Electric Cars

Bang on accurate info and reply.
As desirable as renewable energy is it will never satisfy the needs of our population. Wind, solar is far too unreliable and energy in far exceeds energy out.

By all means use electric cars or even high pressure air engine cars to drive to the shops and to take the kids to school and to putter around the city but try to go round Australia in a practical economic and reliable manner using this type of vehicle and you will find yourself stranded in the back blocks quick smart.
These vehicles will totally destroy the tourist industry......and your bank balance.

deutran wrote:

adrian ss wrote:

Right now I am actually considering getting an elec car....even Toyota a hybrid.  

Adrian I bought a Toyota Prius and its my worst purchase ever.At the price of nearly double our lancer the Hwy fuel consumption was only half a litre better per hundred kays.The Prius is only economical for city use as this is the bulk of regeneration.Try to sell a hybrid and see how much its worth.

Yeas mate I have been doing a lot of reading about these cars and had a close look at several. They all look very nice and well built but for someone like myself who likes to get away from the rat race now and again their running cost is actually higher than a straight petrol or LPG car......And when that battery stuffs up it is curtains for the car, easier to buy a new one, car that is,   but don't expect much trade in value.

You are 100% correct, these cars are around town vehicles only if you want to get good running cost. compared to petrol.
The Prius needs to stop start and climb hills for the battery engine to kick in and to be recharged during this type of driving.  On the highway the petrol engine does most of the work and the battery will go flat in time.....So I will not be going Hybrid.

After discovering this I am not surprised at the largish number of low priced Toyota hybrids that I saw while perusing the car yards.

[quote="adrian ss"
As desirable as renewable energy is it will never satisfy the needs of our population. Wind, solar is far too unreliable and energy in far exceeds energy out.

[/quote]
I cannot agree with you but we need to do a number of things to make this a reality: a national energy conservation policy and  more efficient energy technologies,the deployment of micro electricity grids where consumers with solar and battery storage share their stored electricity rather than that from the grid. We need to upgrade the electricity network so that solar and wind from any location can rapidly be switched into the grid network  because their will always be wind blowing somewhere and during daylight the sun shining somewhere. Excess electrical energy needs to stored in pumped hydro of which their are many suitable locations in Australia. We should also be moving towards a hydrogen economy using excess electrical energy from renewable sources to generate  and store hydrogen as  a fuel for transport, steel making  or electricity generation.Hydrogen can be easily stored  and transported as  liq NH3  and then easily converted back to H2 by passing over a catalyst, a process that has been perfected by the Csiro. If we and the rest of the world are to reduce C02 emissions then  we must move to renewable, non carbon energy sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pritchard_(engineer)

When I was an apprentice fitter & machinist/tool maker I saw and worked on some of the tooling for the pritchard steam engine.
Not much more I can to add to this thread,but an interesting read.


cheers   moredeep

As far as nation wide electricity generation is concerned I firmly believe that hydro powered turbine electricity generators and Nuclear powered steam elec generators is the only way to go . It is clean energy and nuclear power stations are very very safe today and is likely why there are so many nuke power stations around the world now.
Australia has enough necessary radioactive ore to keep us in electric power for generations to come.

Giant batteries are toxic stock piles. What do you do with them when they have run out of service life. or if they catch fire after a lightning strike or the local hoon or terrorist sends a few slugs into them. The only people who will benefit from the sale and installation of these battery banks are the manufacturers and share holders.
Wind generators require the use of large amounts of rare earth elements in order to keep the generator physical size down which requires mining large areas of the earth because these elements are not located in localised concentrations in the ground like iron ore , they are spread widely and thinly across the globe and require significant purification in order to produce the super magnets that these generators require.

