Thx ttbn, does the same apply to all OLO?

Hi Max, pls acknowledge 70 hrs is BS and the PHES is largely charged from the grid. Walpole is not proof of concept of Blakers, but demonstrates that some diesel fuel can be saved when Govt commits to it with great expenditure of public money to prove its green credentials. It makes me puke that you simply abandon this convo to recommence your BS elsewhere. Unquestioningly smug hubris without respect for anyone who disagrees. I don't demand you read anything but provide support for what I say. What a tiresome troll you are.

Luciferase,

I think people participate here for all sorts of reasons. I am grateful that they take the time to share their thoughts, but what they share and when is very much up to them. The important question to ask yourself is "What did I gain from the discussion?".

Of interest to me was your link to the Quadrant article criticising Blakers. From that I also became aware of the huge subsidies being given to renewable energy in Australia. Also of interest to me was the concept of dispatchable power and the paucity of information on the internet of what dispatchable renewable power might cost.

The idea of nuclear power being low cost over a long service life was supported by the information I found. Wind and solar I found to be worse than I had believed. Closed loop pumped hydro looks interesting, but I suspect that it might not match the portrayal in the glossy brochures.

Although I disagree with Max, I think him a good sport for taking the time on OLO to argue his beliefs. His participation has helped me clarify my opinion of renewable energy.

Hi Luciferase,
It wasn't just the population, but the power divided by the average Walpole demand. Something isn't adding up - and I've been holding off until I can contact the company and ask them to clarify whether the ABC reported incorrectly. Unfortunately I've had a shocking few days. I won't go into details but a colleague asked me to look at something, and they've basically been stuffing up a month's work and it impacts on the CEO's department. I'm just waiting for the hammer to fall - all this right before Christmas!

If the ABC have reported this wrong, I will of course retract my claim that this is a per-capita model for the rest of Australia. Not that a 4 hour battery isn't useful for load shedding etc, it really is! But that it isn't what I claimed - the Blakers 2 days backup.

As to those geniuses going on about the subsidies: Fossil fuel particulates poison us and cost Australia $6 billion a year in extra health costs that our struggling health departments could really do without!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-27/climate-policies-ignoring-billions-in-health-savings-experts-say/9836894

Then on top of that injury we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to big coal and oil for the privilege of poisoning us?
http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

So with health & subsidies, that’s like $18 BILLION in extra costs per year. But just the $11.6 billion subsidy could instead do each of these bullet points each year over the next 4 years. Some of them could then be rinsed and repeated for a better Australia!

* Free rooftop solar for 1.5 million low-income households

* 15 Kidston Pumped Hydro projects, which cost $777 million. This would provide 22 gigawatt hours of reliable energy – that’s the equivalent of powering all of South Australia for 8 hours.

* The $11.6 billion could fund a whopping 72,500 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for Australians. In Australia, there are 1,653 charging sites. In comparison, Norway has almost 17,000 chargers that support 480,000 electric vehicles. That’s one charger for every 50 kilometres. Australia would need just over 17,500 to cover its roughly 877,000 kilometres of roads every 50km. But with 72,500 chargers, that would mean one charger for every 12km of road in the country.

* For $11.6 billion, we could fully fund around 15,500 buses, which could replace all of the diesel buses in Sydney (around 8000), Melbourne (4000), and Brisbane (1200) with many more to spare.

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/five-better-bets-what-11-billion-of-australians-money-wasted-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-could-buy-us/

Talk about semantics!
When you guys are down to measlely petty little word games, it shows how out of material you really are and how defensive. If I'm a multi billion dollar corporation, earning tens of billions - do you think I care if the government GIVES ME AN UNFAIR CASH payment injection, or an UNFAIR TAX CUT that the average Aussie doesn't get? Don't be so obtuse!

One is a DIRECT subsidy and one an INDIRECT subsidy.
But they are both subsidised!

"Is a tax cut a subsidy?
A subsidy is a direct or indirect payment to individuals or firms, usually in the form of a cash payment from the government or a targeted tax cut."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

You alt-right types are just pissed that the Labor government actually puts money into CLEAN energy and GOOD infrastructure.

This will save us from the $6 billion health burden fossil fuels spew on us.

Once that is cleaned up, and the transmission and storage is built, the renewables will start to pay for themselves! (To say nothing about the fact that most of our trading partners "GET" this climate thing you're all ignorant to, and will soon only want to by green products and green steel etc.)

So stop bitching about renewable subsidies and start appreciating that your kids and grandkids will be that much less likely to get cancer.
Also, the cost curves are coming down on renewables, and even the rooftop solar subsidies are reducing over time and being phased out for new buyers a few years hence.

As I keep saying, you'll love us when we win.