100% Renewable
There is much talk of this objective and indeed it will in the
long term be very necessary.
If Labour wins the election there will probably be a variety of
irreversible commitments made to implement 100% renewable electricity
generation.

So far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no
study to determine how many wind and solar farms will be needed and
where they must be located. Before even determining how many wind
generators and solar panels will be needed we need to determine where
they should be located.

What needs to be done to achieve this task is a major study of
wind systems over all of Australia. Then it will be necessary to
establish where the best locations are for solar farms taking into
account the differences imposed by time of year.

Once that data is obtained then it would be possible to test
virtual wind farms in all locations taking into account yearly
variations. While Bureau of Meteorology data would be a good starting
point only real data from weather stations installed for one or two
years would be valid.

This could be modeled in realtime and after a virtual network
of windfarms and solar farms was tested that gave a 100% availability
of electricity then the number of wind generators in each farm could be
established and also the number of panels in each solar farm could be determined.

To undertake the project this way would show that weather
stations in all the locations would be a lot cheaper than installing
the farms in the wrong locations anyway.

I am surprised that the importance of such knowledge to take advantage
of the size of Australia is not already underway. Countries such as
France had to turn to nuclear as France is too small for a 100 % renewable.
Once the information is available then the capacity of the required
grid can be calculated.

It all seems to be fundamental knowledge needed before spending money.

If manufacturing is to be maintained, there can never be 100% renewable energy; it simply isn't reliable enough. Yesterday, I read that manufacturers in Germany, which has been big on expensive and unreliable wind and solar, are moving their operations to the U.S where they are not as stupid as Germany has been.

There will never be 100% renewable energy, and whatever Labour comes up with CAN be overturned. Base load supply of coal, gas or nuclear will always be required

Bazz,
I think a few such studies have been done, but there are limits as to what central planning can do. Most of the time it's better to just let the market decide (as it already is) because it has the ability to react rapidly to changing technology and changing needs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Renewables are no longer expensive; fossil fuels are.
Despite Germany's power being expensive, it is actually very reliable.
Wind and solar power are actually very reliable. What they aren't is dispatchable (but nor is the base load supply you stupidly claim we need).
Haven't you noticed Australia's investing in batteries and pumped storage to overcome this problem?

Bazz with true honest respect and I do respect you, this thread your view ANY WORLD GOVERNMENT will actively seek 100 percent renewables is fantasy
For the present time, and some time in to the future coal will have its [reduced ]part to play
Even if we let the truth about Nuclear power be heard, and used it, it could not, for decades be the only power source

Belly,
>your view ANY WORLD GOVERNMENT will actively seek 100 percent renewables is fantasy
Isn't Iceland a counterexample?

I think what we need to do secure the nations energy future goes beyond what our leaders are capable of achieving and we leave such a big and important task to the 'government of the day', little will be achieved.
We need a bigger better plan.

Firstly though, I want to explore a smaller plan.
Lets say I was to make a $5000 investment in a new energy business.
I'll fix the problem myself, starting with second hand panels and inverters.

Lets say my plan was to take all the old panels and inverters in the country when people upgrade their solar systems and put them to 'end of life' use - that is generate as much power out of that panel until it's output is so low it needs to be recycled.

$5000, from what I understand you can get second hand panels that still produce 90 - 95% power for around $40 each.
So 100 panels would cost about $4000
100 panels at 250w panel is a 25Kw system, and you'll need inverters, say 5 x 5kw inverters at $200 each.

Don't believe that's what they're worth, look.
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/tewantin/caravan-campervan-accessories/solar-panel-inverter-for-5-kw/1202967985
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/tingalpa/other-home-garden/21-190w-solar-panels-5kw-inverter/1200587135
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/drewvale/other-home-garden/solar-panels-and-inverter/1201270634

If you get 10hrs sun a day, that's 250kwh worth of daily output.
Lets say we sell that power at 25c a Kwh, that's $62.50 day
- Enough to cover the costs of another panel / inverter; every day.
So in 10 days you dont have 100 panels anymore, you have 110 making 275kwh daily or + $68.75 day.

After a few weeks; 2 new second-hand panels a day.

What do you think the compounding effect is after a year?
Don't you think the government could start some initiative to get all these panels back?
- Tax deduction, paid per watt.
Don't you think we could find a way to make these systems portable and secure, taking them where they are needed and where infrastructure allows?
Don't you think we could put people on work for the dole doing something useful?

I think it's all incompetence; either we haven't tried hard enough, or haven't tried at all.

You are right on that one Belly, but for the wrong reason. The elites wanting world government have no interest in supplying the masses with electricity.

They obviously feel we have it far too good with cars, & houses with electricity, central heating & air conditioning. They want us back in windowless mud huts, with no windows, & our only transport our feet.

They are scared to death of us having the opportunity to do a Paris, & force them to give us what we want. With no power, communication or transport we couldn't frighten them.

The whole global warming hoax is the vehicle they are trying to use to that end.

“Renewables are no longer expensive; fossil fuels are”.

So why don't they stop subsidising renewables?

“Wind and solar power are actually very reliable”.

That's simply untrue. No wind: no power No sun: no power.

“What they aren't is dispatchable”.

Can't dispatch it: it's not available, let alone reliable.

“Haven't you noticed Australia's investing in batteries and pumped storage to overcome this problem?”

Yes. I have. We still haven't seen whether they will do the job or not. I understand the SA batteries will provide electricity for 8 minutes.

Aidan is ideologue and dogmatist. He also yabbers about 'sovereign debt’ and printing money! Not someone to be taken seriously. Rather than call other people's posts stupid, he needs to look in the mirror to know what real stupidity is.

Quote "Wind and solar power are actually very reliable." That statement is misleading, when taken broadly it is false.

It needs to be more geo specific in certain locations it may be so but in others it is not.

Solar power in Antarctica not very reliable, wind turbines in the middle of Australia probably not so good.

ttbn,
>So why don't they stop subsidising renewables?
As (I hope) you know by now, I have long been a critic of the system of subsidies. However they do have one extremely important effect: by ensuring more renewable generation infrastructure gets built, they drive down wholesale electricity prices. This effect now exceeds the cost of the subsidies. The more renewable electricity infrastructure gets built, the more it drives down prices, so if we're going to get anywhere near 100% renewables, some sort of economic incentive for more infrastructure will have to be provided.

>That's simply untrue. No wind: no power No sun: no power.
And we can rely on them to produce power when the wind's blowing and the sun's shining. Whereas old power stations are increasingly unreliable.

>Yes. I have. We still haven't seen whether they will do the job or not.
Yes we have. Pumped hydro has been working in Australia for decades, and the Hornsdale battery is already performing much better than expected.

