Yellow Bellied Pollies back down on Orange Bellied Parrots!
fasgnadh
Yellow Bellied Pollies back down on Orange Bellied Parrots!
The tories have backed down on their saboutage of a $400m
windfarm which they had blocked on the spurious pretext
that it endangered Orange Bellied Parrots.
Apparently they have decided that pandering to
political interests in the electorate was not
worth destroying the clean green alternative
and renewable energy source; windpower!
Their environmental credentials are as phonie as their
other 'principles' like Bribing tyrants to flog wheat! B^p
B^p
----------
US Congressional investigation June 2004:
"What motivated the September 11 Attacks"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
---------
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
---------
There is a fundamental distinction between
multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists
constantly and deliberately confuse.
A society is multicultural if it has more than one
culture being practised within that society.
'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number
of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary
MulticulturalISM is two things, the -ISM indicates that it
is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture,
ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it,
a celebration of it.
But it is ALSO a set of government policies to
formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration!
Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents
the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from
having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."
Recently Howard has decided to abandon national unity through
freedom and diversity and return to the language of the White
Australia policy.
Australians will have to choose if they want a future,
or a return to the past.
---------
The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
The true-blue Homestead;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
The Tuckerbox;
http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
-----------
Addinall
fasgnadh wrote:
> Yellow Bellied Pollies back down on Orange Bellied Parrots!
>
> The tories have backed down on their saboutage of a $400m
> windfarm which they had blocked on the spurious pretext
> that it endangered Orange Bellied Parrots.
>
> Apparently they have decided that pandering to
> political interests in the electorate was not
> worth destroying the clean green alternative
> and renewable energy source; windpower!
Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
declares "operational".
I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
Mark Addinall.
Arthur Brain
Addinall wrote:
> Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> declares "operational".
> I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
Are you one of these nitwits who confuses installed capacity with
average output?
Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
The bottom line is that per installed MW, wind power is half the price
of nuclear, and that's if you accept the dishonest distorted pro-nuke
costings which fail to include the full cost of permanent safe storage
for the waste and the cost of the risk incurred.
(As opposed to the risk incurred by wind farms which is nil, especially
seeing as nobody has ever seen one of these parrots anywhere near the
proposed wind farm site.).
Tell me this - which insurance company will insure a nuclear power
plant?
I wonder which insurance company can afford to pay out trillions of
billions of dollars in compo when another Chernobyl happens upwind of
Sydney.
Oh, I forgot - nuclear is perfectly safe and accidents can't possibly
happen....funny how not a single insurance company in the country will
take on this non-existent risk, eh?
Arthur Brain
Addinall wrote:
> Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> declares "operational".
> I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
Are you one of these nitwits who confuses installed capacity with
average output?
Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
The bottom line is that per installed MW, wind power is half the price
of nuclear, and that's if you accept the dishonest distorted pro-nuke
costings which fail to include the full cost of permanent safe storage
for the waste and the cost of the risk incurred.
(As opposed to the risk incurred by wind farms which is nil, especially
seeing as nobody has ever seen one of these parrots anywhere near the
proposed wind farm site.).
Tell me this - which insurance company will insure a nuclear power
plant?
I wonder which insurance company can afford to pay out trillions of
billions of dollars in compo when another Chernobyl happens upwind of
Sydney.
Oh, I forgot - nuclear is perfectly safe and accidents can't possibly
happen....funny how not a single insurance company in the country will
take on this non-existent risk, eh?
Funny how France is having to import electricity as their nuclear
generators grind to a halt as they run out of water due to the
drought........so much for reliability......
'Arf
Arthur Brain wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > declares "operational".
> > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
In fact a simple google will reveal that the project itself is
promising to deliver the figure of 39.5 MW.
Maybe you can explain exactly what your strawman argument was supposed
to prove, unless you were simply trying to demonstrate the usual
dishonesty of the anti-environment pro-nuke lobby?
http://www.wind-power.com.au/projects/baldhills/BaldHills_specs.asp
Plant Specifications
Turbines 52 x 2MW Repower MM82
Rated capacity 104 MW
Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh
Capital Cost $176.8 Million
Current Status Under Tender
Wind Resource
Wind Speed 8.2m/s long term corrected wind speed
Source 4 monitoring towers measuring data at 10m,30m,40m, and 50m for
over 2 years
Benefits
Annual Greenhouse gas savings Per annum (t) 414,523
Number of households supplied per year 64,952
Equivalent cars of the road per year 95,733
Equivalent trees planted per year 592,176
Spent Regionally (assumes 40%of capital cost) $70.72M
Average number of construction jobs created 68
Number of indirect jobs created 203
jg
"'Arf" <arthur...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1166689971....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Arthur Brain wrote:
>> Addinall wrote:
>
>> > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
>> > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
>> > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
>> > declares "operational".
