Cambridge Professor Michael Kelly
It is estimated that current battery manufacturing capabilities will need to be in the order of 500-700 times bigger than now to support an all-electric global transport system. The materials needed just to allow the UK to transition to all electric transport involve amounts of materials equal to 200% the annual global production of cobalt, 75% of lithium carbonate, 100% of neodymium and 50% of copper. Scaling by a factor of 50 for the world transport, and you see what is now a showstopper. The materials demands just for batteries are beyond known reserves. Would one be prepared to dredge the ocean floor at very large scale for some of the material?

Stop press. Germany the mother of alternate power opened it's new coal fired power station on the 6Th of June, the first of 10 planned. This amid doubts they can long term depend on French nuclear power to keep the lights on during mild nights. The facts of life are becoming apparent even to the likes of Chancellor Merkel.

I think there will be many, many ways to reduce/offset greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.

Batteries, through improving, will be just one, albeit important.

I can see even more pollution coming our way !
Don't like it ? Stop breeding !

Batteries are just another bit of RE fantasising.

Chris batteries can only store previously generated electricity.

Apart from the fact that as detailed we do not have anything like enough cobalt or lithium to power even the UKs transport needs by battery power, the power to charge batteries & supply domestic & industrial requirements simply can not be generated by the current alternate generation systems of wind & solar.

The whole thing is a pipe dream, or a wet dream by those who hate the high living standards of the average western citizen.

Hasbeen,

Yes, I agree that batteries providing the majority of electricity is a pipe dream at moment.

Also, one would also be very wrong to purchase a battery for home at moment; way too expensive when you do maths.

However, I do feel that battery technology will improve over time, and can play some role

Chris no matter how much batteries improve, wind & solar technology are never going to be able to supply even a small amount of our current electricity usage, let alone charge batteries, & power our transport needs as well. Both have nothing like the energy density to do the job.

I'm sure other technologies will be developed, & we will transition away from hydrocarbons eventually, but it is not going to be in our lifetimes. How long has fusion been just a decade away? Those trying to stop hydrocarbon & nuclear usage today are either too lacking in technological knowledge to know what they are doing, or have an ulterior motive for their actions. If they do manage to stop hydrocarbon usage, it will not be an improvement, but will put us back into the dark ages.

Dear Hassie,

Australia has a couple of options regarding its energy
future.

1) We can continue to have energy price increases and
still be reliant on fossil fuels for our electricity
generation. While many of our trading partners will
switch to their own, often lower emission, energy
sources, thereby collapsing the market for our energy
exports.

Or we can - in our

2) households and industry embrace a diverse mix
of new - often cleaner energy technologies.

The challenge for Australia is to choose the future we
want and try to work out the best way to get there.

With our scientific organisations like CSIRO - hopefully
we can unlock the value from our country's unmatched
energy resources in ways that are responsible and
environmentally sustainable, as well as building a cost
compatible, lower emission domestic energy sector.

There are fundamental problems in the way of battery improvement.
One scientific group did a study of the elements table matching all
elements against all elements and concluded that the best are already known.
The problem with batteries as backup is how many overcast still days
do you have to have to cope with ?
Germany has learnt that their country is too small for wind and solar.
Global warming is a last century worry. Best to read up the latest science.
We will have to grasp the nuclear nettle.
Our pollies will some time soon be faced with the reality that even
for a country the size of Australia the cost of 100% x 100% electricity
from wind and solar is beyond us, if not actually impossible.

Not wishing to pick on Foxy but read her last post and you can see
where the general population does not see the magnitude of the project.

As much as I am keen on electric cars I think we might well be
heading for a time when personal cars will not be possible.
Most here will not see it but our children will see it coming and
our grandchildren definately will. Perhaps nuclear powered cars ?

*Yawn*
Weren't people saying similar things about wind turbines a decade ago?

Electric vehicle technology differs among manufacturers, and some don't use any cobalt at all. And did you notice the quoted the figure was for lithium carbonate rather than all lithium? Can you see how that inflates the stats?

It's no secret that electric vehicles will require an increase in the amount of mining of what they're manufactured from. That doesn't make them impractical, let alone unachievable. What it actually means is that there's a great future for our mining industry despite coal's looming demise.

Although Germany did belatedly open a coal fired power station recently, coal's share of electricity production there is declining, and this year they made the decision to phase it out by 2038 at the latest. So even if this one was once planned to be the first of ten, I, and many others, expect it to be the last.

Foxy,

Energy costs have been pushed up by the vast subsidies needed to fund expensive and unreliable renewable power supplies, and China and other countries are building dozens of coal fired power stations and taking over the manufacturing of countries relying on renewables.

SM, quite right.
I don't know the current stats on all this renewable fallacy, but the last time I looked, countries like China and India, to name the two larger populated countries, were flat out building both nuclear AND coal fired power stations.
This being the case, it follows on from the fact that the push away from fossil fuels and massively promoting renewables, has been found to be a fabrication, an over-reach, by certain people for monetary gain.
Now that the TRUTH about GW is beginning to filter through and get traction, many who were naively led to believe the fallacy that WE, humankind have been responsible for GW, are now seeing that it in fact is not the case.
What little CO2 we produce has been described as insignificant when taking the full picture and stats into account.
As for the current price of electricity, it is purely based on greed and averace.
There is NO reason for the current prices, other than we are being gouged, not the BS about the cost of electricity or any other fabricated or contrived lies.
There are things which under any scrutiny clearly belong to the people and not the private sector.
Electricity is just one of them.
I still can't get my head around the stupidity and indifference of the Australian public, who will speak out against some miscreant who defy's the law and suffers the consequences, but will not get off their lazy, indifferent arses to protest the sale of our Govt assets to private leaches, scum-bags and just plain thieves, which BTW includes govt ministers who contrive to put these sleazy deals together.
I clearly recall, as if it was yesterday, when the govt put up the power industry for sale, they received a rejection with a caveat, saying that the return was too low and was not commercially viable, leaving them with the clear instruction: "increase the profits and we'll look at it again".
They did, and here we are today, making excuses for the price of electricity.
I say, "Govt TAKE back ALL the public assets".

Hi Bazz,

The issues are certainly complex.

Both China and India have signed the Paris Agreement
and are also taking action to address climate change.

It's a big challenge for countries like China and
India where hundeds of millions don't yet have
electricity at all, which is why their coal sectors
still wield much political power.

According to articles on the web,( Quatrz India,
March 27, 2019) and a new report
by the Paris-based International Energy Agency
(IEA):

As of 2018,
China had installed over 400 gigawatts of renewable
electricity, more than double that in the United States
and we're told that China has become the worlds
leading clean energy investor.

Meanwhile, we're told that India had made a national
commitment to deploy 450 gigawatts of renewable energy
across the country by 2030. That's equal to more than 800
US coal plants.

However India has continued building new coal plants, and
oil imports are only rising as its growing population
becomes more prosperous.

Australia will probably continue to embrace a diverse
mix of new often cleaner energy technologies.

I believe that our electricity system can become a
efficient and highly decentralised machine. The challenge
for us is to choose the future we want and try to work out
the best way to get there.

Thanks for the response Foxy,
Yes, indeed it is complex. So much so that it hard to get agreement
on what are the real situations as most look at it all with different
coloured glasses.
My glasses are coloured by the belief that solar & wind cannot provide
a 100% x 100% electricity supply mainly because Australia could just
be too small and the cost would be impossible.
My glasses are coloured because I believe that the science has changed
and the 600 to 1000 year cycle that is well established is what we
have seen in recent years as global warming.
According to some scientists in that group the peak of the warming
occurred around 1995. Also they believe that CO2 is a minor factor in
the warming and that the sun is the source of heating.
Re China last I heard they were still building coal fired plants.
Seems a bad policy for them as the Energy Return on Energy Invested
for coal mines has got down towards 7, especially their own, which is
the give it up point.

I think very soon, ie +5 years it will become obvious what needs to be
done and all those pointing at co2 will not admit it, but everyone
will finally line up on Nuclear is the only way.

Hello again Bazz,

I'm hoping that with our scientific organisations
like CSIRO - hopefully they can unlock value from
our country's unmatched energy resources in a way
that is both responsible and environmentally sustainable,
as well as building a cost competitive, lower emissions
domestic energy sector.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what that will be.

