alter ocean currents without supplying a mechanism which enables it to do so.
That just proves your own idiocy. The mechanism is, as I said, heat. Indeed my original claim was that heat could alter ocean currents (which should be obvious as it's the effects of heat which drive them in the first place) - you were the one who changed it to CO2 in a pathetic attempt to ridicule me.

Do you require further explanation of how heat drives ocean currents?

So aidan, as it is not a scholarly work, it is OK to make up stories & tell lies.

I guess that is how greenies work.

Of course it means all your posts are worthless.

Of course it's not OK to make up stories and tell lies. So please stop doing so!