If, instead of this flailing about by all the RE energy generators all trying to suck on the electricity market teat we'd put all those billions into Small Modular Reactors we'd now be generating clean reliable safe and cheap energy. We would not need to rejig the entire grid across the country nor build hundreds of transformers to boost the energy across thousands of kilometres of power lines. We would not need to cover tens of thousands of hectares with ugly innificient wind towers or solar panels that are so innificient we need millions of them. nor would we need to spend billions on giant batteries that need replacing ever ten years or so. No need to spend billions on more dams for pumped hydro nor wave generators that sink first time out.

Small Modular Reactors are very efficient, clean and safe. Early models have been powering ships and subs for decades without any accidents but the new SMR's are far cleaner and much more powerful. Some models of the SMR's can actually take old rods from old nuclear power stations and run them until there is nothing left. Some models do not even need cooling water. The modules can be built in factories and transported to the site, often using old coal or gas plant sites to connect straight into the grid.

Old style Nuclear power plants can take decades and billions to build putting off investors who aren't wanting to wait for a decade for the plant to start generating income. SMR's can be built in months, placed on site and be generating straight away and as demand ramps up more modules can be added. They use the old style Hub and Spoke grid design so there is no need to rebuild the entire grid or have giant batteries to smooth out the chaotic unreliable energy from those widely diverse and unreliable RE generators.

Unfortunately the world seems to want to ignore anything that has the word Nuclear in it. The left and the RE mob have done a good job of terrorising people with names like Chernoble, 60 year old technology, Two Mile Island where just a little steam escaped and hurt no one, again old technology. Fukushima is also thrown out into the scare mix. I remember the way the media reacted to Fukushima, they were screaming millions were going to die and the entire section of Japan would be uninhabital for a thousand years. The truth is People have been living at Chernoble since the accident without any reports of death or sickness. No one died at Fukushima and people have been moving back for years now.

I know that SMR's are the answer for our energy need but the RE mob have brain washed the world so thoroughly I doubt we will ever see that clean green energy in this country, and we will be the poorer for it.

granite2 wrote:If, instead of this flailing about by all the RE energy generators all trying to suck on the electricity market teat we'd put all those billions into Small Modular Reactors we'd now be generating clean reliable safe and cheap energy. We would not need to rejig the entire grid across the country nor build hundreds of transformers to boost the energy across thousands of kilometres of power lines. We would not need to cover tens of thousands of hectares with ugly innificient wind towers or solar panels that are so innificient we need millions of them. nor would we need to spend billions on giant batteries that need replacing ever ten years or so. No need to spend billions on more dams for pumped hydro nor wave generators that sink first time out.

Small Modular Reactors are very efficient, clean and safe. Early models have been powering ships and subs for decades without any accidents but the new SMR's are far cleaner and much more powerful. Some models of the SMR's can actually take old rods from old nuclear power stations and run them until there is nothing left. Some models do not even need cooling water. The modules can be built in factories and transported to the site, often using old coal or gas plant sites to connect straight into the grid.

Old style Nuclear power plants can take decades and billions to build putting off investors who aren't wanting to wait for a decade for the plant to start generating income. SMR's can be built in months, placed on site and be generating straight away and as demand ramps up more modules can be added. They use the old style Hub and Spoke grid design so there is no need to rebuild the entire grid or have giant batteries to smooth out the chaotic unreliable energy from those widely diverse and unreliable RE generators.

Unfortunately the world seems to want to ignore anything that has the word Nuclear in it. The left and the RE mob have done a good job of terrorising people with names like Chernoble, 60 year old technology, Two Mile Island where just a little steam escaped and hurt no one, again old technology. Fukushima is also thrown out into the scare mix. I remember the way the media reacted to Fukushima, they were screaming millions were going to die and the entire section of Japan would be uninhabital for a thousand years. The truth is People have been living at Chernoble since the accident without any reports of death or sickness. No one died at Fukushima and people have been moving back for years now.

I know that SMR's are the answer for our energy need but the RE mob have brain washed the world so thoroughly I doubt we will ever see that clean green energy in this country, and we will be the poorer for it.

