Opinion,

Leave the rabbits out of it, no comparison, we can't eat Chinese.

Hi Mr Opinion,
you and I aren't energy engineers, right? So let's be a little humble in how we approach the energy discussion. My understanding is that while those giant Tesla packs down in Adelaide don't have a hope of making renewables baseload, they are great at load balancing. That's a totally different market for the grid, and if they're helping and prevent some shorter blackouts for some smaller areas for a short period of time, then that's fine. What they won't be doing is backing up the whole of Adelaide for even half an hour! They'd struggle to run one suburb overnight. They're just not that powerful. I don't have the math on me right now, but a summary paper is by

Dr Ken Caldeira says storage would have to become 100 times cheaper to enable wind and solar to go 100%! He believes renewables could form a good majority of the grid... I think he said up near 80% with all sorts of clever measures. But my question to that is why bother if those clever measures cost to much?
https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/03/hail-mary-to-save-the-climate.html

If we just plug Gen3+ and Gen4 nukes into today's dumb grid, we can save all that money on trying to make it 'smart' for the sake of unreliables. That's what Dr James Hansen would do anyway.

Dear Max Green,

Why are you explaining this to me? I haven't commented on the SA Tesla plant.

TO BELLY
(Sorry Mr Opinion, I had a rough night and early morning, with bad visual cross-referencing on my part there! Apologies, I meant to address it to Belly. I'll try again!)

BELLY, you and I aren't energy engineers, right? So let's be a little humble in how we approach the energy discussion. My understanding is that while those giant Tesla packs down in Adelaide don't have a hope of making renewables baseload, they are great at load balancing. That's a totally different market for the grid, and if they're helping and prevent some shorter blackouts for some smaller areas for a short period of time, then that's fine. What they won't be doing is backing up the whole of Adelaide for even half an hour! They'd struggle to run one suburb overnight. They're just not that powerful. I don't have the math on me right now, but a summary paper is by

Dr Ken Caldeira says storage would have to become 100 times cheaper to enable wind and solar to go 100%! He believes renewables could form a good majority of the grid... I think he said up near 80% with all sorts of clever measures. But my question to that is why bother if those clever measures cost to much?
https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/03/hail-mary-to-save-the-climate.html

If we just plug Gen3+ and Gen4 nukes into today's dumb grid, we can save all that money on trying to make it 'smart' for the sake of unreliables. That's what Dr James Hansen would do anyway.

If the Government mandates safe clearing around all buildings in bush/forest areas and clears the roads of scrub etc., then when a bushfire starts it can be left to burn itself out until it reaches the Government maintained adequate firebreaks.

We can do little about climate change but we can do something about the management of the countryside.

"Forgive me if I ask for a source? [on warming pre-1940]"

Check any database with long records back to 1850 eg HadCrut, GISS, BEST (I think). Preferably one without the recent 'homogenisation' but even most of them. Half of the 1c warming occurred pre-1940.

______________________________________________________
"You mean the 1960's 1970's pause "

No I mean the mid-1990s to early 2010s pause.

______________________________________________________
"Now you're being daft," [for asking what the IPCC is 95% sure of]
They have myriad 95% confidence intervals. I'd guess literally 100s. Which one do you refer to?

______________________________________________________

"and already tempting me to give up on this forum again. "

Oh no...please don't go.Whatever would we do without you. At least leave your bat and ball.

______________________________________________________
"I much prefer a good debate over on The Conversation where.. They eventually ban climate deniers."

Yes Conversations where you ban dissenting views are always preferable to a certain mindset. To my chagrin I've never been banned at the Conversation but have had quite a few posts moderated out of existence. I have been banned from 'Watching the Deniers' (for pointing out that an article from the blog owners directly contradicted an article 2 months earlier). I also have 4 different user names banned from Hotwhopper.

/cont