>
>> > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
>> > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
>
> In fact a simple google will reveal that the project itself is
> promising to deliver the figure of 39.5 MW.
>
> Maybe you can explain exactly what your strawman argument was supposed
> to prove, unless you were simply trying to demonstrate the usual
> dishonesty of the anti-environment pro-nuke lobby?
>
greenhouse reduction, so 82% of energy will still come from where it does
now I guess. So our nuclear vision/nightmare of 10-15 years won't be a
greenhouse or an energy solution. Ask what the govt's real reasons for
wanting it are.
Tex
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:458A3655...@yahoo.com.au...
>
> Yellow Bellied Pollies back down on Orange Bellied Parrots!
>
> The tories have backed down on their saboutage of a $400m
> windfarm which they had blocked on the spurious pretext
> that it endangered Orange Bellied Parrots.
Gosh, you won't be able to screech about them destroying clean energy
alternatives and all that other crap.
'Arf
Well - your average Joe can't invest in building a Nuclear power
station - the only people with the money and technology will be
companies such as Bechtel and Howard's other "Iraq Fiasco" mates.
The nature of nuke power means:
- no competition - only a couple of Yank companies can do it
- most money goes overseas to JH's Yank mates during both the 15 years
of building (expect cost blow-outs) and the subsequent operations
- Due to "security", the industry will not be open or accountable
- the sheer expense of the technology will be borne by govt. and every
time the Yanks want to fleece us for more money, they will simply
threaten to close down (without allowing any scrutiny of their
financial operations) unless given additional subsidy upon their
subsidies.
- any incidents or issues with contamination will be transferred to
the Aussie taxpayer to deal with - witness the UK's current
decomissioning liability of $300 BILLION, transferred from the
operators of the nukes to the brit taxpayer.
Addinall
'Arf wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
> > Addinall wrote:
>
> > > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > > declares "operational".
>
> > > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
> > > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
>
> In fact a simple google will reveal that the project itself is
> promising to deliver the figure of 39.5 MW.
Where did that figure come from?
>
> Maybe you can explain exactly what your strawman argument was supposed
> to prove, unless you were simply trying to demonstrate the usual
> dishonesty of the anti-environment pro-nuke lobby?
I'm demonstrating the fact that you watermelons STILL
can't count.
>
> http://www.wind-power.com.au/projects/baldhills/BaldHills_specs.asp
>
>
>
> Plant Specifications
> Turbines 52 x 2MW Repower MM82
> Rated capacity 104 MW
> Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh
> Capital Cost $176.8 Million
> Current Status Under Tender
>
>
> Wind Resource
> Wind Speed 8.2m/s long term corrected wind speed
> Source 4 monitoring towers measuring data at 10m,30m,40m, and 50m for
> over 2 years
>
>
>
> Benefits
> Annual Greenhouse gas savings Per annum (t) 414,523
> Number of households supplied per year 64,952
> Equivalent cars of the road per year 95,733
> Equivalent trees planted per year 592,176
> Spent Regionally (assumes 40%of capital cost) $70.72M
> Average number of construction jobs created 68
> Number of indirect jobs created 203
Lessee....
First calculate base load requirements of
64,952 @ 14MWh pa = 909,328 MWh.
Now calculate energy purchased at rate capacity,
104 * 8760 = 911,040 MWh pa
Now calculate the usage ratio, as
909,328 Mwh / 911,040 MWh = 0.998.
So the specified "benefits" are pretty
much quoting that this wind farm will
operate at 100%, or a little better!
Then they quote:
"Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh"
Bearing in mind 911,040 is the rated capacity.
So they are assuming they can generate 38%
of rated capacity. Ambitious from observation
of installed wind farms.
If they make that capacity, that's enough
juice for a slightly smaller suburb at
24,682 households.
Or a capacity factor ratio of 2.63.
Meaning, the plant would need to operate
at 263% to meet the advertised claim.
I suggest the rest of these mumbers need a look
at as well.