Bazz, you speak with objectivity and common sense.
The mainstream renewables camp only see through blurred glasses and therefore see what they want to,or think they see.
I agree that renewables are not yet and possibly will never be a viable power supply for all the basic reasons.
Unless some new and yet undiscovered technology is found or perfected, the current offerings are at best, USELESS and UN-RELIABLE not to mention the real and true performance/cost of electricity/reliability.
As much as the dreamers and those needing reality checks go, the truth is that many countries are turning away from renewables, and we know why.
So it is that they have gone back to the tried and true, and slowly turning away from the greens and air heads that have used political blackmail and serious virtue shaming to force the hand of govts, fearful of losing their seats and control of their country.
This GW thing will fade into the annals of history, just like ALL the other failed attempts at trying to manipulate the public with the sole purpose of stealing money as the agenda, like the Y2K bug, and the myriad of other attempts to do so, in the past and yet to come.
Those naive simpletons who can't see what is in front of them and all around them, will be the cause of our destruction as a species.
Best not take them seriously or bother with what they have to say, especially if it is just their opinion, and carry no viable or material information or truths.

How small can a nuclear reactor be and still generate useful and safe energy ? Many countries have nuclear-powered submarines and ships, which don't seem to be giving any trouble. France and Finland and many other countries rely on nuclear power for their electricity generation and don't seem to be having any problems.

Of course, there is a major role for renewable energy production, there always will be. But if nuclear technology has reached a point where nuclear electricity generation can be done safely, as in France and Finland (why do I keep thinking of those two ?), then why not use it to complement renewable energy production, and even a bit of fossil-fuel energy production as well ?

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but maybe they can complement each other ?

Joe

Joe,

Well said. Our households and industry can embrace
a diverse mix of new, often cleaner energy
technologies. Our electricity system can become
efficient and highly decentralised machine.

As I stated earlier the challenge for Australia is to
choose the future we want and try to work out the best
way to get there.

loudmouth2, I have wondered why Alan's Thorium salt reactors have not been revived.
The little research I did explained that the trials and further development were abruptly stopped by one of the latter POTUS, in that the US, or those running it from behind the scenes, saw a valuable potential in funding nuclear technology in weapons manufacturing rather than "wasting" the funding on a thing which was not going to benefit those few who controlled the US and the power it gave them by having nuclear weapons.
The public are held in contempt by these kinds of people and we are seen as a means of making them wealthier and more powerful, rather than finding ways of making OUR lives more comfortable and less arduous.
As for the dreamers and the do-gooders, they are easily led and have never gotten over the "bad press" of the old nuclear reactor accidents, which were few, but boy did they blow them way out of proportion.
And so it is through ignorance and naivety with a touch of arrogance, that the fate of nuclear is forbidden in countries which still listen to these same children with blurred glasses and closed minds.

Joe,

Apart from safety and waste management concerns from
the community. There are technological impediments to
setting up a nuclear industry.

Developing such an industry and the professionals needed
to run it would take decades according to Professor
Ken Baldwin, Australian National University.

There's more at:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/progress/scienceshow/your-guide-to-australias/renewable-energy-options/6569874

The link although somewhat old, is still relevant
and goes through Australia's energy options including
nuclear. It's worth a read to get a bigger picture.
Perhaps some of the problems mentioned and why we're
not using some of them - might no longer apply in
our future as we manage to solve the impediments.

Interesting take on things.

Foxy,

I wonder how long it took France to get its nuclear energy generation up and running ? Decades ?

Wouldn't they now have a technological package which is safe, and able to be duplicated relatively quickly ?

Joe

I notice that in the last comment a link was given and a reference quoted from it.
The authors bias is exactly what I speak of.
Attention is drawn to the comments about how long it would take to construct/implement a new nuclear power station.
The time frame is vastly exaggerated as the expertise and knowledge of building new nuclear power stations today is a far cry from past models.
So again we are mis-led because of personal and bias agenda.
Forgetting nuclear for the moment, I still have not seen any response or reason as to why Alan's Thorium salt reactors are not a front runner for the title of power generation instead of all these useless feeble examples of so called renewables.
The only thing that's renewable about them is the rate of change or replacement of the units, through failures, either mechanical or just plain lack of performance.
There is NO benefit in having acres upon acres of these panels and wind mills, if they can't supply based load, consistently and reliably as coal or nuclear, or even hydro for that matter, and I don't mean that stupid idea of "Hydro II".
Another waste of money joke.
I'd like those who are not technically or practically familiar with these topics to stop commenting on them, they are not helping, but merely confusing everyone into believing that renewables are the answer.
They are NOT!
At least not now, and I doubt they will ever be without excessive financial assistance from the govt and the public.
In other words, we will not get any cheaper, more reliable power than we already have today.
And that being the case, what moron would promote something that only works against us.

Joe,

There's a reasonable coverage of nuclear power in
France given in Wikipedia that pretty much sums up
its history the operational considerations, and
public opinion. It should answer your questions.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Joe,

Here's a surprise.

France begins winding down its reliance on nuclear
power:

http://www.bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2020-03-france-begins-winding-down-its-reliance-on-nuclear-power

Loudmouth2, I said long ago I would fight to stop lies and mis-leading information.
I cannot speak openly on how such people should be treated or vilified and openly condemned, but for the fact that this medium applauds and encourages such people, in fact covets them, so we are forced to speak in a way which is not in keeping with the veracity or material truth about what is being discussed.
Such a situation has once more surfaced through a well known source of such themes or comments.
The last comments are a damning indictment on this author.
In her haste to win/make her point she has misled us once more.
I only needed to read the first paragraph, for it to expose her.
We are led to believe that France is closing down it's nuclear power stations, it implies a trend which in turn means they will keep closing them down.
WRONG!
They are closing the OLDEST one down, because it is 43 years old.
Is no one else seeing through these baseless attempts at point scoring.
I have said it before, for every point such people try to make, there are ten in contradiction, but you will never get that from them.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good lie or collection of random facts.

Foxy, I followed that link to France closing nuclear stations.
They cannot rely on wind & solar as France is too small.
Another point that made me laugh was about Germany being irritated by
Frances nuclear power.
Germany has always relied on France to backup their wind & solar !

ALTRAV, I must pull you up on Y2K bug.
It was VERY real. Any program that used two digit year fields had to
be fixed, but that was the easy bit. Almost all historical files had
to be reprocessed. Odd occasional usages of the year numbers that
everyone had forgotten about would ambush them when they thought it was
all fixed.
A friend of mine, a programmer for a commercial software company
bought a new house and car out of the overtime.
One trick they did was to convert all dates before Y2K to negative
numbers so that 99 became year -1. It did require more print work
when printing invoices etc for last year. A bit of a temporary kludge.

Bazz, I cede to a better man.
I did not know that; my only excuse is that I did not come across any problems in and around the sources I had contact with, so it would seem my exposure was at a much lower or domestic level, as even our computers and electronic equipment gave no sign of problems.
I must admit being curious as to a more precise description or outline as to the type/level of electronic equipment that needed attending to, if only to update my memory of the incident at the time, so I can keep true to my mantra, which is to only speak truthfully.
I stand perplexed that I had no knowledge or word about what you speak, unless it was decided not to make it public, for security reasons.
That would seems reasonable, and I can understand and accept that.

Good Morning Bazz,

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record
but I'll give it another try.

I'm sure that Australia will find and choose the
future that it wants and the challenge will be to
work out the best way to get there - whether its
to continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
generation, or go nuclear, or invest in renewables,
or a diverse mix of new technologies - I'm sure that
we're capable of unlocking value from our country's
unmatched energy resources in a way that is responsible
and environmentally sustainable - as well as building a
cost compatible, lower emissions domestic energy sector.

I remember the times when computers came in great big
machines with great big storage units. Today we have
a different scenario altogether. Things advance, change
and so it will undoubtedly be with our energy generation.

As has long been known, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

This is now repeated in the "renewable energy" debate. It doesn't matter how often you show those with no technical understanding the facts, if they want to believe greenie garbage on the subject, they will. Hell Foxy is still referencing the ABC as if anything coming from that source is anything but left/green propaganda.

Just recently we see that the home of renewable energy stupidity, South Australia, wants to spend an incredible $1.5billion dollars more of our money on another interconnector with NSW. This is so SA gets a lifeline leap frogging through NSW to the reliable coal power in Queensland, & hides the fact that their renewable energy fixation is a total disaster, & waste of the public's money.

How much more of our now coronavirus limited resources do we have to let these ratbags waste, before we finally call enough?

Hasbeen, HEAR, HEAR!
Saying it the way it should be said.
No sugar coating, and NO bloody PC lies.
It matters not that the sheeple follow blindly without question, but it does matter when the same ignorant sheeple feel they are knowledgeable enough, (or at all), about a topic to comment and affect any decisions on it, and that goes even to voting as well.
The one saving grace, and irrelevance about this forum, I discovered early in my involvement with it is, that it encourages/promotes OPINIONS!
I have focused more on other sites lately, as I finally accepted how pointless this site is, when it is based on opinions and not truths.
I must admit very rarely I note a relevant and interesting posting worthy of my attention, and possibly even a comment.
Keep it up and don't let them get you down.