Nuclear is not the answer for Australia not even SMR's!

Unfortunately you may be right. But it is the best option we are likely to see for the next hundred years. The RE mob have cornered the market and are making billions out of the gullibility of the world. It is mainly through their efforts that SMR's are being pushed to one side. SMR technology terrifies the RE mob and so it should. If the world could see and understand how good small modular reactors are and given that we have enough cheap and PROVEN supplies of uranium to last us a thousand years they may realise how they have been duped. Unfortunately for the world the rabid anti nuclear mob seem to have won the day. I repeat, buy shares in candle factories, we are going to need lots of them.

granite2 wrote:Unfortunately you may be right. But it is the best option we are likely to see for the next hundred years. The RE mob have cornered the market and are making billions out of the gullibility of the world. It is mainly through their efforts that SMR's are being pushed to one side. SMR technology terrifies the RE mob and so it should. If the world could see and understand how good small modular reactors are and given that we have enough cheap and PROVEN supplies of uranium to last us a thousand years they may realise how they have been duped. Unfortunately for the world the rabid anti nuclear mob seem to have won the day. I repeat, buy shares in candle factories, we are going to need lots of them.

EXPERT REPORT: UAMPS MUNICIPALITIES’ INVESTMENT IN NUSCALE SMR NUCLEAR PROJECT “NOT PRUDENT” IN VIEW OF RISING COSTS, OTHER RISKS & CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES
More than 30 UT, ID, NV, NM & CA Towns in UAMPS System “Could Be on the Hook for Extreme Cost Overruns & Project Cancellation”; Renewables Combined With Energy Storage Seen As Far Cheaper, Safer & Faster Route.
SALT LAKE CITY – September 2, 2020 -- A leading world expert on small modular reactors (SMRs) issued a report today warning that more than 30 municipalities in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and California participating in the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) small modular nuclear project promoted by Oregon-based NuScale Power could end up being left holding the bag due to runaway costs, uncertain regulatory review, fickle taxpayer subsidies, and a host of other risks.
The report, titled “Eyes Wide Shut,” was issued by Dr. M.V. Ramana, who is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. He is the author of several reports, articles and peer-reviewed papers on small modular nuclear reactors in journals such as Nuclear Technology, Energy, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Energy Policy, IEEE Spectrum, and Energy Research and Social Science. Dr. Ramana is a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group, and the team that produces the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
The Ramana report concludes: “As has been true with other recent nuclear power projects in the US and in Europe, UAMPS members could be on the hook for extreme cost overruns and project cancellation, making it a risky proposition for them to continue investing in an untested, first-of-its-kind nuclear power facility. With nuclear power becoming more expensive in general, the dramatic increase in the construction costs of the NuScale project, the uncertainty in the outlook for electricity demand, and renewables and storage becoming increasingly cheaper, investment in the NuScale project is simply not prudent.”
Key report findings include the following:
• PROJECT COST. The estimated costs of the NuScale reactor design have been consistently going up. Just in the last five years, the estimated construction cost has gone up from around $3 billion in 2015 to $6.1 billion in 2020. And there are several reasons to expect that the NuScale reactor system, when transferred from paper to the real world, would cost even more than the currently doubled figure.

• SCHEDULE DELAYS. NuScale Power was supposed to deliver its first working small modular reactor in 2015. After a series of delays, it is now forecasting the first UAMPS reactors in 2029-2030 – unless there are further delays, which are likely.

• COST OF ELECTRICITY. UAMPS power costs were originally projected at $65 per megawatt hour and then reduced to $55 per megawatt hour. But other utilities have indicated that NuScale SMRs would cost $94-$121 per megawatt hour. Even if the UAMPS/NuScale electricity production costs are correct, they would still far exceed the cost of renewables, which are moving in the opposite direction. A renewables portfolio could be up to 60 percent less expensive than the UAMPS/NuScale project. Even with the cost of battery-based energy storage added in, renewables would still be considerably cheaper at $39 per megawatt hour.