>I understand the SA batteries will provide electricity for 8 minutes.
Then you completely misunderstand. It was never ever intended to be the state's sole power source.

>Aidan is ideologue and dogmatist.
No more than you are. But there are two big differences between our approaches: firstly, instead of instinctively dismissing big tasks as impossible, I look at how they could be done. Secondly, I'm willing to change my position if the evidence doesn't support it.

>He also yabbers about 'sovereign debt’ and printing money!
We often discuss economics on this board, and in those threads it is sensible to mention that Australia has almost none of the most hazardous kind of debt (sovereign debt) and the widespread belief that printing money is sufficient to cause hyperinflation is just a myth. Do you really think I should stay silent while others advocate harmful economic policies based on false assumptions?

>Not someone to be taken seriously.
Because my views contradict your biases?

My reason for today's post was an article I read by a US engineering
group who has done something like I suggest.
I reason that the way it is going now companies are installing
windfarms and solar where they THINK they will get good yearly output.
However that is not the objective. The objective is to have a network
of generators that can supplement each other as the wind varies in
different geographical areas. The solar farms need to be spread out
east to west to lengthen the days output and cloud records permitting
they should be a little north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

The way they are being installed now we will have either a feast or a famine.
The US study decided that to take advantage of the size of the US &
get the best wind output they would need 15,000 wind and solar farms.
While the load is greater in the US other parameters are about the
same except Australia is closer to the equator,
So while not taking into account that wind patterns may be different
in the US it is a reasonable assumption that we will need 15,000
wind & solar farms and a grid capable of servicing all parts of
the country. The cost of such a grid may exceed the cost of the
wind & solar farms.
However we will never know if we continue on this suck it & see course.

Hasbeen there is a force wanting and working toward one world
But silly conspiracy's stop most from believing it
Aiden yes got it wrong
But if it was possible to go 100 percent right now? an over night collapse of the economy as fossil fuel owners went bankrupt.
In any case it is not
do not under estimate battery storage
A group of like minded ham radio operators, my self included, are proving it works
Armchair critic, our first battery's came from remote telecom sites, after being replaced, some are still good ten years after we got them [second hand then]
Storms have seen power outages all around, I switch on my inverted and have power for TV lights and a bit more from six 80 am hour battery's
plus my roof top eight panels feeding back in to the grid

ttbn said;If manufacturing is to be maintained, there can never be 100% renewable energy
---
Exactly, which is why I suggest the study, if it cannot be afforded
then we have no alternative than nuclear in the longer term.

Aiden said; I think a few such studies have been done
---
I cannot find anything like what I have suggested and I maintain, in my
ignorance, that we need to know the cost of building, if it is indeed
possible at all. We are going full steam ahead without having a clue.

Belly said;
For the present time, and some time in to the future coal will have
its [reduced ]part to play
---
True but the ERoEI of both coal & oil is falling and will never rise again.

Armchair said; I'll fix the problem myself, starting with second hand
panels and inverters.
---
That is your problem fixed. Where are the technical people to fix everybody elses ?

ttbn said; Batteries. Very expensive, good for smoothing output of
solar farms and assisting stability but that is all.
---
Aiden said; Whereas old power stations are increasingly unreliable.
---
Only because they have not spent the money on maintenance. Power
stations are made of hundreds of different components each of which
can be given the three Rs, repair, refurbish or replace.
Friends that have worked in power stations all their lives tell me
that given the will they can run for hundreds of years.

The costs involved are so massive that if we make the wrong decision
we may never recover in our grandchildrens' lifetime.

Can you imagine that ANY politician has considered this problem
in a really engineering way ?

I do not care what you say, since renewables, power prices have increased year on year. We are in a position where we have allowed a few companies to gouge us daily backed by the green idiots thinking they are leading us into Nirvana and politicians swallowing the global warming nonsense. Just wait until we start getting brown outs the idiots of the MSM will turn on all the green and political idiots and they will have you all for breakfast. Personally I think this will hasten our meeting with the next depression and I bet you lot will blame me?

ttbn (continued)
>Rather than call other people's posts stupid, he needs to look in the mirror to know what real stupidity is.
Do I look stupid? I think the answer to that would be entirely subjective. Whereas investing in baseload power (consuming fuel all the time yet producing no more at peak times than when demand is at a minimum) is OBJECTIVELY stupid.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Belly,
>Aiden yes got it wrong
How so?
____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
I'm referring to studies such as http://energy.anu.edu.au/files/renewable%20electricity%20in%20Australia.pdf
I'm not endorsing that study - already it's becoming clear that its assumptions are too conservative. But it is one attempt to look at what's needed to reach 100% renewable cost effectively.

But right now there are so many known unknowns that such studies are highly speculative. We simply don't know how the cost effectiveness of more transmission lines will compare to that of more storage, nor what will happen to demand. But it is very unlikely a long connection "a little north of the tropic of Capricorn" would be cost effective, as population density is low in that part of Australia and there's not all that much heavy industry.

And certainly, spending money refurbishing old power stations to make them reliable and able to run for centuries is technically possible. But it's far from cost effective.

J Bower, I think you do not understand that most here are very
skeptical about the possibility of 100% renewable.
I personally think that such a system would be totally unaffordable.
However the politicians and the greens are going to try and probably
send us totally broke trying.

That is why I would like to see someone like CSIRO undertake to model
the whole system. I suspect they would find out well before they
completed it that it will not work because we cannot afford to build it.
Best to know that before the poiticians & greens try.

Aiden, yes to build new might be cheaper but it would be a lot quicker
and at present that is critical.
Re North of Capricorn that was to get better output and have a 2 hour
longer day. In the 100% grid it will be near the solar farms anyway as
the solar farms would be in a line across Australia.
Still that detail would be ideal to model as it might be more
effective to have them all in the desert.
I have been looking for the US article I mentioned but is hiding
somewhere on my hard drive.

Bazz, the CSRIO are part of the green problem. Totally infiltrated like BOM and they telling dumb pollies we have to go renewable. The end game will be when we get the depression we have to have, then public service and political pensions go front and centre. Not only reduced but with a continuing reducing factored in. Do to them what they have done to us and lets see how happy they are.
I think it will all come to a head very soon!

//Can you imagine that ANY politician has considered this problem
in a really engineering way ?//

I have my doubts... as far as I know there are no engineers in the Parliament, and precious few people with any sort of scientific or technical education.

But as I understand it, they take advice from engineers. Or at least, they're supposed to. In theory, that's how it should work.