Hasbeen this morning SA was running mostly on gas plus some coal from
Qld and some Hydro from Tas. Wind was about 1%.
At this time it is 51% gas, 45% wind, 3% solar, 0.002 % diesel.
SA does supply feed a bit to the rest of the grid at times.
On the whole the grid is about 80% black coal and I think about 15%
brown coal. These figures are very volatile, but interesting to watch.

When you see how small a contribution wind and solar are making on an
all day every day basis, then consider the amount of money that has
already been spent on wind and solar it really looks hopeless.
For example NSW right now is 86% coal, 1.0756% hydro, 1.965% gas, 2% solar, and 6% wind.
That means right now 14 times increase in windfarms to replace coal.
Or 43 times increase in solar to replace coal.
How much would that cost ?
I see these figures every morning when I switch on and it is never much different.

Foxy, if Australia stopped exporting our coal we could go for some
hundred(s) of years on nothing else.
Wouldn't that annoy the neighbours !
I think that the demand for the subsidisation of wind and solar will
force the government, which is looking at the coviros debt, to say NO !
Faced with that choice (rebuild coal power or renewables or nuclear)
my bet is they will rebuild coal fired power.
If it becomes obvious that warming has ceased and nuclear is still very
expensive then coal will be the only choice.
Anyway Pres Xi Jing Peng said they would burn all their coal then all our coal.
Well they have burnt nearly all their coal.
They are curently cleaning out Mongolia's coal.
So it really is a simple choice once they realise they cannot afford wind & solar.

Dear Hassie,

You may not like the ABC - that's fair enough.
There are other sources available on the web.
And of course it would be difficult to agree
with every view expressed on the ABC, or for that
matter, any other news format. But it would also be
equally difficult to disagree with them all and it
would not make sense to criticize all of them as
being irrational.

Only people who see the world in very rigid and
stereotypical terms do that. They have a
distinctive set of traits, including - conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity.

I have never taken you as being one of those
people.

Julian Burnside, QC pointed out a few years back that:

"Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity and
such diversity as there is runs along predictable lines.
The internet offers a vast supply of news - and
especially opinion - to dive into that pool in order
to learn something different is to risk drowning".

He said - " Just as mainstream media is full of views
(mostly strident) telling governments what to do, so
the blogosphere and social media are full of voices
more numerous and diverse and often more strident -
doing the same".

"Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream media and the jungle of the internet
need to continue to find places where rational but
diverse views can be found on matters of enduring
importance".

Hi Bazz,

The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts
75% of global energy will still be met by fossil
fuels like coal and gas by 2035.

Our own forecasts from CSIRO for Australia are not
disimilar.

Alex Wonhaus, Director Energy Flagship, CSIRO, says
that fossil fuels and low emissions are not as
incompatible as one might think.

He says that there are clear solutions that are
affordable, sustainable, and achievable.

I guess its a matter of finding them and implementing
them.

Foxy,

I see that the People's republic of the ABC has tripled Calombaris's record underpayment of staff. The ABC has widely been considered to be well left of centre and has lost any claim to be unbiased.

As for nuclear power, it is still the safest power available, and far more reliable than renewables.

I see that Kevin Rudd is complaining that the ABC is too right wing !
He will fall off the world if he moves that far left that the ABC is right wing !

Shadow Minister,

Lets keep politics out of it.

It lowers the bar in discussions.

Lets stick to facts as presented by experts.

I read Eloise Fowler's article in The Financial Review,
Dec. 16, 2019 which was based on a report by consulting
firm PwC and US multinational engineering company - Jacobs.

We're told that investing in renewable energy projects and
upgrading the national power grid to better cope with wind,
solar, and hydro electricity transmission
would add $13 billion
over two decades to Australia's gross domestic product.

However, propping up Australia's
coal-fired electricity plants would add
less than half to GDP.

"The Future of Energy: Australia's Energy Choice" report
modelled 4 energy options for Australia over 20 years to 2040.

It found the renewables case was marginally more expensive,
less than 1%, than the status quo case of Australia's
thermal coal-fired power plants retiring as planned by the
energy companies by 2040.

The accelerated renewable case, while the most costly,
replaced a higher amount of coal-fired power before 2040,
while the other cases still needed to be replaced between
2040 - 2050, the report found.

Either of the modelled renewable energy options would
give Australia the best chance of "setting the energy
trilemma - affordability, reliability and sustainability.

PwC chief economist Jeremy Thorpe said earlier modelling
showed investment in renewables led to lower economic
benefits.

However, -

"But our analysis shows this has CHANGED with the cost
of renewables continuing to come down as technologies
have matured and scale has been achieved and with renewables
continuing to replace coal-filled generators as they come
to the end of their economic lives", he said.

Nuclear? Safety, waste management, maintenance, are still
concerns that need to be dealt with. But again - it is
an option worth debating.

Hi Foxy,

On nuclear energy and its safety concerns: how are the French and Finns going with their nuclear energy production ? Have we heard of any accidents lately with nuclear-powered submarines, which must surely involve fairly small nuclear power units ?

IF nuclear energy could be shown to be safe, as safe everywhere as it is now in France and Finland, would you support it ?

I'm writing as an adopted South Australian, of course :)

Joe

Joe,

I believe the French are winding down on their nuclear
plants. As for accidents - I think Wikipedia gives a list
of those in France.

Foxy,

Oh, I don't think so .....

Every time I see one of these modelings for renewables they do not
specify the size of the grid coverage. Also they do not specify how
many sequential overcast still days it will support.
Very few of them include areas such as the Roaring Forties.
It looks like they work on average windspeeds and sun days.
Averages are only achieved intermittently, and batteries are very
costly and need extra wind & solar generation to enable them to be
charged over the next day or two.
Right now at 1609 Coal is 84%, Hydro 6%,Nat Gas 1.148%,Solar 1.696%, Wind 6.498 %.
So at present to remove coal would require 49 times more solar or
13 times more wind farms than we have at present in NSW.
If you look at the present installed cost of those alternatives
do you still reckon we can afford it ?
You can do the same for the other states.

Cont, It is approaching sunset and a cold light wind is blowing.
That means people are turning on their air conditioning and starting
to use the stove and ovens.
So the load is coming on just as the generation is decreasing.
The wind usually decreases around sunset, ask any sailor.
See the problem, you just cannot use averages.

Joe,

Oh, here's what Macron said:

http://www.phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron.html

Bazz, I am so pleased you have highlighted one of the many flaws and faults with renewables.
These are a fantasy, and a fallacy.
The current technology is simply a knee jerk reaction so some of the govts sleazy mates can steal/get their hands on some of the billions of dollars being given out to research on renewables.
As I've said all along, reliability, both in supply and consistency are way too overplayed and under performing.
I just don't like the concept of having all these, thousands of little men, pedaling away at their little power generators and all these other little men shining torches at solar panels, and not keeping up with demand and continually repairing/replacing units only to under supply the very market it was intended/designed to supply.
When you annoying dreamers have quite finished and stop quoting and referring to others, who obviously have vested interests, and start accepting the fact that renewables are NOT the answer, for all the right reasons.
One analogy, which should help explain it to the plebs on this forum is; If we compare the demands of moving a big truck or semi trailer full of product, we don't use 10 cars with the same power as one truck.
The power losses, to quote just one negative, would render the concept inefficient and therefore more expensive to run and service.
That's why we use trucks or prime movers.
This is just ONE example as to why we must not go down this ridiculous path of renewables.
I don't care what expert said what, can't you people think for yourselves, and for God's sake, stop quoting so called 'experts'.
If you haven't figured out that each expert has a particular bias or view or preference towards one thing or another.
In the end they are all trying to push their own agenda.
That's why there has been dissent in every thing, and yes even GW.
Let's get off the dreamers train, which is heading for a cliff anyway, and get back to the real world.
So let's develop/perfect what's worked not what doesn't.

Foxy,

"In a speech laying out the country's energy policies for the coming years, Macron said that "reducing the role of nuclear energy does not mean renouncing it".

France relies on nuclear power for nearly 72 percent of its electricity needs, though the government wants to reduce this to 50 percent by 2030 or 2035 by developing more renewable energy sources.....

"He added that he would ask French electricity giant EDF to study the feasibility of more next-generation EPR nuclear reactors, but will wait until 2021 before deciding whether to proceed with construction.

"EDF has been building the first EPR reactor at Flamanville along the Atlantic coast of northwest France—originally set to go online in 2012—but the project has been plagued by technical problems and budget overruns."

Doesn't sound like France is reducing its amount of nuclear energy production to me ....

