Alan B: "I earned a living as a chemical engineer." - *NO* you didn't unless you were breaking the law (or unless you're really old and worked before the days that calling yourself a professional engineer required registration). It is a statutory requirement that you MUST have the necessary qualifications to practice as an engineer. You *may* have earned your living as someone who did some of the things that a chemical engineer does- but without registration then you legally *weren't* a practicing chemical engineer.

"As for units I see nothing wrong with KWPH." - well it doesn't surprise me that you don't and that's because you (by your own admission) lack a formal education. The units of energy when expressed in kilowatt hours in standard form are: kWh (there's usually dot between the "kW" and "h" but I couldn't be both typing it) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour. Over the years you've written all sorts of variations of this- from memory sometimes KWHR, KW/H, etc. And even though this has been explained to you more than once previously you to still (as of this morning for example) write it wrong!

Getting your units correct (and more generally proper use of common technical terms like stain, stress, force, field, work, energy, etc.) is a shibboleth for people educated in scientific fields. Correct v's incorrect usage is one of the best/fastest ways to see if someone actually knows what they're talking about. Understanding units and measurement is so important that students of science/engineering typically do a lectures devoted specifically to this. Dimensional analysis is a very cheap/fast check that your calculations/equations are not "not even wrong"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong .

-- continued below --

-- continued --

"... a kid that didn't complete a single year of high school!" - yep this claim I can easily believe, it is blatantly obvious from your posts. In fact I reckon just about anybody that does have half a clue about STEM subjects would come to the conclusion that you've never studied high school science/math subjects formally.

By-the-way: I've never said that a degree will necessarily increase your IQ. A person's potential IQ is set at at conception- some people are born smarter than others due to genetics. However for a person to reach the maximum of their IQ potential they require raising with mental stimulus and in a healthy environment (eg: where a healthy environment is good food, low toxins, low stress, proper sleep, etc). But having a high IQ doesn't mean that you're knowledgeable in STEM fields. However, obtaining a STEM degree is an exceptionally accurate indicator that you've a higher than average IQ (especially if it's a pure maths degree).

thinkabit,
Actually mandatory registration for engineers is quite a new thing. IIRC only Victoria requires it at the moment, though Queensland will soon.

____________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
> I see nothing wrong with KWPH
It's a rather messy way of putting it (it would be much neater to write kW/h) but the unit itself is a perfectly reasonable way to measure the increase in power production (or indeed the increase in demand). Personally I'd prefer to use the SI unit (W/s) but theres nothing actually wrong witnessing other units.

However I hope you agree that there's everything wrong with conflating KWPH with kWh.

BTW superconductivity in graphene only occurs in certain very hard to achieve circumstances.

Sorry, just noticed I've just noticed my typo/autocorrect error:
"witnessing" should be "with using".

_______________________________________________________________________

mhaze,
Where d you get the idea that "cheap and reliable means no renewables"?
SA's power supply is far more reliable than it was when the state had no renewables - indeed since we got the first big battery it's been the most reliable in the nation. And the ACT, with contracts for renewables to supply all its electricity, has the cheapest electricity in the nation.

Aidan

According to some info presented by ttbn, wind and solar provided less than 2% of Australia's power the other day. Less than 2%! On what basis do you claim it to be cheap and reliable? Europe is not having an easy time trying to go carbon free with wind and solar.

Nuclear power can provide low carbon energy for a third the cost of wind and solar, as France is demonstrating, yet it is off the table. If humanity faces a catastrophe then why should any potential solution be off the table?

"Australia's new ALP Government has gigantic green energy plans to be funded by electricity consumers and taxpayers."

How does the author know? Is she a mind-reader or does she guess it just because some politicians said so?