But the Westminster system of democracy seems to have been somewhat corrupted to the point where politicians feel that democracy means that if you get elected, that is the best and only qualification one requires to formulate policy on areas where one has zero expertise.

And it seems there's sod all the average voter can do about it except vote for scientists and engineers... good luck finding one in your electorate.

Bazz,
Building new renewable power infrastructure is cheaper than refurbishing fossil fuel power stations even when taking the cost of batteries into account. And it's almost as fast - have you any idea how much more solar power there is on the grid now than a year ago?

There is no insurmountable obstacle to 10% renewables - not technical nor economic. However it must be done in an affordable way. Your "line across Australia north of Capricorn" is a non starter because it's just too expensive. Maybe someday wen Australia has a much higher inland population, it can be considered. Meanwhile it's much better value to generate the electricity near where it's consumed.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't build new transmission lines, nor that solar farms shouldn't take advantage of it if we do. But the case for new transmission lines should be based on supply and demand patterns and price differences of the site connected – not the enabling of new solar farms. Those can go almost anywhere; there's no shortage of sites with suitable grid connections.

Just noticed my silly typo. Of course I meant "There is no insurmountable obstacle to 100% renewables..."

The major obstacle being common sense which Labor and the greens can bypass in a canter.

IF we are brave and honest, even if we insist on believing there is no such thing as man made climate change
Room exists to see why future power will be renewable energy
Too why some fight it so very very hard
The loss, financial, of fossil fuel owners will be massive, if it takes place over night or in a few decades
That is the very reason war against clean energy exists
IF we found/released a brand new replacement for petroleum products
Consider the fate of a million service stations closing down, and every single thing that supply's them
Now you should know the task ahead selling the idea renewable s is, as it is, our future has been

Belly, that old chestnut of the petrol or coal companies buying new technology to close it down? Really?
The problem is renewables just don't work economically. If they did we would go over to them in a flash. If you want to argue this please explain why prices have gone up, up and up! Oh yes Jeff Kennett, greedy companies? Try clueless green orientated politicians.
Here is the challenge. Electricity prices mandated to fall by five per cent a year for the next ten years. Let's then see what happens it could not be any worse.

JBower please do not put words in my mouth find a single word I used to say petrol owners are buying renewable,s
And it is your opinion but not mine that renewable,s do not work
At some future time they will be the only source of power
We no longer use whale oil in out lamps
So it will be in our future unless a brand new and better alternative is found
Even coal will not last forever
And yes some suppression of clean/better energy has already taken place
Along with a blind refusal to see renewable,s are the future

Aiden, that article that you linked, I have started reading it.
They seem to be on the right track but probably will have to go further.
The current put it where it will make a quid attitude will end up with
lots in the best places with nothing where needed when the wind stops
in the most desirable places.

That way lies bankruptcy.

I have no idea why the government isn't working out how much windmills and solar panels we need to go 100% renewable.

I also have no idea why the government isn't working out how many fairies there are at the bottom of our collective gardens.

A difference of opinion
We will always have them, and some one will always be more right than the other side
A need some display,rudeness to highlight their opinion is both right and the only sane one, can be quite wrong
Personal abuse will not strengthen your view or weaken others
Ignore at your peril this subject is very far from one sided
Opinions differ but our future will see things we never dreamed of come in this area

Apologies Belly I was referring to you saying thousands of petrol stations closing down. Of course I cannot say how many whale oil sellers there were closed down? I agree with what you say but solar and wind and in fact all the current renewables are like the airship, bound to fail.
I cannot believe how stupid are the scientists who have not pointed this basic flaw out. I am certainly with you in that some new power source will be found but hard to see the current crop of numpties being able to see this wood for the trees.
Check out practical Asia, they are building coal, coal and more coal and there is a clue. In my opinion.

Yes Mhaze, just as important is where to put them !

I believe there is no need for my input as everyone has done an exemplary job of debating their particular bent or views on the topic.
I have said already in another thread, that if this CC thing is as serious as we are coerced into believing, I would have thought we would have seen 'real' working examples of renewables, installed way back decades ago.
So I have always wondered why we keep spending all this money on R&D, grants, and so on, with absolutely NO results.
Remember that wind and solar go back to the turn of the century and beyond, so what's the problem?
I have questioned the whole CC con, by asking why are we (humanity) being charged for the existence of CO2?
Because as I see it, I do not back away from accepting humanity played a part in CC, BUT, nowhere near the amount we have been charged as the sole cause of ALL the CO2.
The other thing worth mentioning is, that if a new technology cannot match or preferably, beat the old, then it is un-acceptable.
So it is with price, duty cycle,maintenance, reliability and so on, I think you all get the pic.
Having followed this from the beginning, I can safely say, these current renewables are 'unfit for purpose' and must not be entertained.
You've all heard why they won't work, well you can believe the stories or reports, God there are enough of em'.

ALTRAV,
Welcome to the thread. I'm glad you've shared your concerns, as there's quite a lot you need to be made aware of.

Doesn't Snowy count as a real example of renewables installed decades ago?

But if you only mean wind and solar, the problem is that decades ago, and indeed throughout the 20th century, they were hopelessly uneconomic. They were sometimes suitable for remote locations, but nowhere near competitive enough to power the grid. Indeed some of the early solar panels took more energy to make than they ever generated.

But technology has moved on. All that research spending has had ENORMOUS results (even if you've never noticed them). Solar power is now cheaper than coal power. Renewables are now responsible for over 20% of Australia's electricity generation, and that figure is rapidly rising. You may have heard why they won't work, but if you open your eyes, you'll see you were lied to; they're working already!

As for the effect of humanity, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by about a third of its preindustrial level. The amount that was added by the burning of fossil fuels was substantially more than that, but some of it was absorbed by forests, oceans etc. So the idea that humans aren't responsible ranks somewhere between fanciful and absurd.

Aiden, simple challenge. Why if renewable solar and wind are cheaper than coal has my bill increased four fold?
The fact is we are being gouged by merciless power suppliers who welcome this nonsense, AGL for example as well.
This will be noted in centuries to come as was Tulipomania and the South Sea Bubble as just a complete fraud. Of course this never comes out in the MSM as they are the biggest problem.
Find out about the South Sea Bubble, it was a fraud perpetrated by well connected individuals (Lead by the King of England) that ruined everyone. I await the CC end game.

Two important things come up in this discussion
Privatization of power supply, those who now own it bought it to make a profit
Too climate change like it or not is linked
Some feel the need to reject one because they see links to the other
This morning, the NSW Liberal government, facing an election next year
Has claimed it Federal brothers are out of touch
True or not it is the opposition to both climate change and renewable energy that stalls change
And privatization drives the high cost of power
Aiden has in his last post just about rapped up the true current state of renewable s,battery storage is going to be the future.