• NUCLEAR WASTE. The problems of nuclear waste—its long life and the challenge of stewarding it for hundreds of thousands of years—are well known. This will be a problem for NuScale too because just like large reactors, the proposed NuScale reactor design will produce radioactive wastes of many


kinds. The problem could even be a bit more acute; proposed reactor designs like NuScale will produce more, not less, nuclear waste per unit of electricity they generate.

Dr. Ramana said: “UAMPS members may wish to consider ending their pursuit of small modular nuclear reactors and avoid the sunk costs of a project that is very unlikely to achieve its target price or produce electricity at a cost competitive with proven alternatives. Pursuing cheaper, currently available solar, wind, energy storage (batteries), and energy efficiency would be a more reliable path for UAMPS to shift to a carbon-free energy future.”
Dr. Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out that the NuScale reactor has serious design flaws that contradict the company’s claim that the reactor is inherently and passively safe, as documented by recent concerns raised by a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical staff member. Dr. Lyman added: “NuScale has aggressively sought exemptions from critical safety and security requirements to try to reduce the reactor’s high price tag. But as Dr. Ramana has demonstrated, cutting corners has only increased NuScale’s safety risk without making it affordable.”
Dr. Lyman is an internationally recognized expert on nuclear power safety and security. He is a member of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, and has testified numerous times before Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dr. Lyman also co-authored the critically acclaimed book, Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster (New Press), published in February 2014.
Other key issues highlighted in the Ramana report are:
• SAFETY ISSUES. NuScale is not planning to build just one small reactor; it is planning to build a group of 12 at the same site. As a result, an accident at one unit might either induce accidents at others or make it harder to take preventive actions at others. Further, if the underlying reason for the accident is a common one that affects all of the reactors, such as an earthquake, it is possible that many, or even all, units could undergo accidents. In that case, the combined radioactive inventories are sizable, even in comparison with a large reactor. Some of these issues were observed in the Fukushima multiple reactor meltdown disaster.

• REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY. Despite what NuScale might claim, there is no guarantee that the reactor system will receive all necessary regulatory approvals. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards have flagged unresolved issues with the NuScale design that will have to be resolved at a future stage of licensing.

• FUNDING ISSUES. The UAMPS/NuScale project is heavily dependent on federal power purchase agreements and a steeply rising amount of tax-dollar-supported subsidies. Contrary to NuScale/UAMPS assurances, there is no way to guarantee the future flow of such subsidy funds. As the on-again, off-again Yucca Mountain project illustrates, federal support for nuclear energy can be fickle and is subject to withdrawal at any time.

• PARENT COMPANY. Another problem with the UAMPS proposal is uncertainty about the future of NuScale’s parent company: Fluor Corporation. Between October 2018 and August 2020, the company lost 80 percent of its value on the New York Stock Exchange. These losses are, in large part, the result of bidding too low on fixed price contracts and not accurately revealing their financial status to stockholders, triggering an SEC investigation this year. The company also disclosed that the Justice Department has subpoenaed documents concerning a fixed-price federal project.

The proposed NuScale reactor design is being considered for possible construction at the expense of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, “a political subdivision of the State of Utah that provides comprehensive wholesale electric-energy, transmission, and other energy services, on a nonprofit basis, to community-owned power systems… [in] Utah, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming”. The proposed NuScale design is to be a pressurized water reactor that is currently supposed to produce 60 megawatts (MW) of electrical power, although it is more correct to describe it as a 720 MW nuclear power plant since it is intended to be built only in a cluster of 12 units.
The “Eyes Wide Shut” report was supported by Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility. Dr. Ramana was given complete editorial freedom and is solely responsible for the content of the report.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Whitney Dunlap, (703) 229-1489 or wdunlap@hastingsgroup.com.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The Ramana report and streaming video for today’s news event are available at http://bit.ly/UAMPSNuScale.