Joe

Loudmouth2, thank you for setting the record straight once again.
There are those who have doggedly pushed an unrealistic ideology, and will look for anything to bolster or back their beliefs and convictions, no matter how absurd they might be.
I was about to respond to the very points you did, but I am pleased to see you picked up on them too, and got in ahead of me.
You saved me from having to bring it to everyone's attention thereby saving me from the wrath of the mis-guided and mis-informed.
You hold a very high level of respect on this forum, so only a fool would dare challenge you.

Joe,

I guess we'll have to wait and see won't we.

France is closing 14 nuclear reactors by 2035
of which between 4 and six will be closed by 2030.

Also there's financial complications involved with
future investments of new reactors:

http://www.phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron.html

Glad to see you're reading my links.

Joe,

You forgot to mention that Macron said France would aim
to TRIPLE its wind power electricity output by 2030
and increase solar energy FIVE fold in that period.

So it's not all that clear cut regarding nuclear.

Especially as Macron has asked the French electricity
giant EDF to study the feasibility of next generation
EPR nuclear reactors - but intends to wait until 2021
before deciding whether to proceed with construction.

AND -

Also seeing as EDF has been building the first EPR reactor
at Flamanville along the Atlantic coast of NW France
which was originally set to go on line in 2012 but the
project has been plagued by technical problems and
budget overruns.

I wouldn't place my bets just yet one way or the other.

Still I guess it depends what spin you want to put on
it - right Joe?

Loudmouth2, thank you for setting the record straight once again.
There are those who have doggedly pushed an unrealistic ideology, and will look for anything to bolster or back their beliefs and convictions, no matter how absurd they might be.
I was about to respond to the very points you made, but I am pleased to see you picked up on them too.
You saved me from having to bring it to everyone's attention thereby saving me from the wrath of the mis-guided and mis-informed.

Joe,

Here's something else you may want to read:

http://www.voanews.com/europe/france-takes-first-steps-reduce-nuclear-energy-dependence

And as usual, just to balance the debate and proving once more that for every attempt certain people make, to push/win their point there are many others to counter them.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=About%2055%20power%20reactors%20are,and%20the%20United%20Arab%20Emirates.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

This is becoming quite boring and tiresome, but it has to be followed up and exposed so as to not let people get away with spreading ideological self righteous clap trap.

When citing links it would help to leave out the
"s" in the "http". Otherwise the links are inaccessible
and no one will read them. They will be ignored.
And the point will not be made.

Try again.

And to add to Foxy's request instead of putting up those
paragraph long URLs please use Tinyurl.

Struth.

It beggars belief that you lot have held on to your climate denying beliefs with this much ferocity for so long?

I mean for the mentally stable the evidence of a warming planet comes through almost daily. Siberia town records 100 degree Fahrenheit day, the fist in recorded history above the Arctic circle, and you lot are still chirping away like budgies given a fresh feed of seed.

Please enjoy the irrelevancy fellas.

F opxy,

Of course, France (and probably every other country) is closing down some of its nuclear reactors by 2035, they're getting pretty old.

And of course, France and other countries will proportionately reduce their reliance on nuclear energy, as they broaden their options to renewables, tidal, perhaps some essential fossil-fuel-based energy, and perhaps other technologies that haven't been developed yet.

Given that most countries will have grown their economies substantially in the next fifteen years (except perhaps the US and Brasil which will still be struggling with the aftermaths of the virus), it would not surprise anybody if their total energy needs are much greater than they are now. So a declining reliance on nuclear energy generation does not mean a decline in the amount of nuclear energy generated, or even imply that no new nuclear power stations won't be built.

Let's wait and see :). As long as it's safe, I'm happy with nuclear energy generation.

I'd better repeat that: As long as it's safe, I'm happy with nuclear energy generation.

Key phrase: As long as it's safe ......

Joe

Joe,

Generating electricity using nuclear reactors carries
high risk but offers large rewards. No one can deny
that. In operation, a very small amount of nuclear
fuel will consistently generate a very large amount of
electricity and generate very little polluting material.

However, each country be it France or others have to
look at alternatives or a mix of technologies as well
because as we see in the delay in France the financial
cost of building and decommissioning a nuclear
power station are very large and the waste produced will
remain radioactive - hazardous to humans and the
environment for thousands of years.

Safety is important - and so is cost.

Each country has to decide what suits it and what its
people will approve of. The jury is still out.

No doubt China is still laughing at us as those involved in the gw religion continue to dumb down generations. To think we can manipulate the weather is laughable and anyone with half a brain could see the numerous false predictions by the 'experts' over the last 50 years. We continue to destroy and make our economy uncompetitive as the renewable sharks and globalist rip off the general public.

Runner, quite right.
I would also like to correct SR once more, as he is still living in the past on this GW thing.
If we are to accept that the planet is warming, it is not because of any human misconduct, but merely what the planet has been doing since it was formed.
That said, it cycles between warming and cooling every several hundred years or so.
Any resultant activity such as CO2 is because of this warming.
Now I know none of us will be around when the globe becomes cold again, but you can bet it will, and there is nothing we can, or should, do about it.
Those of you who are still sucked in by this fallacy will hopefully be remembered as naive and gullible and in fact blamed for the legacy of failures (in ALL areas) that the renewables curse will leave us and future generations with.

Hi Bazz, Joe, and Steele,

Do you know about the changing energy sector of
Western Australia?

Apparently the Western Australian Energy Sector is
undergoing unprecedented change. The Hon. Bill Johnston
MLA, says that energy technologies are rapidly improving
with renewables becoming more cost competitive with
traditional sources of generation.

He tells us that in Western Australia their energy sector
has been changing for some time. He says whether we realise
it or not, the way they generate electricity, the way they
consume electricity and the cost of producing electricity
is transforming.

He says that they are blessed with world-class solar and
wind resources, abundant gas supply, a wealth of battery
metals and a highly skilled workforce.

They apparently have a genuine opportunity to establish a
cleaner, brighter and more resilient energy supply for
decades to come.

We're told that today more than one in four households in
WA have solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on their roofs,
generating a huge amount of clean energy and helping
households and businesses manage their energy costs.

There's more at:

http://www.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Energy-Transformation-Strategy.pdf

Boy, will it never end.
I live in WA and sure we have a lot of solar panels, but so what, remember one and all this last bit of clap trap propaganda comes from a politician.
I can assure everyone that the TRUTH is quite different.
As usual we take a few FACTS and then imply the rest based on the veracity of those facts.
Sure we are the leading state for mining, actually keeping Australia afloat.
But that aside, just because we have the resources, building blacks, to build a house, does not mean we will, it just means, we COULD.
The govt has been bleating this kind of tripe for decades, and until/unless someone puts their money where their mouth is, it ain't gonna happen!
Yes, we are the lucky state, as far as minerals and resources go, too bad we don't have the govt or the so called "the honorable my arse", minsters to complement all these possibilities.
Before any of you go off half cocked at trying to make the same point, that was attempted just now, think!
This type of hype is old news to us but apparently not to the gullible and naive.
I would certainly back ANY venture that proved viable and a win for this state and therefore this country, and even more so the Australian people.

The Western Australia grid has recorded its highest
ever level of variable renewable energy penetration,
after the state's rooftop solar and large scale solar
and wind generators combined to supply 51% of
underlying system demand in November of 2019.

The Australian Energy Market Operator said in its
Quarterly Energy Dynamics Report for Q4, 2019, that the
new milestone was achieved for that state's grid- or
WEM - at 11.30 AM on November 30th.

There's more on the web for those interested.

You know, it would help and save a lot of time if people would stop mis-representing and cherry picking, just to win a point.
Firstly, the comments are well out of date, and if memory serves, the data was contrived to make it concur with a pre-determined agenda.
Don't take anyone's word for anything, whether in writing or otherwise.
If in doubt, look into the truth behind these blind statements.
Such things are politically dependent/driven, so I would not give them a second thought.
I say to those naive and mis-informed, stop accepting anything that promotes your view and accept the realities of life.
They are NOT in the interests of anyone but the person pushing the comment or point.

Folks, Take heed.

You heard it here first.

If it helps - you gotta hate it!

A bit of some light relief:

http://www.makeameme.org/meme/this-is-the-62c3ccca50

Gotta laugh.

Foxy, I have avoided responding to you directly because apparently you have people "on the inside", who will immediately "bench" anyone who does not respond in favour of your comments.
But whether anyone likes it or not, if you or anyone, say anything that is not true, I will respond.
As for your snide and facetious comments attempting to give the impression you are attacking the message, but you are in fact attacking the messenger, but that's ok as I have a few retorts due from me from your usual/previous antics.
So yet again, and still you administer your usual futile attempt at adding any positive or new information, which is what forums are about, not saying the obvious, quoting other like minded people and accepting their comments as fait-accompli.