"CO2 has risen by about a third of its preindustrial level".

And, well before that, before there was large-scale industry, the CO2 level was much higher than it is now. But the likes of Aidan are totally ignorant of history, and the Middle Ages warming period. They are too ignorant to argue with. Dud science has blinded them to what is known to have happened. They believe in 'models' and the wild guesses produced by those models. They are useful idiots for the shysters taking billions of dollars out of the system that could be used for adapting to the natural phenomena of climate change. Shameful people who will never be made to pay for their stupidity when the lies run out and they are proven to be irrefutably wrong. They are just like the flat-earthers and witch-burners, also part of the history they ignore or have never studied.

For a long time I have been agnostic on climate change, mainly because
I thought it was irrelevant anyway as the falling ERoEI of coal and oil
ensured that later it will not be economic to exploit them.
However I heard Prof Ian Plimer make a point on TV recently about CO2.
He said that in the atmosphere in every 85,000 co2 molecules just one
has been produced by human activity !
His point was do you think 1 in 85000 would have any noticeable effect ?

That seems to be a very reasonable argument although perhaps some will
argue on its accuracy. I guess that it is possible to calculate the
amount of co2 produced knowing the amount of coal & oil burnt.
Then knowing the volume of the atmosphere it would be possible to
calculate the daily input and then subtract plant absorption.
If he out by two times that would be 2 in 85,000 !
Must be several PHDs in that.

In the longer term nuclear and/or fusion has to be the answer.

Bazz, in reading your post I am reminded of a question I raised some years ago.
In talking about calculations and stats, I wondered whether it was possible to calculate the actual, (or near enough) fossil fuel burnt over the past or as far back as is possible on record.
We record 'everything' these days, so therefore it is possible that there exists records of how much coal, petrol, and gas has been consumed in the past, in Australia alone, to a reasonable accuracy.
Because all I have heard so far is that we (humans) are a bunch of selfish pricks for destroying the environment and our future generations.
So as I have said previously, I don't deny that pollution exists, it's just that I reject the charge that we (humans) are responsible for all of it.

Aidan if you want to include hydro in your renewable, you had better give us an idea of where you are going to find both the water & the topography for it to be collected & run down hill.

Then you are going to have to give an assurance that your fellow ratbag greenies won't demand this water won't be used for environmental flows, as so much of the Snowy water now is.

Even Tasmania ran out of water, when trying to make a buck selling "GREEN" power to Victoria.

post after post want to remind us we have always used coal
But ignore that while we did start to use it much more at the start of the industrial revolution, we numbered about half of what we do today
As our population increases so too our out put of climate damaging gas
Too as more and more of the world warns us we see more without basic proof deny climate change is man made

Altrav, The charge is that the co2 is increasing.
An increase from 350 to 450 parts per million
Is the increase much larger than humans can generate ?
Satellite observations I have read state that the earth is greening
because of the increased co2 in the atmosphere.
If both those observations are correct then we are in fine fettle !

Put together with the sunspot count I think we need some scientist with
a clear mind not preprogrammed by by the Global Warming fanatics.
The real problem is to get the politicians to be skeptical and take
steps to get real answers. The IPCCC has been so compromised that we
need to start from scratch. Anything to do with the UN is a worry.

JBowyer,
>simple challenge. Why if renewable solar and wind are cheaper than coal has my bill increased four fold?
Several reasons:
• The price of fossil fuels has risen substantially. Gas prices have risen more than four fold.
• Much more is being spent on poles and wires, and the regulators have let the infrastructure companies make huge profits at consumers' expense.
• The wholesale electricity market is not always efficient, and at peak times it's often more lucrative to keep prices high even when a lower price would still be profitable.
ª Retail price margins have risen.
• Wind and solar power were not always as cheap as they are now.

__________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,

>And, well before that, before there was large-scale industry, the CO2 level was much higher than it is now.
FALSE - see http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

It may surprise you to learn that ignorance is the opposite of what you seem to think it is. Ignorance means ignoring the facts, as you're doing. It does NOT mean disputing your predetermined conclusions and conspiracy theories.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Plimer is being deliberately misleading (and quite possibly plain wrong). His point, I think, is that there's considerable churn of CO2 - huge amounts get absorbed by plants, but ultimately get reemited into the atmosphere - either by the plants themselves or by animals, bacteria, fungi, bushfires etc. And when it does, the CO2 molecules emitted are not the same molecules that were created by human activity.
And it's not just plants - CO2 is going into and coming out of water and even rocks!

I think his "1 in 85000" figure is very unlikely to be right, considering how rapidly humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But assuming for the sake of argument that he's technically correct, it's irrelevant. Where nature absorbs CO2 molecules and emits the same number, it doesn't change atmospheric CO2 concentration. What counts is the net effect. Thus the true figure is not 1 in 85000 but over 1 in 4. And it's rapidly heading for 1 in 3.

Dear Bazz,

The following link may be of interest -
especially the chapter about Australia.
Interesting stuff.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

“The foundation for most public relations businesses is to spin truth into lies and lies into truth with the understanding that it doesn’t matter what’s true, it only matters what people believe is true.” [Captain Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace]

Works well for climate propaganda, too. Aidan et al chose to believe what suited them at the beginning of the human-cause climate change myth, and they are too thick or too pigheaded to listen to alternatives. As said before, it's a waste of time reading their speils more than once. They have not changed their minds each time one of they beliefs has been proven wrong by the climate itself, and they never will.

Within the next few years only very few will deny the science
The question then will be how do the deniers explain the anti science stuff they cling to

With so few sunspots, in the next few years Belly, you are going to be so cold, you'll know it was all a fraud.

Iceland naturally produces thermal energy 24/7 for electricity production. Using it as a posterboy for 100% renewables is disingenuous, of course, but that's greenies for ya. Tiresome to have to keep pointing out the subterfuge so I haven't been lately. Back to my knitting.

Hasbeen sun spots have a cycle eleven years from low to high activity but, it can be longer
You picked a theme we hams know a lot about
One future day a researcher looking far back at us, maybe reading your views on climate change will have a hard time not breaking out laughing

"Within the next few years only very few will deny the science
The question then will be how do the deniers explain the anti science stuff they cling to
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 19 December 2018 2:22:27 PM”.

At the ever present risk of “insulting” Belly, what about the situation NOW, not in “Within the next few years”, where the science and lies from the IPPC have already been disproved? These lies have been told for the past 30 years: no more rain; the dams will never fill again; only so much time to put things right, but these 'deadlines’ have expired, and the lies never happened.