Benefits
Annual Greenhouse gas savings Per annum (t) 414,523
Number of households supplied per year 64,952
Equivalent cars of the road per year 95,733
Equivalent trees planted per year 592,176
Spent Regionally (assumes 40%of capital cost) $70.72M
Average number of construction jobs created 68
Number of indirect jobs created 203
By comparison, if we have a look at nuclear power
generation, we see that they produce OVER 95%
of rated capacity! You get what you purchase!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/braidwood.html
A modern coal plant will typically operate at 80%
of rated capacity.
Doesn't look that good for wind in the willows does it?
And that's assuming they are going to make 38% over
12 months. I can guarantee that's not going to
happen. Like I said, 30% is well ambitious. I wouldn't
be suprised if that came out to around 12-18%, and
then it looks even bloody worse hey?
Then factor in the cost of a coal fired plant to make
up the 88% shortfall in power requirements!
What a con! It's not only a waste of money,
it's an APPALLLLLLLING waste of money!
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
Arthur Brain wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
>
> > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > declares "operational".
>
> > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
> > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
> Are you one of these nitwits who confuses installed capacity with
> average output?
No. "Average output" is not a usual term.
>
> Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
I expect it to run at >90% of 3GB.
Lessee....
Then they quote:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/braidwood.html
12 months. I can guarentee that's not going to
happen. Like I said, 30% is well ambitious. I wouldn't
be suprised if that came out to around 12-18%, and
then it looks even bloody worse hey?
>
> The bottom line is that per installed MW, wind power is half the price
> of nuclear,
You have your reciprocal upside down, at least.
http://benambra.org/benambra/?q=taxonomy/term/9
----------------
While the specifics of many of their points relate specifically to
Canada's climatic (and consequent energy use) patterns, they are
illlustrative of the issues wind power faces in making a significant
contribution to total energy demands.
- In this environment, wind power is weakest in the winter months, when
Canadian energy demand is highest (heating and lighting, rather than
air conditioning!)
- From day to day, the average peak production of wind doesn't coincide
particularly well with peak demand.
- Wind power produces virtually no power a lot of the time, and most of
its power in a rush.
- Predicting the power to be produced by wind is difficult, with
significant discrepancies between the predicted and actual generation a
lot of the time.
- The total "capacity factor" - the proportion of its rated power it
actually produces, on average, is something around 25%.
- Only pumped-storage hydro, and compressed air storage, to help smooth
this out is economically viable at this point in time and the potential
is quite limited; expandable storage methods "are not commercially
viable" at this point in time. If it cannot be addressed, and
sufficient load shaping options cannot be identified, they state that
- As identified by E.On Netz in its 2005 study, if other load shaping
options are not sufficiently developed, flexible output standby
generation with capacity approaching the
capacity of the installed wind generators will be required. Back-up
power requirements
and impacts should be assessed. Since low-efficiency fossil generation
is usually required
for performing this function, some of the environmental advantage of
wind power will
have to be sacrificed if grid reliability is to be maintained.
What they further don't address is the cost implications of that backup
power requirements...
While these guys clearly support the deployment of wind power, the
subtext of the report is clear - it's going to be tough to continue to
increase the proportion without energy storage, and energy storage is
expensive. Just to give you an idea of how expensive even the
state-of-the-art technologies are, the Energy Blog has a post about
vanadium redox flow batteries. In industrial size facilities, these
things are expected to have an incremental cost of about 150 USD per
kilowatt hour. That is, to build sufficient storage to supply a
kilowatt of power for one hour (or half a kilowatt for two, or two
kilowatts for half an hour), you have to spend 150 USD. A rather
conservative estimate by MIT of the cost of nuclear power is 2000 USD
per kilowatt hour. So, for 2000 USD, you can get one kilowatt of
nuclear capacity (which will operate 90% of the time), or a storage
facility that will provide a kilowatt of power for roughly 13 hours.
The charts in that report show that there were periods of days at a
time where wind power production was virtually zero.
http://benambra.org/benambra/?q=taxonomy/term/9
-------------------------
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/articles/EPreviewofwindpowerresults.pdf
Download the pdf file using that link.
And that's a reportfrom Canadian Greenies!
It doesn't work. Anyone who can count can tell you
that. It....Doesn't....Work.
Capiche'?
> and that's if you accept the dishonest distorted pro-nuke
> costings which fail to include the full cost of permanent safe storage
> for the waste and the cost of the risk incurred.
Symrock it. Chuck it in a big hole.
>
> (As opposed to the risk incurred by wind farms which is nil, especially
> seeing as nobody has ever seen one of these parrots anywhere near the
> proposed wind farm site.).