Foxy, and you dare criticise and demonise others for being bad people, (bigots, prejudiced) and generally bad people for making the guy in the picture the brunt of your questionable state of mind.
So who's the bad guy now?
Oh and for the record, how did you get that picture of me?

Please engage in this thought experiment.
A wind turbine has a nameplate rating of say 10Megwatts.
Experience shows that over a year they average 35% of the maximum
theoretical nameplate generation.
So you get 3.5 Megwatts/years average over a year
Therefore to get the rated output you have to install two more wind generators.
However you cannot put them alongside the first one.
They have to go on two other sites.
However the wind will perhaps stop at two sites at the same time.
However the wind will perhaps stop at three sites at the same time.
So how do you cope with that ?
You install more of them on other sites !
You keep doing this until you can be certain of getting 10 Megawatts
100% of the time.

Do you now understand why wind costs a lot more than some expect ?
The same problem exists with solar but to a less extent, it is just
that the first and last hours of the day has a large fall off in output.

There are ways around this, by use of batteries, but it only partly
solves the problem and has really high costs.
You then need more wind generators to recharge the batteries.

Bazz, the only "battery" that has any chance of actually smoothing out wind & solar variable generation is pumped hydro. There are no chemicals yet discovered, & we do know of most, that have the potential to hold sufficient power.

Now we all know that pumped hydro has a loss factor of about 33%.

So forget solar, it is just a bad joke. With wind as you stated you require 3 turbines to actually produce the name plate of one. So with an other 33% loss you require 4 windmills pumping 24/7 to have the back up required for those week long calms we regularly experience. This mate means you need 7 wind mills to give reliably the name plate claimed supply of just one.

Have you heard the latest, wind is now cheaper than coal.

God help us.

Bazz, your on the right track.
You have described only a small part of the puzzle.
I know some dreamers keep pushing their vision, that technology will eventually give us what we need.
Knowing some of the basics of generating electricity, I can say with confidence, it will not happen for the foreseeable future, if at all.
We know that nuclear is now a much safer concept than before, and if we really want to go one step further, I know we've heard it all before but, I would be asking Alan to give a brief run down on his thorium salt reactor and it's positives and negatives, especially costs and returns.
Now they are the two options worth investing in.
Some dreamers on here speak of future technologies that we don't even know about yet, well how about looking closer to home about the technologies we DO know about.
Those out there who have no idea about a topic, please do not comment, I and many others do not want to waste time in the futility of trying to educate you on the topic and then also having to tolerate engaging with someone who blindly refuses to listen to reason and the truth anyway.

Hasbeen & Altrav, and a note at the end for Foxy;
Actually I think it gets worse than seven times the nameplate.
I have seen one study that suggested 12 times was more likely.
Also the same study on the US, same size as Australia, had this to say
about maintenance of solar. Using the MTBF of solar cells the US would
need teams of workers replacing 100,000 solar panels a day !

Foxy, Keith Alder, a friend, who designed the ill fated nuclear power
station for Jervis Bay told how the high level waste problem is solved.
When the used fuel is removed it is then used in another reactor
designed for it. When its radioactivity declines further it is used in
yet another reactor designed for it. From memory I think he said it
would be completely safe in a hundred years.
After that it is at a safe level and he handed out some depleted
uranium and my goodness it is heavy.
At his retirement he was the boss at Lucas heights Menai research
reactor so he knew what he was talking about.

Cont, one quick point, as the physical size of the grid reduces the
number of backup wind turbines increases exponentially.
This is why the German wind system failed.

if it wasn't signing up to the corrupt UN and trying to keep targets no one else is keeping their would be next to no complications and the whole energy mix garbage would hardly rate a mention.

Hi Bazz,

Thank You for the info.

Much appreciated.

One of my previous boyfriends worked at Lucas
Heights for many years. He later went on to
complete his PhD and joined the faculty at Sydney
University. Amazing guy.

The WA grid that recorded its highest ever level of
variable renewable energy penetration was explained
that -

"At the time, 51% of of underlying system demand was
supplied by VRE output," the report notes that -
"This was a result of mild temperatures, clear skies,
(resulting in high rooftop PV output) and high wind
speeds".

The new record comes as the state grid, which is
separate to the National Electricity Market and
operates as an island, with no connections to any
other grid, grew the generating capacity of rooftop
solar and wind by an average 87MW and 63MW respectively.

Anyway, it's all fascinating stuff - that only a scientist
would understand.

I'm not a scientist - and all I can do is provide information
as I find it and leave it to others to make up their
minds on the topic. My occupational job has always been
to provide info from a variety of sources and help people
make up their own minds on issues. Today it's still an
occupational habit.

Bazz,

I've just got a few questions.

Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter
accounting for over a third of coal exports
worldwide. In 2018 coal over took iron ore as our
most valuable export.

What does our increased reliance on coal mean for
the economy and the environment and where will it
leave us when the world stops buying it?

Ha Foxy that is the $64B question.
First you have to separate the coals into steaming coal and coking coal.
Coking coal is used to make coke for the blast furnaces making iron.
It is a different grade and not used for steaming.
As I understand it if we did not sell our steaming coal we could go
for a few hundred years generating electricity cheaply.
I hope they do stop buying it. China might get cranky if we stop selling it.
By that time the Fusion process might be working and all will be loverly.

All in all it is an interesting subject on which our well being is
ultimately dependant. Nuclear is the only permanent fix.
Everything else is fiddling at the edges.

Bazz,

Provided nuclear energy production is safe. Presumably future nuclear power generation can be done safely by much smaller units, if nuclear-powered submarines are anything to go buy. Have the nuclear-power generation systems on submarines given any trouble over the last generation or so ? If not, then they sound pretty safe.

If this is the case, then why not hundreds of small units all around Australia, using material processed from Olympic Dam in SA ? Small units, powering desalination plants around our 20,000 km of coasts, for example ? Irrigating the deserts ?

IF it's safe .....

Joe

Foxy,

Why do you insist on regurgitating the myth that "Generating electricity using nuclear reactors carries high risk" as by all metrics nuclear power is by far the safest power generating system.

Secondly, while France will be closing some older 700 MW reactor it will also be commissioning some new 1650 MW reactors. It is noticeable that France's cost of power is roughly 50% of that of Germany and Denmark who have a greater proportion of renewables.

Thirdly while the cost of wind turbines and solar panels has decreased, the cost of running power lines to these generation systems has increased, and the total cost of wind and solar generation taking into account reticulation and backup is still so expensive as to need vast subsidies to make them viable.

As SM said the solar and wind get substantial subsidies that begs the
question if the cheapest why the subsidies ?
Keith Alder used to answer the safety question on radiation leakage
with the information that the slag heaps at coal fired stations are
more radioactive than nuclear power stations.

I think there are now a few rules that must be applied on nuclear.
Do not build them on coastlines facing continental plate divisions.
The Japanese should have built theirs on the west coast rather than east coast.
Earthquake zones should be avoided, or build them on big slabs.
Don't build them unless you build the 2nd & 3rd depleting reactors.

Australia has the classic possibility of a mine to power to storage
industry that will support the country forever.

Shadow Minister,

All I do is pass on information and opinions of
scientific experts modelled on their findings
and found in various scientific reports.

If you disagree with anything you are more than welcome
to produce evidence that disputes the information.

I am not a scientist merely a provider of information.

Foxy,

Evidence: perhaps the fact that no reactors in France or Finland (or perhaps elsewhere too) have had any radiation problems (since they are the most likely issues to concern us) for some time., except the following:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-safety/france-flags-welding-fault-at-five-or-more-edf-nuclear-reactors-idUSKCN1VX0N7

which seems to have been remedied, since nothing further has been [published. But for nit-pickers:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-accidents-idUSTRE78B59J20110912#:~:text=March%201980%3A%20An%20accident%20at,runs%20from%20zero%20to%207.

It would be interesting to compare deaths or injuries from nuclear accidents with those from coal-fired power-stations, wind towers or solar arrays, or from wood- or dung-fires. My guess is that deaths and illness from the last outnumber all the rest put together.

Joe

Joe,

There have been problems in six nuclear reactors in
France - to the extent that France is to give millions of
people iodine pills in case of nuclear accidents:

http://www.thelocal.fr.20190918/france-to-give-millions-of-people-iodine-pills-in-case-of-nuclear-accident

Also Reuters reported safety problems found at the Finnish
reactor built by the French - Areva.

So yes - there are safety issues involved.
As for coal? Not sure about accidents, but at least
not radioactive - although as I asked Bazz- our reliance
on coal also presents us with other problems.