The former head of the UN’s climate body, Christina Figueres, saying that the purpose of the Paris climate agreement is to transform the world economy away from capitalism to some sort of centralised socialism, can the board be certain that it is not following an ideological agenda rather than something that is based on pure and unsullied science? What about that?

So Belly, you hams should have been having a very good time, with the low numbers of sunspots in this last cycle.

You tell me you know all about sunspots, or is that only about what they do to radio signals. You've heard all about the Maunder minimum, the little ice age, & ice fares on the frozen Thames river, when sun spots got so low. It looks like that's where they are going again.

You might just have to put those day lilies in a greenhouse. How did they come back this year, by the way? Mine have come back very nicely this year, pity my hibiscus aren't the same. So many frosts, so late in the season delayed their pruning so much they have hardly flowered this year.

Hasbeen,
"if you want to include hydro in your renewable, you had better give us an idea of where you are going to find both the water & the topography for it to be collected & run down hill."
The document I linked to on Monday gives some indication of topographical suitability. Regarding the water, many will get it from rivers. Some will get it from the sea. Rainfall may be sufficient for some, particularly in northern Australia.

?Then you are going to have to give an assurance that your fellow ratbag greenies won't demand this water won't be used for environmental flows,"
I don't control what demands they make, however it's likely future pumped hydro schemes will be off river, and because they'll use the same water over and over, their total consumption (lost to evaporation and seepage) will be low.

"... as so much of the Snowy water now is."
Too much of the Snowy's flow was diverted into the Murray, but now at last the need for environmental flows has been recognised. Has this had much effect on power generation.

"Even Tasmania ran out of water, when trying to make a buck selling "GREEN" power to Victoria."
As the carbon tax's abolition loomed, Tasmania sold more power than they other would have because they knew doing so would be more lucrative. But they overestimated the rainfall they'd get, and were left a bit short.

But the important thing about Tasmanian hydro is there's scope for changing the way it's used. Currently it generates power twenty four seven. But with more renewables (and more cable capacity across Bass Strait) more generation capacity can be added to produce more power when it's needed most, without having to increase the storage capacity. I think that's what they're calling Tassie 2.0.

Hope you're right about sunspots signalling a major cooling phase, as it will give us more time to deal with the problem. But the likelihood of it causing temperatures to fall is low, and the idea that if they did it would show GW to be a fraud is fanciful.

Bazz,
BTW forget EROEI - it's far less significant than you think. What counts is money returned on money invested, and that doesn't depend on EROEI being above an arbitrary factor.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Belly, I used to wonder that. But thanks to this board, I now have an answer. However much the planet warms, they will (like Leo Lane) insist there has been no warming since 1998. They will continue to make the most outlandish claims and when confronted with the truth they will (like ttbn) continue to accuse their opponents of gullibility and pigheadness...

They won't be able to fool the general public any more, but thanks to rightwing echo chambers they'll still be able to keep each other fooled.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
I was the one who mentioned Iceland in this thread, and I resent your disengenous accusation of disingenuity. When someone makes a sweeping statement, it is entirely appropriate to point out a counterexample.

Why can't someone mix a heap of different ideas together and create something good and cheap that works...

Tesla Turbine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYy3-BZ7n1Y&ytbChannel=null
Solar Powered Stirling Engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfSTsPVSMyQ&ytbChannel=null

Turbulent 15kW low-head Hydropower Turbine
http://youtu.be/XiefORPamLU
Convert Washing Machine Into Water Powered Generator
http://youtu.be/0ieFZI4-6K8
World’s Smallest Hydropower Plant
http://youtu.be/iNuZaaJZd3w

This mornings SMH [will someone please tell me again how to post a link here] NSW liberal Government is interesting
It declares war on the federal governments policy on energy
While you are there may as well read the headline story about climate change
Both remain linked forever
Look ok I am ALP to the bone, but you have seen me go full on against it at times
Some seem to think I mine for anti coalition themes
MINE? you do not need to look they of late are like sea weed on the beach after a storm
I look forward to some one from that side telling us how they can rebuild

Hasbeen ttbn a lack of understanding is no defense if you claim understanding you do not have
Know a bit more about sun spots Hasbeen, the eleven year cycle can be 2o but only those clutching for straws would think it is about to get colder
Lets face it your belief that man made damage is not being done,is far more likely than a cold earth bought about by some thing you read in a comic book
recommend you read SMH story NSW Liberal government vs Feds?

Belly,
When you have the page whose link you want to copy, hold the left
mouse button down and highlight the url by sliding the cursor along it
then right click on it, then in the dropdown menu select copy.
When you want to paste it into the text of your post place the cursor
where you want the link to be right click then in the dropdown menu
left click on paste.
With long urls it is easier to use TinyURL from tinyurl.com and
install it in your task bar.

All that is what I do but from memory I think Windows is the same.

73 Bazz

Hasbeen said; you hams should have been having a very good time, with
the low numbers of sunspots in this last cycle.

Errr the reverse Hasbeen, radio conditions are better with higher
sunspot counts. Above 10 Mhz you have to wait on it opening these
days. Up to five years ago I used to run a Radio Mail data system
between Sydney and Caterham south of London every day. Much harder
these days with very low sunspot counts. Impossible with restricted
stealth antennas these days since moving house.

Aiden said;
BTW forget EROEI - it's far less significant than you think.
What counts is money returned on money invested, and that doesn't
depend on EROEI being above an arbitrary factor.

Surely as the needed energy input to extract the resource rises the
cost rises in lock step.
The finance is just another way of saying the same thing.
BTW, an eroei of 7 is such that very large input increases give very
small output increases. Think what that does to the finances.
That is why 7 is an arbitrary give it away point

>Surely as the needed energy input to extract the resource rises the cost rises in lock step.
No, Bazz, it doesn't. Labour costs and machinery costs are not proportional to energy costs.

>The finance is just another way of saying the same thing.
Not only is it different in inputs, it's very different in returns. What's commercially viable depends on prices.

>BTW, an eroei of 7 is such that very large input increases give very small output increases.
You could say the same about 8 or 6 or 5 or 10 – it's a smooth curve and there's absolutely nothing special about the value of 7.

Australia’s backbone industries were built on cheap reliable power. We have huge overheads in the bureaucracy, academia and the welfare state which must be supported by real industry - mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing, transport and manufacturing. These industries rely on hydro-carbon energy – coal, gas, oil, diesel and petrol.

Australia has no nuclear or geothermal power, limited hydro potential, an ageing fleet of coal generators and several bans on gas exploration/ We are very vulnerable to the UN’s war on hydro-carbons, and should be getting out of Paris now.