>
> Tell me this - which insurance company will insure a nuclear power
> plant?
> I wonder which insurance company can afford to pay out trillions of
> billions of dollars in compo when another Chernobyl happens upwind of
> Sydney.
Trillions of Billions! Geez you watermelons are a joke!
>
> Oh, I forgot - nuclear is perfectly safe and accidents can't possibly
> happen....funny how not a single insurance company in the country will
> take on this non-existent risk, eh?
Asked them have you?
>
> Funny how France is having to import electricity as their nuclear
> generators grind to a halt as they run out of water due to the
> drought........so much for reliability......
Don't need water to drive a nuke. Lead will do the trick.
We have lots of that in Mt Isa.
Mark Addinall.
B J Foster
> Addinall wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
>>104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
>>much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
>>declares "operational".
>
>
>>I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
>
>>Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
$100m
(taxpayers money)
>
> Are you one of these nitwits who confuses installed capacity with
> average output?
>
> Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
WTF is 'constant permanent'?
>
> The bottom line is that per installed MW, wind power is half the price
> of nuclear, and that's if you accept the dishonest distorted pro-nuke
> costings which fail to include the full cost of permanent safe storage
> for the waste and the cost of the risk incurred.
Evidence please
>
> (As opposed to the risk incurred by wind farms which is nil, especially
> seeing as nobody has ever seen one of these parrots anywhere near the
> proposed wind farm site.).
>
> Tell me this - which insurance company will insure a nuclear power
> plant?
> I wonder which insurance company can afford to pay out trillions of
> billions of dollars in compo when another Chernobyl happens upwind of
> Sydney.
>
> Oh, I forgot - nuclear is perfectly safe and accidents can't possibly
> happen....funny how not a single insurance company in the country will
> take on this non-existent risk, eh?
>
> Funny how France is having to import electricity as their nuclear
> generators grind to a halt as they run out of water due to the
> drought........so much for reliability......
>
Nuclear stations can use seawater
'Arf
Addinall wrote:
> 'Arf wrote:
> > Arthur Brain wrote:
> > > Addinall wrote:
> > > > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > > > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > > > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > > > declares "operational".
> > > > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> > In fact a simple google will reveal that the project itself is
> > promising to deliver the figure of 39.5 MW.
> Where did that figure come from?
Start
RUn
calc
I agree it might be a tad ambitious, considering existing Australian
wind farms produce on average capacity factors of 30-35% but they have
calculated it based on two years' of data collection - whereas your
objections are based on what published research - exactly?
> I'm demonstrating the fact that you watermelons STILL
> can't count.
Lol!
You're the one who apparently gets confused between installed capacity
and actual production....
> > http://www.wind-power.com.au/projects/baldhills/BaldHills_specs.asp
> > Plant Specifications
> > Turbines 52 x 2MW Repower MM82
> > Rated capacity 104 MW
> > Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh
> > Capital Cost $176.8 Million
> > Current Status Under Tender
> > Wind Resource
> > Wind Speed 8.2m/s long term corrected wind speed
> > Source 4 monitoring towers measuring data at 10m,30m,40m, and 50m for
> > over 2 years
with no ongoing cost for radioactive waste and a total cost per KWh of
about 6c and falling every year.....wind is FREE, and CLEAN, after all,
unlike yellowcake....
Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 percent of its
electricity needs - pretty amazing considering your claim that
windpower can't deliver.....
Apparently some fossils just aren't capable of embracing change in the
way we produce power, so Australia has to be the dumb country in this
respect........
<SNIP bizarre calculations>
Now who can't count?
You *do* realise that wind power generation is a reality, with close to
600 turbine built or close to being finished, and 10% of SA's power
already coming from wind?
Face it : nukes will never happen, there are too many alternatives, and
ALL of them are cleaner, safer and cheaper than the dirty, dangerous
and dishonest Nuclear power industry.
'Arf
Addinall wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
> > Addinall wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > > declares "operational".
> >
> > > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> >
> > > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
> > Are you one of these nitwits who confuses installed capacity with
> > average output?
> No. "Average output" is not a usual term.
output is the power put out, average is when you add together a number
of figures over a period of time and then divide the total by the
number of figures...
- I just asked my 7-year-old and she understood it - what's your
problem? Head stuck too deep in the sand?
> > Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> > it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
> I expect it to run at >90% of 3GB.
Unless they run out of water - as has happened in France, or blow up,
as happened in Russia, in which case they drop down to 0%.