I could refute most of those claims but why should I bother. The whole thing is RE propaganda and not worth my time worrying about. RE is now so powerful and cashed up they can say anything with impunity. As I have twice said the RE mob have seemingly won and the world is the poorer for it.

granite2 wrote:I could refute most of those claims but why should I bother. The whole thing is RE propaganda and not worth my time worrying about. RE is now so powerful and cashed up they can say anything with impunity. As I have twice said the RE mob have seemingly won and the world is the poorer for it.

So you refute the claims of a  nuclear expert?  Many others  with expertise in the field say the same thing!
Can you tell us where their are any SMR's that are commercially operating?
Seven reasons why small modular nuclear reactors are a bad idea for Australia
https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/seven-reasons-why-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-are-a-bad-idea-for-australia,13010

What nuclear expert? All I see is a lot of words written by who knows whom. And Russia has three SMRs operating with many more close to coming on line in Russi and the U.S..
Why don't you get I'm not interested in your propaganda? Everyone has an opinion and I allow yours without pushing mine on you, please return the favour.

granite2 wrote:What nuclear expert? All I see is a lot of words written by who knows whom. And Russia has three SMRs operating with many more close to coming on line in Russi and the U.S..
Why don't you get I'm not interested in your propaganda? Everyone has an opinion and I allow yours without pushing mine on you, please return the favour.

Where are the 3 SMR's operating in Russia and where are the ones in the US that are close to coming on line?
“For all the hype in certain quarters, commercial deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) have to-date been as successful as hypothesized cold fusion – that is, not at all. Even assuming massive ongoing taxpayer subsidies, SMR proponents do not expect to make a commercial deployment at scale any time soon, if at all, and more likely in a decade from now if historic delays to proposed timetables are acknowledged.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/

granite2 wrote:What nuclear expert? All I see is a lot of words written by who knows whom.

Here is the link to authors nuclear expertise and  his publications. Very impressive.
https://sppga.ubc.ca/profile/m-v-ramana/

That was a very large burst of words a few posts back.and I respect your opinions on RE but exactly why are you so against nuclear energy when it is being used all around the world very succesfully
It is far more efficient and reliable and capable of continued high output for very very much longer time than any currant Renewable. Also why call solar or wind power  "Renewable Energy". It is not, you cannot use it over and over again. Solar panels require continuing replacement as do wind generators that require on going replacement of the actual generators and magnetic components and rotor  blades and this requires much mining activity for copper silver gold, rare earth metals and fibre glass and carbon fibre manufacturing.
Renewable energy is toy energy and if this country becomes totally  dependant on it for our electricity supply then it will be our down fall.

Do you truly believe that we can cover Australia with solar panels and wind farms and  batteries.
Just imagine the NT covered in solar panels supplying all of Australia. The amount of heat radiated back into the atmosphere from those panels could change the climate patterns locally or even possibly Australia wide completely.......Well it is just a thought

adrian ss wrote:That was a very large burst of words a few posts back.and I respect your opinions on RE but exactly why are you so against nuclear energy when it is being used all around the world very succesfully
It is far more efficient and reliable and capable of continued high output for very very much longer time than any currant Renewable. Also why call solar or wind power  "Renewable Energy". It is not, you cannot use it over and over again. Solar panels require continuing replacement as do wind generators that require on going replacement of the actual generators and magnetic components and rotor  blades and this requires much mining activity for copper silver gold, rare earth metals and fibre glass and carbon fibre manufacturing.
Renewable energy is toy energy and if this country becomes totally  dependant on it for our electricity supply then it will be our down fall.