I see you know nothing about sunspots effect on our weather Belly.

Go do a bit of reading before you make any more silly statements mate.

Hasbeen I could write pages about its effects [thanks Bazz still not working]
Truth is Hasbeen you look at a modern shift in sunspot activity, then propose it is the reason for just what?
Truth will not bend to your bias
Read that story in today,s news

Hey Belly nowhere as outlandish as some of the things I have heard
blamed on global warming !

Aiden said; You could say the same about 8 or 6 or 5 or 10 – it's a
smooth curve a

Exactly and the finance starts being significant around 10.
From about there the curve is near vertical.
7 is arbitrary of course. It is just someone used as a give up point.

Bazz in the end surely it is clear one side is wrong
Totally, in this matter there are no half measures
And right now as been stated here, all sides of politics to some degree think it is true

The constant lying about the ability of human beings to combat natural climate change with wacky solar panels and windmills has presented another problem which could turn out to be similar to Kevin Rudd's lethal Pink Batts fiasco – and could have had already if it were not for checks.

Audits have revealed that 21%-26% of “small scale rooftop installations since 2011have been found to have faulty wiring and unsecured panels”. Thirty five LICENSED installers have been warned that they face suspension.

Science writer, Joanne Nova suggests that this new “artificial bubble” is the fault of government mismanagement and “DELUSIONAL CLIMATE-CHANGING” schemes.

Rubbish but not unexpected
Solar panels work and the battery they need to completely get the job done are if not here well on the way
Last night that Sydney storm system made its way here, quite a way north
Blackouts knocked us off the grid
My secondary system keep my fans and TV on long after the sun had set
And would have for about ten more hours had I needed them to

Belly,

Your rant has nothing to do with the subject of my post. If you know someone who can read properly, get them to explain it to you.

As I said yesterday, I am retiring from pointing out what an idiot you are; you are doing a better job of that yourself.

Best not
If I told you what I think of you I would be banned for life
The constant school boy tactics you use if they are not currently against the rules of this forum they should be
Try once more to ignore you but leave you with this question
Are you in fact a school kid

please take your pathetic advertising to a site that says pay for it

DeDywka, if you are trying to spruik for work, I must stop you now and advise you that in this country you do not go around flaunting rules so as to gain a commercial advantage over another.
I must caution you to cease and desist from doing this agian, because what will happen is because you have violated a forum rule and for profit, you will be broadcast in a bad light and seen as an opportunist, which is deplored here in Australia.
You may think you are the first person to have come up with this idea.
You are not.
So as a matter of advise for the sake of your business and well being do not use a forum to advertise or promote goods or services again, it is in direct contravention and violation of the rules and proto-col.
Australia is not the type of country YOU might think it is is.
Simply because some of your people have migrated here, does not suddenly make this country the same as the one you came from.
Unfortunately this is a different country with different rules from the one you came from.
Please do not bring your bad habits and beliefs with you, we do not want any more contamination of our systems and lifestyles to that of another.
You are here because you reject where you came from and all that is, where you came from, then complete your transition and start a new life here in Australia, DO NOT bring your old country and it's bad habits and practices here.

Hold on! I want to hear more from DeDywka at last this discussion is going somewhere.

Subsidies for solar panels are adding $45 per annum to everybody's power bill in NSW. Via taxes, 8 million households are also paying for the solar panels of the 4 million households that can afford them.

ttbn this reminds me of the EU agricultural subsidies. They caused milk lakes, butter mountains and many unintended consequences World wide.
Politicians are concentrated on quick fixes and quick bucks for themselves. I think we will approach the day soon when the public will appreciate the costs, waste and theft of so much of our money on this scam but whether anyone will be bought to account is unlikely.
My (Our?) only hope is that the LNP get half a dozen acceptances to build big coal fired power stations and drop the supply price to where it was.
How much sympathy for AGL, Alinta or Engie? None from me.

A time is coming when a decision on whether to spend an enormous amount
of money on 100% wind and solar or grasp the nettle and go nuclear will have to be made.
At present that decision is being made on panic emotions and not on
real data of cost.
No one has any idea how many wind & solar farms and where to locate
them and how to connect them all to the one grid.
I gave an example of one US study that suggested that they need 15,000.
If our wind systems are anyway similar we would need a similar number.
Maybe a few less or a few more, who knows. Just less turbines on each.
If such a study has been done here they are keeping very quiet about it.

"Australian manufacturing is doing great - but not in Australia", as Australian businesses pay 2 to 3 times the US price of energy. (Michael Baume, Spectator Australia, January 2019).

Bazz Nuclear is the answer
not the threat
one simple power station would reduce our carbon out put to well under any target
If you and I could see one hundred years in to the future we would see a far different source of all power

You are absolutely right Belly! I do not think anyone can argue but in the meantime we have to have that electrical power.
I wonder if any one of us will guess the right course but sure as eggs our political mates will pick absolutely the wrong one. Of course at our expense.
The current biggest problem is the horrendous cost blow out and the fact that the providers are working to increase these horrendous costs! If the LNP offered cheaper power they would get back into government but I do not think they have the smarts for that.

JBowyer, the scum sold off nearly all essential services to themselves and their mates. I don't remember being asked if they could do this.
I do however remember they tried to sell the power generators some time ago.
The arrogant pigs responded with, 'it's not profitable enough, raise the profit level and we'll think about again'.
So for the next few years they kept BSing us that our power prices were too low and had to go up, and hey presto, the profits went up, they had another look at it,THEY told the govt THEIR terms of reference and have held us to ransom ever since.
Be very clear about the Australian govt, it knows that the Australian public is pretty much made up of a bunch of disinterested, lazy, mis-informed, un-informed schleps and dreamers.
Remember what I have been doing as of late, and that's to vote for the independents, the ones that are not affiliated to the majors, but will debate the issues on a stand alone basis, and not bloody party line.
So they have been running amok with our money and we can't/won't do anything about it.
We vote them in on pre-determined campaign promises, then when they win office they go berserk with things we did not agree to.
Remember, I have been voting for the inedpendents for some time as they debate each issue and not just follow the idiots along bloody party lines.

Sorry; about the rewrite of the last paragraph, writing too quickly and did not edit.

Well ALTRAV my memory is of the Cain/Kirner government going into banking speculation and losing us our collective shirts.
The power companies have certainly run riot without any interference from the mostly Labour governments who worship at the green altar.
I am certainly with you on voting for independant members but my difficulty is so many are wolves in sheeps clothing. I confess I would still vote LNP if they plan to build about half a dozen plants producing cheap electricity but it seems unlikely.
Perhaps we need a very disparate sort of parliament although I dream of a commission set up to retrieve ill gotten gains. Like political and public service pensions, outrageous expenses and lets pull back public service salaries to a reasonable level.
No panel of ex PS or pollie, get someone like you or me on it and let us see how they fare?

