Hi Aidan,
Thanks for the info on high power switching technologies. I haven't encountered that in my studies as yet. I've only done one 3rd level power eng course and my main knowledge of transistors, mosfets etc is around signal processing. I was fascinated to go and read up on IGBTs though. It makes a lot of sense to combine a mosfet switching a BJT in a single package. I'd hate to be the one working out how to do the doping of the semi-conductors though.

On the subject of phase relations, I was simply spouting deliberate but superficially plausible sounding rubbish, hoping to illustrate the general point that very little of what is discussed here, despite the huge numbers of links provided, is based on any genuine understanding, especially when the topic becomes remotely technical. The phase difference between line-line and line-neutral being 30 deg meant that anybody superficially skimming a web site would see the number and that would lend credence to the story.

I thought that my rather transparent avoidance of Bazz's question would have prompted further questions. I'm quite sorry for doing that to Bazz, I thought he would have picked up on it. Hopefully he'll forgive me.

In general I try not to troll. If I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to say so and if I have an opinion, I try very hard to explain it so it's crystal clear. If it's speculative, I try to ensure I say so.

The problem here is that there are some who go out of their way to confuse otherwise readily understood topics.

One of my interests is game theory and behavioural science, which are intimately related. A major lesson of GT is that cooperation is the only way to create a positive sum outcome. Some of the rhetorical tactics and strategies I use are derived from GT.

Aidan,

I assure you that my comments about near capacity of one Victorian power plant are fact. Your trouble is that you only look for information that suits your one-sided views.

If you knew what I meant about the outhouse rat expression, and assumed (correctly) that it applied to Jay Wetherill, it seems that your demand for explanation was merely vexatious. I could ask you want you meant by "before the supply DROOPY",but I knew what you meant.

By all means remain sceptical, even if you do use American spelling. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You will never accept that the outage occurred before the pylons collapsed, because it doesn't fit in with your your personal bias. No skin off my nose, mate.

I was very happy to hear that the government intends to make the Labor states realise that decisions on RET should be made for the entire nation, and not by tinpot state premiers vying for the title of Biggest Idiot.

Craig,

Your complete failure to even find one fault in my posts shows up your mendacity. You don't check any facts, let alone mine, and then to claim that facts are irrelevant is the highest order of BS.

I have been stating the same position on the expansion of renewables since I started on this site in 2007, and the reason that it becomes political is because labor and the greens continually hop on the media to BS the public that there no risk when patently there is, as the blackout in SA so eloquently demonstrated.

I am perfectly happy to debate the fundamental principles, but I fear that you won't grasp them.

I support the reduction in greenhouse gases and have done so for years, however, without a viable renewable base load in Aus the only real alternative is nuclear power. The perfect implementation would be to replace Hazelwood with a nuclear power station of equal or greater magnitude.

SM, maintaining a position in the face of changing evidence may be regarded as a desirable trait in political circles, but it doesn't make a strong argument.

The argument around greenhouse reduction is a red herring. It was once a significant extra motivator for change, but these days the economic argument makes it redundant.

I don't hold a particular view in either direction vis a vis nuclear power. It may be a useful intermediate technology, but TBH I can't see any real need to retire coal as backup while renewables are rolled out, given sufficient will to do so rapidly. The use of nuclear power will simply muddy the waters here in Australia. We already have a mature coal and gas industry and as renewables enter the market the demand for them will naturally decline. Within a couple of decades the amount of coal being used will be so small as to be negligible.

In some other parts of the world nuclear undoubtedly makes sense.

Instead of fighting technological progress for short-term political advantage, we should be embracing it as tightly as possible.

Craig
Please excuse me going of topic , but I thought you might be interested to know SM was on a thread regarding TPP and its effect on the Australian economy till four days ago. He left that thread rather suddenly claiming to have a degree in economics, and also to work for a company that had a brand new factory.

So I think you have every reason to question his/her qualification/expertise.

Chris

Craig,

I have yet to see any evidence change, and neither have you pointed out any. In fact your posts are devoid of facts and are entirely political.

Secondly, I don't believe you were lying to prove that no one understood the technology, rather that you displayed your ignorance. That you eschew nuclear for a 100% renewable power mix demonstrates clearly that you lack the mental horsepower to grasp the concepts behind the risks of renewables.

Until a reliable renewable baseload is found, 100% renewable energy will be just a pipe dream.