Foxy,

Of course there are health issues involved in relation to the nuclear industry, there always will be. There are health issues in relation to tour boats, i.e. use a life-jacket and know how to swim; and in relation to driving a car, i.e. get a licence and stay sober. But if sensible steps are taken , in the nuclear industry like elsewhere, then it's no more of a problem than elsewhere.

As long as any nuclear energy production is safe ......

Joe

Joe,

You're comparing nuclear reactor problems
with those of tour boats?

Seriously?

You know there's quite a few problems involved with
nuclear reactors that apply only to them. We've
pretty much covered them in this discussion.

Joe,

As I stated earlier - Australia will find the
energy solution that suits. Whatever that may be.

Our science is first-class.

I for one am looking forward to our future.

I'm sure it will be a good one for us, and for the
planet.

Geees Foxy, really? You can REALLY stack it on without any effort.
This is the kind of inclination of which I speak.
It is patronising and frankly quite deleterious.
I'm not sure what your true agenda is, but it is clear and evident by your particular and peculiar style of narrative, that it is NOT what you purport it to be.

Foxy,
> As for coal? Not sure about accidents, but at least not radioactive
Like the dinosaurs who dominate this thread, you're relying too heavily on assumptions. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Meanwhile, it's been many years since controversial ex-environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg predicted that renewable energy would continue to get cheaper than fossil fuelled electricity, at which point there'd be a very rapid transition. And though I disagree with him on many of the details of how and why he thought this would occur, his main point is valid and I think we're starting to see it happen.

Aidan, you cannot make such a simplistic statement.
Firstly you are not involved in the creation or development of any renewables, and if you were you would find that even if the cost of creating the mediums that create the power, ALL the other factors, and most of all, the cost to the consumer, either direct or indirect, will be too much for it to be fair or viable.
The only way renewables will ever be a REAL and RELIABLE source of continuous base-load power, is if it is heavily subsidised.
Either way, it will end up costing us more, and not just in money.

Hi Aidan,

Thank you for the link.

I've said all along in this discussion that Australia
will find its own energy option that will have a chance of
"solving the energy trilemma - affordability, reliability
and sustainability".

It may well be a mix of options, or
it may be nuclear. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm not a scientist, and all I'm able to do in this
discussion - is try to provide
appropriate reference sources and information and then
let people choose for themselves what they want to go with.

Analysis shows that the cost of renewables is continuing
to come down as technologies have matured.

However, it will be up to the government to decide where
the future of energy in Australia lies.

Whether it decides to prop up coal-fired electricity plants,
invest in renewables, or go with nuclear - we'll have to
wait and see.

I suspect this debate will be ongoing for quite a while
yet.

ALTRAV, although I'm not involved in the industry, I do keep up with its developments. You clearly don't - you seem to imagine the figures have stayed where they were a decade or more ago!

Although the infrastructure cost is higher for renewables (despite it being lower than it used to be) interest rates are low at the moment. And since there's no ongoing fuel cost, it works out cheaper overall.

And why the idiotic fixation with baseload power? Surely we should focus on real world requirements rather than trying to emulate the kind of power stations that are crap at varying their output?

Aidan, I'm sorry you have wasted your time with your last posting.
None of it is relevant, especially the costings, both initial and on-going.
Reliability may one day be improved, BUT, anything remotely related to machinery, has a life, and along that 'life', it must be serviced, and along the way it is prone to failures, which leads to repairs, then eventually it must be replaced and all this adds to the cost.
It's all very well to force something to perform, just to win a point or be vindicated, but if it's going to cost more, either initially or ultimately, I don't want it, and neither should anyone else.
Don't believe the crap about renewables are becoming cheaper, and scale of economy, and other academic rhetoric.
Look for the TRUTH, not the facts, and you will see that it's more like trying to herd cats.
And besides, what disgusting visual vandalism on our visual senses having to tolerate what is clearly "visual pollution", these pathetic attempts at gratifying those lacking fortitude, intelligence and vision to promote an impossible fix to a simple problem.
Just grab the rest of your ilk and go back to doing what you were doing and let's get on with building these nuclear power stations and the problem will be solved.
Oh and BTW, for the benefit of the gullible and ignorant, the stuff coming out of the cooling towers at a nuclear plant is, wait for it, the hint is in the word "cooling", got it yet?
Well for those too thick to get it, it's STEAM!
Yes, steam, and in case you also didn't know, steam is your friend, it's a good thing.
So stop believing that it's some kind of toxic gas.
Do you know how you come across if that's what you've always thought it was?

Aiden, I am certain that you know that if you put up a wind generator
and the wind blows it produces the cheapest power. We all agree with that.
I am also certain that you know the same applies to solar cells.

However your comments suggest to me that you think that is all there is to it.
You must know if you build a complete system like that you do not just
divide the maximum demand by the nameplate rating of a wind generator
and that tells you how many you install.
Your comments suggest that is what you suggest.
I find it hard to accept that is what you believe.

ALTRAV,
You seem to have a Trumpian delusion about what facts and truth are!

Facts are always true, so if you ignore the facts in favour of what you assume to be true, and dismiss real developments as "crap" (as you have done) you will remain ignorant for ever.

Yes, moving parts need maintaining. The generation companies do factor this into their calculations.

As for the idea that windmills equate to visual pollution is at best subjective and more likely downright silly. Fossil fuel burning power stations look far worse IMO.

And what's with the strawman about cooling towers? Nobody here said anything other than steam comes out of them, whether or not the power station they're part of is nuclear.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, BTW. But nor am I willing to exaggerate the case for it – and because of that, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't make economic sense in the Australian context.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Bazz,

It is your bias, not my comments, which suggests to you that you "just
divide the maximum demand by the nameplate rating of a wind generator
and that tells you how many you install".

If you were less biased, and therefore considered my comments more carefully, perhaps you'd understand that, even with power from fossil fuels, nameplate capacity seldom equates to actual demand. Whether you get your power from renewables or fossil fuels, storage or peaking capacity will always be needed.

Aidan, you believe what you want, I'll stick with the truth.
You're too invested in this renewable farce, stop being subjective, and believing in what makes YOU feel good and be objective about what you hear and read.
I'm now going to give you a lesson in how facts DO NOT equal truths.
For example someone is standing over a dead blood covered body with blood on his hands, holding the very knife that killed the deceased.
Now, typically, our moronic, useless law enforcement officers immediately charge the man standing over the body with murder.
They don't bother doing the work and studying the facts of the case with the purpose of finding the TRUTH behind this murder.
So, the facts are clear to them, that the accused is the murderer, but the truth is he happened upon the body and picked up the knife, for whatever reason.
This scenario is not a fiction, it actually happened and continues to happen.
So Aidan, still want to keep pushing the lie that facts are always true?
They are only true as facts, not as fait accompli.
Your lesson for today is, "facts do not tell the full or true story".
Like any story they are made up of a lot of facts which on their own mean nothing, only the correct assembly of the facts tell the true story, or the TRUTH!

Aiden, the way you quoted my post gives the impression that is what
I believe.
I realise that you do understand that multiples of the numeric division
have to be installed. That it is needed to have multiple times the
simple division that makes wind & solar the most likely the most
expensive of all electricity generation systems.
This also results in a higher capacity & expensive grid.
Then the smaller the area of the grid the greater the multiplication
needed as the chances of getting sufficient wind somewhere reduces.
The increase in the multiplication I suspect, although I cannot prove it,
is exponentially inversely proportional to the reduction in the grid area.
Do you dispute that possibility ?

A fact is something that is indisputable based
on empirical research and quantifiable measure.
Facts go beyond theories. They're proven through
calculation and experience.

Truth is entirely different. It is based on belief.
It may include fact but often times people will accept
things as true because they fall closer to their
comfort zones or reflect their pre-conceived notions
of reality.

Facts help to determine what is true and what is not.

You've made my point as usual, repeating someone else's words or comments another futile attempt to make yours.
Quoting excerpts from dictionaries or other publications do not maketh you right.
Anyone with a modicum of maturity and common sense will scoff at your inane attempt to win the point.
Sorry, don't bother, I and most others know what I said and agree with me.
You sound just like the law enforcement in general, who must win at all cost and no concern for the TRUTH!
Foxy, just give it a rest, every now and then.
You have become well beyond wearisome and many of us here have been more than patient and tolerant of your continual flaunting and covert indignations.
But don't fret, whilst I can, I will always be here to set you and your followers straight.
I sense that this will continue ad infinitum if left unchecked.
I am now needed in another place, so I bid you all adieu.

Foxy,

Your claim that "All I do is pass on information and opinions of scientific experts modelled on their findings and found in various scientific reports." Is more than a little disingenuous.