J Bower, I think they will press on with Wind & Solar until some point
where the enormous cost of something like 15,000 wind and solar farms
installed and a grid to link them all to all the country sinks in.

Then it will be one group having twigged what they have let themselves
in for makes a sudden change of direction and goes for nuclear.
There will be a political war unlike anything we have ever seen.
We will not be able to get out of that war inside three year terms.
The construction time is many many three year terms.
One side in an attempt to get the country irrevocably committed to
wind and solar will bankrupt the country and collapse the economy.

There is absolutely no way that wind and solar as a total system can
be the cheapest energy source. All that talk is just the single
turbine and and solar farms them selves.
Batteries will be promoted but their cost would be very high if used
in an attempt to reduce the number of w/s farms.
The multiplication and grid costs drive them well above coal and or nuclear.

Apart from the question of reliability of renewables, they are not and will cost big time to keep them afloat.
Allan keeps championing thorium salt reactors.
From what little I know about them they sound like the answer.
Trouble is, it is so cheap to set up and run, the pollies can't see a decent cut or way to skim money from the bottom of the deck and into their back pockets.
Personally, I do not see these current options as 'real' contenders for the job.
I do not like wind farms nor solar farms.
The wind farms are the worst.
From my experience, the current technology is too mechanical, with too many moving parts, and I've learned that the more moving parts the more vulnerable and the more breakdowns and downtime the higher the maintenance the lower the reliability.
With the net result of a failed duty cycle and reliability of service,ie; blackouts.
And most importantly, it will not be cheaper than coal or nuclear.
All this BS could have been avoided if we put pressure on the pro-renewables movement to prove beyond any doubt that renewables were cheaper and more reliable.
They can't because it isn't and they can't again because it isn't, so I ask why are we making such a big deal about nothing.
Why?
Because some people are making a lot of money from it, that's why.
I have never believed or seen the evidence that will give rise to all these catastrophes we will be experiencing.
The ones we have seen are the Earths way.

The climate and anti-carbon dioxide hysterics still regale us with television images of clouds of ‘ emissions’, both black and white, spewing out of factory chimneys. We need to remind ourselves that this is STEAM not CO2, which is colourless.

The cost of a complete system, wind farms, solar farms,
grid substations towers and megavolt transmission equipment everywhere
will not be cheaper than coal or nuclear.
They lie when they imply wind & solar are cheaper.
Regarding maintenance that US study looked at maintence costs.
Bit of a shocker was that, taking into account solar panel guarantees
it would need about 100,000 solar panels would need replacing every day !
Of course that is for solar farms much bigger than we would need.
However the implication of such maintenance levels spread over such
geographically diverse areas would generate massive labour costs.

All that is why the government should instruct CSIRO to model the
whole the whole project with weather stations installed everywhere
that the wind looks promising.

If it finally shuts up the renewable lobby it would be worth it.
If it proves to be a goer, so much for the better.

Bazz I think you will find the CSRIO are hopelessly compromised with the Global Warming Climate Change nonsense. They are cheer leaders for it and we can rely on them to falsify the whole shebang because they get more money. There is never any risk in telling lies when you are a public servant.
Evidence, the UK chief scientist who opined that UK has to go to diesel cars because less pollution. Peer review? Probably charged for it and trousered the funds for himself! When the car companies admitted they had falsified figures and it was a huge mistake Chief Scientist claims he just copied and pasted what they said and it was "Their" fault. Kept his pension and his knighthood, the filthy fraud!

JBowyer,
The CSIRO told the truth on climate change, and it resulted in a large cut to their funding because it wasn't what denialists like Abbott wanted to hear!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
When the running cost is taken into account, wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and nuclear, however much you claim otherwise. What you don't seem to understand is that much of the transmission infrastructure already exists, and most of the upgrades to the grid would need to be made anyway regardless of the source of the power.

Only up to a point Aiden.
A 100% system will require wind & solar farms spread all over the
country and the grid taken to areas where it has never existed.
I saw some figures on transmission loss that I found hard to believe
but if so it could rule out any such grid. The article did not say if
such losses applied to mega volt systems.
It might mean that line voltages about 5 million volt might be needed.

Aidan we can agree to differ on the CSRIO and time prove one of us right or half right.
No word from you on the Chief UK scientist? Lying, cheating fraudster?

JBowyer,
Your claim about the money was baseless, and the facts showed the exact opposite. Time has already proven you wrong, so suggesting we agree to differ is intellectually dishonest.

As for the UK's chief scientist, obviously he made a bad call. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the only one to do so, as the chief scientists's opinion doesn't automatically become government policy!

But that's not evidence of corruption. Nobody stood to gain much from it – the car companies would have sold their products regardless.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

5MV systems would, with current technology, create more problems than they solve, as leakage to ground would be a lot higher. Transmission losses are generally not a problem despite the wild claims that some people make about them.

You seem to be under the impression that we need to put solar and wind farms far from the grid then spend a lot of money extending the grid to them. But in reality that wasn't the case in the past and it won't be the case in the future. There are plenty of available sites near where the grid already is, and plenty more where it's being extended for other reasons.

Aiden I am not letting you get away with that. The Chief Scientist was guilty of fraud and has "Got away" with it. A clear indication of the basic dishonesty in our institutions with all the kick backs, subsidies and jobs for their mates.
One quick reminder here! The price of electricity continues to go up and up! The real world is building coal plants because they do not need the empty posturing we so love in Australia but do need economic electricity. We also have the most expensive and erratic electricity which will be exposed when we drop more coal power stations. Then the brown stuff will hit the oscillating blades, big time!
Renewables, ha! Success has many fathers but failiure always dies an orphan.
Wilson Tuckey offered up a scheme (Provided by Alsthom) where power would be generated by tides in NT and the electricity sent by DC (Little loss over big distances) to the Southern States. They thought loss of power was significant and I think Alsthom would know.