Do you truly believe that we can cover Australia with solar panels and wind farms and  batteries.
Just imagine the NT covered in solar panels supplying all of Australia. The amount of heat radiated back into the atmosphere from those panels could change the climate patterns locally or even possibly Australia wide completely.......Well it is just a thought:D  

Their are many reasons why I am against nuclear energy. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is one reason but their are others. Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build,the planning, construction regulatory approvals and commissioning of a nuclear plant typically takes a decade or longer. Electricity from nuclear power plants also is much more expensive than from wind or solar.
Decommissioning a nuclear plant at the end of its life is also likely to be enormously expensive because of the huge radioactive inventory. For example how to you decommission the reactor core and ensure that regardless of any event that the core will never leak any radioactive material into the environment or groundwater over a geological time frame?
Then you have the problem of spent fuel rods which must be stored without any leakage in ponds for many decades. In Australia's case we have no reprocessing facilities so we either send the send the spent fuel rods for reprocessing o/s (with all the potential; hazards that entails )and would be obliged to take back the high level waste and find some suitable repository to store it safely for geological times frames. If we don't do this then we would need to find a suitable site to store the spent fuel rods safely again for geological times frames.
The Lucas heights reactor is close to running out of room in its spent fuel rod pond and is almost at capacity for waste storage.

RE is the way to go for Australia where we have probably the best wind and solar resources of any country as well as hydro and potentially untapped geothermal resources .Just imagine if every every suitable building and home in Australia had solar panels and batteries the impact that would have on reducing our C02 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation!

Hydro and thermal resources. Now you are talking.

But maybe you are right , maybe it is time.
https://www.isolarworld.com/blog/Top-ten-leading-countries-in-solar-power-generation/

I have worked on Operation of power stations built in 1921 up to the last one which was built in the mid 1980s The last one produces 20% + of Victoria Power. The output is 1,450 MW or 10,500 GW p.a. it will be shut down in about 15 years. The total Australian Solar power is 18,526 MW for 8 out 24 hours or 6,175 average for a day of full sun light. All the solar system on roof and solar farms now in existence if stored at 100% conversion would only supply 60% of Victoria's power leaving none for all the other States of Aust. All I can say there is a big task ahead.

Fact. Solar only works during daylight and no matter how many solar farms you build they still only work during daylight. FACT wind turbines only work when there is wind. A large high pressure system can cover Hal of the eastern states meaning very little or no wind for days. No wind no sun no power because there are not enough batteries in the world to power three capital cities for. twelve hours. FACTS NOT OPINIONS.

geof_junk wrote:I have worked on Operation of power stations built in 1921 up to the last one which was built in the mid 1980s The last one produces 20% + of Victoria Power. The output is 1,450 MW or 10,500 GW p.a. it will be shut down in about 15 years. The total Australian Solar power is 18,526 MW for 8 out 24 hours or 6,175 average for a day of full sun light. All the solar system on roof and solar farms now in existence if stored at 100% conversion would only supply 60% of Victoria's power leaving none for all the other States of Aust. All I can say there is a big task ahead.  

What you say might be true but the continuing rapid uptake of solar and wind and batteries will close this gap.

granite2 wrote:Fact. Solar only works during daylight and no matter how many solar farms you build they still only work during daylight. FACT wind turbines only work when there is wind. A large high pressure system can cover Hal of the eastern states meaning very little or no wind for days. No wind no sun no power because there are not enough batteries in the world to power three capital cities for.  twelve hours. FACTS NOT OPINIONS.

Fact. During daylight hours the sun will always be shining somewhere over Australia's vast land mass and the wind will always be blowing somewhere. Its just a matter of having a national grid system capable of switching in the appropriate location at the right time. California is now getting about 60% of its power from renewables and there is no reason why we can't do the same thing in conjunction with a comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency program

Just Googled this bit of spectacular BS.

Australia’ per capita CO2 emissions are among world’s highest. On a per capita basis, Australia’s carbon footprint, including exports, is nine times higher than China’s, four times that of the US, and 37 times that of India.

Including our coal and gas exports to our pollution contributions is totally incorrect.
Once these exports are in the purchasing countries any pollution they may cause is the result of those countries using these exports. It is their problem how they utilize these commodities.