Most of your comments are based on activists and have very little to do with science. For example, Eloise Fowler's article in The Financial Review was largely an opinion piece based on the economic assessment (not a scientist or engineer quoted) of the effects of using renewables that for example claimed that the economy would be $13bn greater with the accelerated program but only at the end showed that it required an additional $13bn of public or private funding to do so.

What it absolutely forgot to mention that in doing so the cost of power would sky rocket and most manufacturing jobs would evaporate.

Secondly, a detailed analysis of statistics shows clearly that nuclear power per unit of power generated has half the injuries or fatalities of even renewables, and a quarter of that of coal generation.

Thirdly, while you are extolling the virtues of China you are forgetting that in the last couple of decades China has virtually doubled its rate of burning fossil fuels.

SM, hear hear, good to see someone setting certain people straight.
Some people get way too far ahead of themselves and refuse to accept what is, instead insist on seeing and promoting only what they wish to see, completely evading the realities of life.

Shadow Minister,

Eloise Fowler's article in The Financial Review was
based on a Report by the consulting firm PwC and the
United States multinational engineering company -
Jacobs. She also cited information from the report
- " The Future of Energy: Australia's Energy Choice."

But I mentioned all of this in my post.

You however, as always have chosen to take the stance
that the article was merely an "opinion" piece.
Which it clearly wasn't. This makes me realize that
either you are ignorant and don't understand what you are
reading. Or you didn't read it at all. Or it does not
agree with your opinion. Facts tend to often do that
when you think in terms of only black and white.

Take a look at who's egging you on and supporting you.
I'd be extremely concerned if I was you. The bar has certainly been lowered.

cont'd ...

As I stated earlier - I merely pass on the information.
If you disagree with what's being presented all you
have to do is rebuke it with your own evidence.
I'm not pro - China and as I keep stating - Australia
shall make it's own future energy choices - without
either your or my help or our opinion.

We shall have to wait and see what that will be.

SM, certain people say they only quote others and are not pushing any singular agenda, well that's clearly not the case here.
If you are not partisan, you seek and quote ALL and any information and then you can prattle on about being non-partisan.
Instead she has once again, in her haste to make her point, failed in explaining how she is clearly invested in her particular, and peculiar brand of intercourse, or more so, discourse, which has always had an agenda and in no way intended to allow the reader to make up their own mind.
The reader is given specific excerpts of information, with actual determinations and results to confirm a particular point she is attempting to make, and not one of generality where-by the reader can assess and evaluate the material freely and objectively.
Instead, her references and links are ALL intended to lead the reader towards her particular beliefs or convictions.
One word, only one of many to describe this attitude: patronising.

The cited reports gave their findings based on facts.
I deliberately chose The Australian Financial Review
because it is apolitical.

However - in discussions it is usual customary to
rebuke the information. Nothing else.

In any case, don't judge me
I was born to be awesome
Not perfect.

Ha Ha, again confirmation of my comments.

Not at all.

You're suffering from delusions of adequacy.

Back to the topic.

More discussion needs to be done regarding nuclear
reactors. The nuclear industry is constantly
developing innovative technologies and protocols
towards making the energy production process fail
safe.

Newer generations of nuclear reactors, particularly what's
called a "pebble-bed-reactor"are designed so that the
nuclear chain reaction cannot run away and cause a
meltdown - even in the event of complete failure of the
reactor's machinery.

Then there's also the emphasis that geological stability
considerations will also likely play a bigger role in
approving new sites of construction. And although long-lived
nuclear waste may remain dangerous for considerable periods
of time, that time table according to reports is not
prohibitive. In fact even without recycling the fuel, which
would further shorten the lifetime of radio active waste,
the radio activity of the waste is reduced to around 0.1%
of the initial value about 40-50 years.

So in summation- with the advent of modern reactors and
careful selection of plant sites, nuclear accidents like
the one in Fukushima will become not possible.

Therefore we're being told that these noteable benefits
and the problems associated with nuclear power do not
justify its immediate dismissal as a potential energy source
for the world.

My only question is - if the primary proposal for
long-term storage of nuclear waste is burial in very
carefully selected deep geological repositories -
where are these locations around the world?

Anyone have any suggestions?

South Australia and charge everyone who wants their waste stored.
Money for digging a hole.

Foxy,

There are areas in Australia which are so remote that they don't even have a name. On the WA-SA border, about half-way up, there is an area set aside as a national park, since there's nothing else that can be done with it. It used to be named the 'Unnamed National Park' but it might have a name now: ah yes, 'Mamungari'. A 'mamu' is an evil spirit in the Pitjantjatjara language. No fresh water, only a handful of salt lakes. But if it came down to it, nuclear waste could be stored there.

Of course, we forget that most major hospitals have radioactive storage areas, most of us have probably walked past such rooms at some time.

I'm still bugged by the existence - seemingly quite safe for crew - of nuclear-powered submarines. If such small reactors can be built and used, then why not build them to power remote towns, well out of town, perhaps in a hub-and-spokes arrangement ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

Thanks for the information.

I'll check it out on a map.

Good question about the subs.

Foxy,

There's another thing I'm puzzled about:

The earth itself produces CO2, through volcanic activity, ground and ocean fissures, springs, etc., but on the other hand, all plant life sucks up CO2. That's been going on for a billion years.

Horticulturalists pump CO2 into green-houses because - up to a point, I suppose - the more CO2 that is available for plant life, the more is taken up, and the more3 plant life is encouraged.

So there has been a balance of sorts for a billion years - but since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, an imbalance.

So how much CO2 can the world's biota, plant life, soak up, compared to how much is being produced through industrial activity, air-conditioning, travel and transport, etc., to bring that production back into balance ?

Okay,

It's that difference that has to be dealt with, through moving away from the use of fossil fuels - as well as promoting long-term policies across the world to mitigate CO2, for example, tree-planting schemes - towards alternative energy-production sources.

A mixture of renewables, nuclear power generation AND limited amounts of fossil fuels - might do it :)

Cheers,

Joe

The thing is Joe people are ignoring the later science.
It has been shown that the CO2 is not having the effect that was assigned to it.
Google Hendix Svenmark and those following his original work.
Very interesting reading, perhaps summed up with the saying;
IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

"The word science seems to have lost all meaning in the climate debate. It is bandied around in much the same way pilgrims would use the word scriptures — why should I do this? Why is this so? Well, because it is written in the scriptures.

We can presume that when activists say “the science is settled” they are referring to a broad point that there is a consensus of scientific thought and data that says human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributing factor to currently observed trends of global warming, and that reducing emissions will limit it. Beneath that broad point sits an almost infinite array of variables in environmental impacts, localised climate patterns, and the costs and benefits of various policy responses.

“Guided by science, we can fight climate change and create jobs at the same time,” Albanese said. Yet a cursory examination of the scientific reality demonstrates this is nonsense.

With all the will in the world, there is nothing Albanese can do that will make the slightest difference to global warming. This point is so obvious that even when Chief Scientist Alan Finkel was asked in 2017 what difference it would make to the climate if we reduced global emissions by the equivalent of Australia’s total emissions (1.3 per cent) he had to reply: “Virtually nothing.”

The futility is even more stark because on current trends those reductions would be replaced by increases in China and elsewhere within months.

Yet when have you ever heard a politician argue that we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at considerable cost, for no immediate environmental benefit, for many years, in the hope that other nations will eventually do the same so that we can start to reduce emissions and slow global warming?"

Thank You all, for your well argued thoughts and
the valid points you've raised.

There's so much to still be argued.

For now I'm going back to do more reading and
research. Because at present I certainly don't
have any constructive answers.

Shadow Minister,

Are you suggesting that Australia does nothing
and carries on as usual?

Surely not?

How will change ever occur for the better if we
all decide to do nothing.

Perhaps we could take small steps, and lead by example?

Do nothing Foxy ? Yes, as nothing we can do will affect the sun.
The earth it appears may be just past the peak of warming.
It is three hundred years since the Maunder Minimum so we may well
be getting ready for the decline to start for the next minimum.

Bazz,
Multiples of numeric division? You're posting gibberish!
Please write more clearly, as do not wish to waste time refuting what I think you mean only to find you actually mean something else.

And it's only the denialists who are ignoring the science. In the second half of the 20th century, Earth started to get a lot hotter without a corresponding change in solar activity.

When you say "Hendix Svenmark" I presume you mean Henrik Svensmark? His work regarding cloud formation is significant, but does not overturn anything climate scientists thought they knew about the effects of CO2, nor give an alternative explanation for the warming the planet has experienced in recent years.

Aidan, stop talking gibberish!

We all know any warming above the recovery from the little ice age is all in computer models, & in the totally dishonest homogenization applied to past records, giving totally false warming from exaggeratedly colder past.