> "Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh"
> Bearing in mind 911,040 is the rated capacity.
> So they are assuming they can generate 38%
> of rated capacity. Ambitious from observation
> of installed wind farms.
Really?
Well, they have published 2 years' of data collection from the sites,
and we know existing Australian wind farms produce on average capacity
factors of 30-35%.
So where's *your* research which casts doubt on this official data?
Or are you just plucking this straight from your anus?
'Arf
B J Foster wrote:
> > Funny how France is having to import electricity as their nuclear
> > generators grind to a halt as they run out of water due to the
> > drought........so much for reliability......
> Nuclear stations can use seawater
Can they?
So why have the French wound down their water-starved nukes and started
buying-in power from their neighbours?
Maybe they didn't think of using seawater - maybe write to them and
they'll award you a "Legion d'honneur".......
B J Foster
Addinall
'Arf wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > 'Arf wrote:
> > > Arthur Brain wrote:
> > > > Addinall wrote:
>
> > > > > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > > > > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > > > > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > > > > declares "operational".
>
> > > > > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
> > > In fact a simple google will reveal that the project itself is
> > > promising to deliver the figure of 39.5 MW.
>
> > Where did that figure come from?
>
> Start
> RUn
> calc
>
> I agree it might be a tad ambitious, considering existing Australian
> wind farms produce on average capacity factors of 30-35% but they have
> calculated it based on two years' of data collection - whereas your
> objections are based on what published research - exactly?
You snipped it. It's not abitious. It's impossible. The web page is
a lie.
>
> > I'm demonstrating the fact that you watermelons STILL
> > can't count.
>
> Lol!
> You're the one who apparently gets confused between installed capacity
> and actual production....
Not me sonny.
>
> > > http://www.wind-power.com.au/projects/baldhills/BaldHills_specs.asp
>
> > > Plant Specifications
> > > Turbines 52 x 2MW Repower MM82
> > > Rated capacity 104 MW
> > > Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh
> > > Capital Cost $176.8 Million
> > > Current Status Under Tender
>
> > > Wind Resource
> > > Wind Speed 8.2m/s long term corrected wind speed
> > > Source 4 monitoring towers measuring data at 10m,30m,40m, and 50m for
> > > over 2 years
>
> with no ongoing cost for radioactive waste and a total cost per KWh of
> about 6c
At RATED CAPACITY INSTALLED, you bumbling hippy.
Not energy produced!
> and falling every year.....wind is FREE, and CLEAN, after all,
> unlike yellowcake....
>
> Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 percent of its
> electricity needs - pretty amazing considering your claim that
> windpower can't deliver.....
-----------------
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and
concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient
production, and high production costs."
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced
electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no
conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the
intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants
must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for
electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies
and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would
actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the
primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for
the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to
other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are
simply shut off.
A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too
Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's
wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003,
i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's
electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the
Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only
1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported,
this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large
amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not
accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for
information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen
(Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole
exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.
Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is
not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported
more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric
bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the
wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest
in Europe. [Click here for a detailed and well referenced examination
by Vic Mason and the Danish Society of Windmill Neighbors, and here for
a follow-up paper by Mason.]
The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a
big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest
needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines
produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated)
capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy
Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was
16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more
than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!).
[...]
------------------------------
Doesn't sound to great does it?
-----------------------------
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be
accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans
for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the
withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore
wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish
companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under
pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies
in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic
construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting
subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The
Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities
severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of
the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December
2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In
early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005,
Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006,
the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies
and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level
of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically
slowing wind-project applications.
-----------------------
And Australia should go back to that uncommon common sense.
----------------------------
In the U.K. (population 60 million), 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1%
of their electricity in 2002, according to the Department of Trade and
Industry. The government hopes to increase the use of renewables to
10.4% by 2010 and 20.4% by 2020, requiring many tens of thousands more
towers. As demand will have grown, however, even more turbines will be
required. In California (population 35 million), according to the state
energy commission, 14,000 turbines (about 1,800 MW capacity) produced
half of one percent of their electricity in 2000. Extrapolating this
record to the U.S. as a whole, and without accounting for an increase
in energy demand, well over 100,000 1.5-MW wind towers (costing
$150-300 billion) would be necessary to meet the DOE's goal of a mere
5% of the country's electricity from wind by 2010.
----------------
It's a worldwide dismal failure........