If Australia is such a large  contributor, why is the air over this country so wonderfully clean.
It is blatantly obvious from this Air Quality map which countries are the main offenders.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal

China, Vietnam, Germany and Africa are all building coal powered generators, Germany using dirty brown coal while we destroy our energy reliability and economy trying to save the world by shutting down coal mines and a few coal and gas generators. Oh the irony of it all

granite2 wrote:China, Vietnam, Germany and Africa are all building coal powered generators, Germany using dirty brown coal while we destroy our energy reliability and economy trying to save the world by shutting down coal mines and a few coal and gas generators. Oh the irony of it all

The writing is on the wall for coal fired power stations in Australia because the private sector will not finance building any new ones and superannuation funds and fund mangers are getting out of investment in coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas-Joseph_Cugnot

wow,invented b4 oz was discovered,freaky


cheers   moredeep

My worry is that coal power will fail due to being pushed out of the market before we have anything to take its place. The anti everything but RE are pushing hard for the collapse of coal and oil and they may get what they want sooner than they expect. What does that mean? No airforce, no navy,. Foot soldiers only, no air travel and no industry. Better start learning Mandarin and buying candles because without coal and oil the RE will not cut the mustard... Ever. Anyone who thinks we can run this country on RE alone is very much mistaken. Look at how little RE contributes now even after all the billions thrown at it and that tiny percentage will take decades to get up to even 80 per cent plus many more billions. But that is only my opinion and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

granite2 wrote:My worry is that coal power will fail due to being pushed out of the market before we have anything to take its place. The anti everything but RE are pushing hard for the collapse of coal and oil and they may get what they want sooner than they expect. What does that mean? No airforce, no navy,. Foot soldiers only, no air travel and no industry. Better start learning Mandarin and buying candles because without coal and oil the RE will not cut the mustard... Ever. Anyone who thinks we can run this country on RE alone is very much mistaken.  Look at how little RE contributes now even after all the billions thrown at it and that tiny percentage will take decades to get up to even 80 per cent plus many more billions. But that is only my opinion and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

You are taking a very pessimistic view. The transition to a RE economy will not be easy or cheap and may in the shorter term be socially and economically disruptive but we will emerge with a new more sustainable economy ,new jobs and the chance to become an energy superpower by exporting H2 and NH3 produced from re sources and steel produced and fabricated here rather than China and other places. Every country has to do its bit to reduce C02 emissions including Australia which is a high per capita C02 emitter.

Meanwhile the Chinese are investing heavily in coal gold and oil and gas while building a massive military force and pushing further and further into territory that they will eventually claim as theirs
The pipe dream of a squeaky clean and at the same time highly industrious society is utterly impossible.

Current day billionaires will be jumping out high tower buildings and slashing their wrists as they see their industries failing and crumbling around them. Insurance companies will go down the gurgler, Super funds will struggle to stay afloat without massive increases in contributions because their investment industries will have failed. Medicare will collapse, Space exploration will disappear, ships planes n trains will vanish, across country and international travel will be for the very rich and military only and those countries that continue the use of of coal, oil, gas and the mining of iron and steel manufacturing and power their world with nuclear, coal and oil powered industry will dominate the world.
   The mining industry will collapse because their will be zero coal, petrol and oil to keep the heavy machinery industry running.
If the mining industry collapses then out the window will go your electric cars and wind power elec generators your batteries and everything associated with these industries

One irony is that those countries contributing the vast majority of air pollution are also using the greatest amount of wind and solar power. It will be interesting to see if the air purity become cleaner in these regions in a few years time.

Well done PC,, you never fail to come up with airy fairy far left wing gobbly hook

granite2 wrote:Well done PC,, you never fail to come up with airy fairy far left wing gobbly hook

If you think what i post is " gobbly hook " then why not produce some credible evidence or facts to refute it.The facts are that the world cannot continue with a business as usual scenario with fossil fuels.