Blind Fredrick can see the recent governments actions have in fact stalled price rises
Ignore it if you insist but prices are going down
Bills have always been high until end users make up their minds to do some thing about the way they use power
A house near me has even more solar panels than me
But it lights up the house indeed the whole block, all night
They no doubt blame the price of power for their waste of it
My bill has fallen but so has my use, do not go without just use my solar panel,s in the day for high use things

No Belly prices are not reducing. I took the fifty Victorian Dollars and they told me to change plans, I did. My bill has increased by another $25 a month, big saving eh?
I am not wasteful, as one of eight children we were schooled in turning off lights, putting on a jumper and not wasting food.
So you say we use less electricity so they can charge us more for what we get? Then when they start running out of electricity I will pay big rich companies to not use electricity? That will end in huge subsidies going to companies harvesting those subsidies, check out Ireland on that.
Belly you are now providing your own electricity, well done but wait until something goes wrong. The current crop of politicians, thieving electric companies and the Green idiots will let you reap what they have sown.
I am happy to let you pay but fiercely resent the extra costs for a substandard supply which will fail. Just wait and do not say you were not warned.

Aiden;
There is no point in just placing wind farms where the grid happens to be located.
The grid is where the coal fired stations needed it.
What is need is the grid where the wind farms would need to be.
That is where they can take advantage of different wind systems
patterns that arise both yearly and daily.
Australia might well be big enough to enable a 100% reliable system
but it will need the grid where the wind farms are located.
Re losses on the grid, can't remember where I saw the figures but for
the longest distance quoted it got up to 40%.
As I said the article did not mention any transmission voltages.
Five million volts is manageable, just needs longer insulators and
higher towers to get capacitive currents down.

Whoops, capacitive currents does not apply in DC systems but of course
there is a capacity between line and ground that has to be charged and discharged.

JBowyer,

Regarding the UK's chief scientist,you shouldn't declare someone guilty without evidence. Your supposition seems quite illogical (as the car companies didn't benefit that much) and you appear to be ignorant of Hanlon's Razor.

You are mistakenly blaming renewables for our high power prices, but there are much bigger factors involved including profiteering, the price of gas, and the way electricity users are (over)charged for the poles and wires. Going with more coal wouldn't make electricity cheaper; it would make electricity more expensive.

________________________________________

JBowyet and Bazz,
Regarding transmission losses, you may be interested in http://www.ee.co.za/article/losses-costs-associated-hvdc-uhvdc-transmission-lines.html

________________________________________

Bazz,
Of course wind farms need to be connected to the grid. But nobody's going to extend the grid hundreds (let alone thousands) of km just to connect a wind farm! Proximity to existing transmission lines is a major site selection criterion, and that's as it should be. Sure you could gain a technical advantage by locating a windfarm in a more remote location, but you could gain a bigger technical advantage at lower cost by using batteries.

Aiden the Chief Scientist actually admitted he had got diesel completely wrong and it should all be reversed and diesel made more expensive. This is after millions bought diesel cars. He admitted that he trusted the car company figures!
You have a real difficulty with the truth here. He lied, he never engaged "Peer review" which is mostly meaningless, with these frauds anyway. He never even attempted to find out what was what and now people who paid for his overblown salary and pension have to pay again.
Then the slimy toad accepts a knighthood as well and keeps it.
My point is these scientists are liars, thieves and cannot be trusted. This is a clear indication of how we are being conned by the whatever you call it this week? Global warming, climate change all total nonsense!

JBowyer,
> the Chief Scientist actually admitted he had got diesel completely wrong and it should all be reversed
>and diesel made more expensive.
>This is after millions bought diesel cars. He admitted that he trusted the car company figures!
Yes. He didn't do his job properly. On this we are agreed.

>You have a real difficulty with the truth here.
A very Trump-like statement! You have made false accusations which I called you out on.

>He lied,
Dubious: though he didn't tell the truth, it was not because he intended to deceive, but because he himself had been deceived. As you said, he admitted that he trusted the car company figures!

>he never engaged "Peer review" which is mostly meaningless, with these frauds anyway.
Peer review is far from meaningless: it's an important part of the process of publishing scientific papers. However AFAIK publishing scientific papers wasn't what he was doing so it's not applicable. With the benefit of hindsight, of course, we can say there should have been some sort of scrutiny process for what he was doing; I don't know if they've since applied one.

Aiden you are apologising for a disgusting excuse for an overpaid, overblown fraudster who should lose his knighthood, his pension and be jailed. Sorry I should not get so irate but this thief is now responsible for everyone who bought a diesel car losing money whilst he rakes it in.
You are making a very semantic point where dishonest, lazy thieves like him are given some sort of defence when there is none.
He told the government to encourage diesel car ownership to allay this global warming nonsense. Now he is throwing the people who trusted him under the proverbial bus. This sloppy and dishonest action is normal for research nowadays and "Peer review" means what it says. If it had been peer reviewed this would have been seen to be wrong. There is no science and no honesty and I await the admission of this in the future.
Both you and I will pay for this but you obviously are happy to have your pocket picked.

Aiden said; But nobody's going to extend the grid hundreds (let alone
thousands) of km just to connect a wind farm!

If you do not have the grid where the wind farms can get the wind when
needed then the system will fail.

>but you could gain a bigger technical advantage at lower cost by using batteries.

That would require a very intense modelling to see if the batteries
could be afforded. It would certainly make a hole in the cheapness
of actually running wind & solar. Batteries will never be cheap
especially when those batteries might have to supply say NSW and Victoria
for say 20 hours.
Neither of us can actually determine that without modelling the whole
system as a live virtual network, but my guess is the size of the
batteries would have to be repeatably increased in gwhr until it
became obvious we just could not afford the electricity it produced.

JBowyer,
I am merely telling you my understanding of the situation, as you requested on Tuesday at 1717.

The guy made a big mistake. And it did have policy consequences that adversely affected a lot of people. But you have no evidence at all of him engaging in criminal activity, yet you say he should be in jail. You falsely accuse him of being guilty of fraud, even though you acknowledge he admitted his mistake rather than trying to cover it up.

And when I pointed out your intellectual dishonesty, you hypocritically accused me of having a real difficulty with the truth. And that makes you worse than him!

Maybe he should lose his knighthood, but that's a matter for the palace not the police.

BTW your attitude to peer review is also illogical. You seem to be pointing out the problem of a lack of peer review while trying to tar peer reviewed science with the same brush!

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
It should go without saying that another of the criteria to determine wind farm location is how windy the site is.

Batteries are profitable under current economic conditions, and are likely to get a lot cheaper as science enables us to make them out of cheaper elements. But for large scale storage, hydro is still better. And for storage on a longer timescale, fuel synthesis is likely to be a better strategy.

Aiden you think you are so clever with your deliberate obfuscating and just being argumentative. I will respond no further to your stupidity but mark you down as a dolt and an apologist for the theiving public servants infesting our public service. Like rats on a sinking ship.
Same with with your answers to Bazz you really get off on trying to appear so smart but I just think you are a typical puff piece.