'runner,
I notice a few days ago you've uncritically quoted ttbn saying:
...'all in the name of playing God and deluding themselves that humans have supremacy over nature. '
This surprises me. Don't you think humans have supremacy over nature (as it says in Genesis 1:28)?'

really Aiden. And where may I find my quote or are you justy making it up again. And as for 'supremacy over nature' you would need to define what you mean. Humans certainly seem to have very very little influence if any over the weather if that's what you mean.

ALTRAV,
Tell me how you think history proves me wrong, and I'll tell you the false assumptions you're relying on!

While it is true that the more of something we have, the more that can go wrong, it's also true that the consequences of it going wrong are far less. Resilience depends as much on redundancy as it does on reliability.

Also, the solar and wind power is much simper mechanically than the fossil fuel power. With less that can go wrong, it's unlikely the failure rate per generation unit will be so low.

>Aidan, say what you mean, batteries, dispatchable?
I do say what I mean, whereas it appears you aren't the technical person you think you are – you don't understand the technical terms so try and conflate them with other related concepts. The problem with solar PV and wind power is that they're not dispatchable. That means we do not control when they generate power. That does not make them unreliable (even if you shout it) but it does mean that to provide a reliable power supply you need backup (or, to use the technical term, firming). But as the CSIRO report shows, even including the cost of firming with batteries, solar still works out cheaper than coal.

You see ALTRAV, you are an ideologue not a pragmatist. You take subjective views and stands (such as loathing the idea of renewables on visual pollution grounds) while effectively ignoring far more serious objective problems (such as the air pollution from coal power).

If you took a truly objective stance, you'd know that (in Australia at least) renewables are the way to go.

____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
You whinge about unreliable power, yet (in our state at least) reliability is increasing.
And the last thing that wreaked havoc on our grid was tornadoes in 2016.
High prices are a problem, but greater use of renewables will alleviate, not exacerbate, that problem.

runner,
>really Aiden. And where may I find my quote
This thread, Saturday, 9 February 2019 6:36:30 PM.
You were quoting what ttbn had written at 4:56:17 PM that day.

>or are you justy making it up again.
Again? What do you think I made up before?

>And as for 'supremacy over nature' you would need to define what you mean.
>Humans certainly seem to have very very little influence if any over the weather if that's what you mean.
It is the climate, not the weather, that humans have significant influence over. But you often seem to take the view that because we can't control the weather, we have no influence over the climate. You seem blind to evidence from observations or science, instead taking only a literalist biblical view. So I'm just wondering why you're not being consistent with that view?

'>or are you justy making it up again.
Again? What do you think I made up before?' so you did make it up Aidan. Its hard to believe people who make things up.

'It is the climate, not the weather, that humans have significant influence over. But you often seem to take the view that because we can't control the weather, we have no influence over the climate. '

no Aidan just not stupid enough to deny the tremendous improvements in life that reliable cheap electricity has done for this nation for over 100 years and the total lack of evidence of any effect on weather or climate. Also you don't need to many brains to see that the predictions from the scaremongers over the last 40 years (using pseudo science) has failed miserably.

'The literalist biblical view' as you call it says '(Gen 8:22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

This view is far more observable and sensible than your mad green marxist religion. IN short you are clueless.
'

Aidan, you deny the many outages and failures, 'on record' or even reported and photographed and exposed by media reports.
The old systems, like coal, had problems, but very few.
I don't subscribe to some new idea simply because it's a new idea.
If it does not perform the same or better than what it replaces, it is, by definition, a failure.
Now with the old system we never used stupid words like 'dispatchable', because there was no need to worry about reliability or continuity of supply.
The reason wind is a useless resource, apart from the obvious, is that they are a mechanical nightmare.
By comparison to any turbine whether, water, gas or coal, that have basically one central 'moving' part.
A friend told me years ago, if you're going to have a business, say a hire business, make sure you only hire things with NO moving parts, otherwise you will risk going broke.
He wasn't joking, the only renewables that fit that bill are solar, and the ratios of cost per return per reliability is like all renewables, way too expensive compared to the old tried and true.
So Aidan, give me a strong, reliable, continuous, cheap means of power, and I will welcome it with open arms.
But try to stick me with weak solar, wind, unreliable, expensive attempts of still underdeveloped mediums, and I will not accept them, under any circumstances.
You can predicate and promote renewables till the cows come home, because even the cows know, their duty cycles and reliability, have a long way to go, so when we can get all the factors such as we have with the 'old' systems, give me a call, until then, you keep waiting for those pigs to fly over.

ALTRAV,
I don't deny the many outages and failures, but I recognise that, in my state at least, they're less frequent and shorter than they used to be, and most of them are the result of transformer problems in the distribution system, not insufficient power being generated.

>Now with the old system we never used stupid words like 'dispatchable', because
>there was no need to worry about reliability or continuity of supply.
FALSE. There was as much need to worry about reliability or continuity of supply as there is today. And there's nothing stupid about words like 'dispatchable" - they have distinct specific meanings. Although of course when everything was dispatchable there was no need to use that word.

>The reason wind is a useless resource, apart from the obvious, is that they are a mechanical nightmare.
They're quite simple mechanically - where did you get the idea they're a nightmare?

>By comparison to any turbine whether, water, gas or coal, that have basically one central 'moving' part.
But there's a lot more to a coal fired power station than just the turbines!

You're living in the past; you've failed to notice how different the economics now are.