Alchemist, at this point I'm starting to suspect you're just making it up as you go along. Some of your terminology makes no sense. What is a KWA, for example? Or did you mean KVA?

As far as I can tell, Biodiesel has a energy content of about 30MJ per litre. Your claimed alternator set up, even if your are quoting peak currents and voltages (rather than RMS, which is more usual), is still producing about that amount of power, which implies that it is 100% thermally efficient. This is highly improbable.

Your later claim that some gear "produces twice as much power as it uses" is either just grossly mistaken, or you are lying.

The figure of 18c per litre for making biodiesel must be excluding any effort you personally make. What's your feedstock? Would it scale?

Are connected to the grid at all? Is so, why?

You seem to despise any sort of financial analysis, but the vast majority of Australians just want to pay as little as possible for power. You're not offering that, so they won't be interested.

Sylvia.

Well done Sylvia, now at least I know that people know the subject. So all you observations are correct. I am connected to the grid, because I can't yet produce the energy for my workshop for the same value as I get from the grid. The problem is a very difficult one indeed and there may not be any economical way of changing our direction in energy production. That may place us in a situation that will stunt our growth and yet may spur rapid advancement in technology, as is the case during war periods. It is sad that the only way we can forget the bottom line is when we are trying to kill each other. We may have to look at that rational as well, before we can go forward in a different direction. I wonder why it is, that we always seem to have to be brought kicking and screaming to confront the reality before us, before we undertake what is a natural process, change.

Is this debate aimed at finding alternatives to nuclear power? Unless a bright person jams the copulation urge, next time there is a blackout we are doomed to reconsider nuclear energy as both governments and infrastructure are obliged keep pace with demand.

Before we get fired up on any technology, let’s find the technicians. We had the SECV and other corporations or commissions that both generated and maintained standards in their heyday. They seldom borrowed expertise and much wisdom was available for governments from within. Most managers grew up in the job. What’s left today?

After working for decades in a variety of hazardous industries through our post war boom I can guess that our once great workforce is well and truly rationalized. I met two chaps in my fair city this year that were drifting. One had experience in building marine pipelines after working in The North Sea, the Middle East and Bass Strait. The other designed and built water treatment plants. Are we witnessing the end of an era?

They could retrain for the nuclear industry as there is plenty of time. I reckon they both moved on. I am sitting in the favored swivel chair of one. As independent contractors we at times worked for major international groups like Bechtel Pacific. My jobs once involved automation around reactors in the petro chemical refineries, sometimes after spills and fires. It too was a risky business then.

Have we improved or is human progress truly self eliminating? A former supervisor survived a similar job in our first uranium mine. We often discussed why we moved on and what we left behind.

Somebody has a lot of work to do before we can build and run a decent sized nuclear reactor. But in anticipation, perhaps folk here will find appropriate software for our chronic hysteresis and the odd hiccup in our new generator.