Bazz, it is hard for the sheeple and especially those in the echo chamber to imagine, even for a second, that they might be wrong, or have been following a false pretence.
But the obvious answer is, YES, absolutely, we do NOTHING, or a better way to put it, we get on with our lives as usual, because we are not guilty of any of the drummed up charges we are accused of.
It as been said again and again that Australia's contribution of CO2 has been stated as negligible, at best.
So we can stop reacting to a false accusation, and start believing in those who are not invested in, and have nothing to gain, from this huge lie.
More importantly, now that we are beginning to see that it was always a lie, what are we going to do with those who promoted this lie?
We have far too many people to punish,even if we picked them out at random, say starting with Al Gore, and even that arrogant little petulant, nasty maggot of a sick kid.
I do not hold back the punches when I find that someone has attempted to punch me, so what is the world going to do about these criminals, or do those of you too scared to be shamed will all simply turn and walk away like cowards, as usual?
Well I am no coward, and that's why I stand fast against any wrong'ens.
Can't wait to see who will step up, and who will continue following the rest of the sheeple for fear of being virtue shamed.

Aiden said;
Multiples of numeric division? You're posting gibberish!

I think you are referring to this sentence;
You must know if you build a complete system like that you do not just
divide the maximum demand by the nameplate rating of a wind generator
and that tells you how many you install.

If that is what you are referring to, why is it gibberish ?
You must know that a lot of people pushing wind & solar as the sole
way of generating electricity actually believe it is as simple as that.
I do not believe that you believe that.

I went back to the original post and I can't see anything there like
your quote above. I am coming to the conclusion that you are making
up something like that comment instead of being more specific.
I realise you have done this previously.

Install three times the expected demand, then multiply it again
depending on the actually found wind patterns.
The number of suitable wind sites will decrease as the area of the
grid gets smaller. So more turbines will be needed as that area gets smaller.

Point out where that is wrong.

So show me where my structure is wrong.

Bazz,
I was reerring to your post of Friday, 26 June 2020 10:26:51 PM

As for your earlier post that you're restating now, I'm too tired to point out where it's wrong tonight. I'll do so tomorrow if I'm not too busy, otherwise it may have to wait till later this week.

Foxy,

I never said that we should do nothing, however, I don't believe that if Australia "set an example" that anyone else would care let alone try to emulate us.

If renewables are now becoming competitive, remove any subsidies. Power supplies should be based on cost and reliability not emotion.

Shadow,
It's not as if Australia would be going it alone: most of Europe has already set an example. The real problem is we've been setting a bad example, and promoting inaction by others.

The biggest problem with removing any subsidies is that, at least for existing power generation companies, doing nothing is the most profitable course of action. Without an incentive to build new infrastructure, power prices will stay high.

Shadow Minister,

To do nothing has never been an option for me.
If people don't try to deal with the obstacles
that face them, and try to overcome them in one
way or another - how else will they learn and
grow? Each of us goes through transitions and
transformations. The important things is that we
acknowledge them and learn from them.

But everything is relative and everyone has
obstacles to overcome. They are our greatest
teachers.

I'm glad to hear that you don't think we should do
nothing. To me that would not make sense coming
from you - a problem solving engineer.

We live in interesting times - where new technologies
and transformations are taking place all the time.
And Australia is so lucky to have access to so many
really talented people - especially in the sciences -
which are first class and not corrupt. I've worked
for CSIRO - and although that was sometime ago - I
still remember how impressive and dedicated the staff
were and how hard they worked at problem solving.

I have every confidence that we shall find the energy
solutions that will suit us - no matter what they will
be.

Foxy

Given that:

"Massive subsidised investment in renewable energy has been associated with escalating wholesale and retail electricity prices. The number of jobs in renewable energy is trivial, particularly given most its hardware is imported. And jobs have been lost elsewhere because of energy costs. The broader backdrop has been very low productivity growth, particular in the energy sector."

Given the above any measures to reduce CO2 emissions must meet the requirements of low total cost, high reliability and low emissions, to ensure that jobs are not lost in the long term.
The only renewable technology that meet all 3 criteria is hydro that is limited by geography and to some extent biomass technology, which is limited by access to low cost biomass byproducts (such as bagasse)

Wind and solar are mid cost technologies with very low reliability that need to either be combined with gas back up generators (mid range cost but emits CO2) or high cost hydro storage or battery storage.

Nuclear is mid range pricing, with high reliability and zero emissions, whose main opposition is political.

My preference would be to combine renewable power generation with a solid nuclear background for a safe and reliable near zero emissions power system with some gas turbine back up.

Problem solved.

Shadow Minister,

I guess we shall have to wait and see what choices
are on offer.

We should as you point out have open minds to all
the possibilities available and select the best
possible options that suit this great big sun-filled,
wind-blown, surrounded by water, country of ours.

Foxy,

And don't forget the mountains of uranium in SA ;)

Joe

Joe,

The mountains of uranium in South Australia?

How could anyone forget those.

When the South Australian government has stream-lined
the project approvals, improving transparency and
boosting industry and community confidence that the
regulatory processes are effective and promoting efficiency
in mining operations while effectively ensuring the safety
and protection of all South Australians and the
environment. :-)

Why is it that all you people want to deny the flora of the world enough CO2 to live a healthy life.

We all need flora to exist, & you are denying it the CO2 locked up over the ages, when we can finally put some back where it came from, & improve our lives doing so.

If you have ant PROOF that CO2 causes any harm, spit it out, or stop the bill dust.

Foxy,

Your comment "I guess we shall have to wait and see what choices
are on offer." is more than a little naive. I remember going to a renewable energy presentation at a University roughly 40 years ago when virtually all of the technologies that available today were being developed including wind, solar, geothermal, wave, biomass, battery storage etc.

4 decades later the technologies are far advanced and mature, and while further advances can be expected, there is no magic bullet over the horizon, and the choices we have today are unlikely to differ much the choices we will have in 2050.

The single biggest problem that we face in reducing fossil fuel use is scalable emissions free base load. The only technology that fits this bill is nuclear, and the choice will need to be made at some point between fossil fuels or nuclear, and the scaremongering will have to stop.

Shadow Minister,

I'm sure that as we figure out the safety issues
the scare-mongering will cease.

That's all I meant by my "wait and see" remark.
Confidence grows as things are resolved.

Hi Foxy,

Someone, I forget who, was on TV a few weeks ago saying that they had a pacemaker, powered by plutonium, a tiny amount of course. Nuclear power, in other words, which can regulate heart rate.

And of course, nuclear-powered submarines. And probably all manner of hospital equipment too.

Yes, nobody should build a nuclear-power station 100 metres from the beach, in a tsunami-prone area, and with earthquakes every few months.

Nobody should build another nuclear power station using seventy-year-old technology, like at Chernobyl. Or try to shut down a nuclear power station without all of the sensible safeguards, not like at Chernobyl, 34 years ago.

Human error with any technology is difficult to control completely. But given that France and Finland seem to have few problems with the actual operations of their nuclear plants, and provided that older stations are replaced in good time, then maybe there are no more problems with nuclear power stations than with wind towers or solar panel.

After all, has anybody thought what might happen if a wind tower toppled over onto some endangered wildlife, such as the burrow of a rare purple-arsed wombat ? Or if a solar array collapsed onto a sheltering cross-eyed pigmy wallaby ? Nobody gives them much thought.

Joe

Foxy,

The safety issues were solved long ago. The anti nuke activists are railing against issues from the 60s and 70s. They need to get a bit more up to date.

Nuclear power is twice as safe as renewable power.

I'll wait and see when all the evidence is in.

When do you reckon that might be, Foxy ?

Morrison and the state premiers want to wait for a couple of weeks after the last positive case of Covid-19 before they lift restrictions, when there is little chance of provoking a second wave. [Of course, since Dr Donald has said in the US that it will all disappear soon, and that there won't be a second wave, this is perhaps unnecessarily precautious].

But on that sort of precautious criterion, how long do you think they should wait until after the last major nuclear accident before they declare it safe enough to build new reactors ? Come to think of it, when WAS the last major nuclear accident ? Fukushima ? Earthquake and tsunami zone: check. Chernobyl ? old technology: check. Three-Mile Island back in 1979 ? Standard capitalist incompetence and greed: check.

Of course, no nuclear plant should be built near earthquake or tsunami zones, or with old technology, but with the latest technology - and probably building a multitude of small, versatile reactors, to power small and remote towns, and small desalination plants, etc., not just a handful of dirty-big ones.

Joe

Joe,

Not interested in further arguing.

Foxy,

The evidence is in:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Shadow Minister,

Thank You.

The link was useful.