>
> Apparently some fossils
Perhaps it's because some of fossils can count....
> just aren't capable of embracing change in the
> way we produce power, so Australia has to be the dumb country in this
> respect........
>
> <SNIP bizarre calculations>
Standard Power Math.
Awwww, the poor watermelon doesn't like number...
What a shame..
Here, have another go.
Lessee....
First calculate base load requirements of
64,952 @ 14MWh pa = 909,328 MWh.
Now calculate energy purchased at rate capacity,
104 * 8760 = 911,040 MWh pa
Now calculate the usage ratio, as
909,328 Mwh / 911,040 MWh = 0.998.
So the specified "benefits" are pretty
much quoting that this wind farm will
operate at 100%, or a little better!
Then they quote:
"Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh"
Bearing in mind 911,040 is the rated capacity.
So they are assuming they can generate 38%
of rated capacity. Ambitious from observation
of installed wind farms.
If they make that capacity, that's enough
juice for a slightly smaller suburb at
24,682 households.
Or a capacity factor ratio of 2.63.
Meaning, the plant would need to operate
at 263% to meet the advertised claim.
I suggest the rest of these mumbers need a look
at as well.
Benefits
Annual Greenhouse gas savings Per annum (t) 414,523
Number of households supplied per year 64,952
Equivalent cars of the road per year 95,733
Equivalent trees planted per year 592,176
Spent Regionally (assumes 40%of capital cost) $70.72M
Average number of construction jobs created 68
Number of indirect jobs created 203
By comparison, if we have a look at nuclear power
generation, we see that they produce OVER 95%
of rated capacity! You get what you purchase!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/braidw...
A modern coal plant will typically operate at 80%
of rated capacity.
Doesn't look that good for wind in the willows does it?
And that's assuming they are going to make 38% over
12 months. I can guarantee that's not going to
happen. Like I said, 30% is well ambitious. I wouldn't
be suprised if that came out to around 12-18%, and
then it looks even bloody worse hey?
Then factor in the cost of a coal fired plant to make
up the 88% shortfall in power requirements!
What a con! It's not only a waste of money,
it's an APPALLLLLLLING waste of money!
>
> Now who can't count?
>
> You *do* realise that wind power generation is a reality, with close to
> 600 turbine built or close to being finished, and 10% of SA's power
> already coming from wind?
>
> Face it : nukes will never happen, there are too many alternatives, and
> ALL of them are cleaner, safer and cheaper than the dirty, dangerous
> and dishonest Nuclear power industry.
Not unless you want to sit in the dark.
Such lovely green things.....
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=721377
http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/pd--12079123/sp--A/Rows_of_Wind_Turbines_on_Hill_USA.htm
http://www.eurocontrol.int/mil/public/standard_page/cns_sur_wt.html
http://www.pbase.com/dougkess/image/61328120
Pretty, pretty landscape..............
Mark Addinall.
mma...@my-deja.com
> What a con! It's not only a waste of money,
> it's an APPALLLLLLLING waste of money!
Come on, think of all the money it makes for shareholders in 'wind
power' companies.
Mark
Addinall
'Arf wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > Arthur Brain wrote:
> > > Addinall wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > > > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > > > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > > > declares "operational".
> > >
> > > > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> > >
> > > > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
> > > Are you one of these nitwits who confuses installed capacity with
> > > average output?
>
> > No. "Average output" is not a usual term.
>
> output is the power put out, average is when you add together a number
> of figures over a period of time and then divide the total by the
> number of figures...
> - I just asked my 7-year-old and she understood it - what's your
> problem? Head stuck too deep in the sand?
I hope the fuck she is at least OK to look at. If she's
relying on inherited IQ, she's had it from the start...
>
> > > Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> > > it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
>
> > I expect it to run at >90% of 3GB.
>
> Unless they run out of water - as has happened in France, or blow up,
> as happened in Russia, in which case they drop down to 0%.
Similar to where the wind turbines sat in February. 0%.
>
> > "Electricity Generated annually 346,195 MWh"
>
> > Bearing in mind 911,040 is the rated capacity.
>
> > So they are assuming they can generate 38%
> > of rated capacity. Ambitious from observation
> > of installed wind farms.
>
> Really?
> Well, they have published 2 years' of data collection from the sites,
> and we know existing Australian wind farms produce on average capacity
> factors of 30-35%.
Data?
>
> So where's *your* research which casts doubt on this official data?
What official data? Your imagination? Scruffy ill-educated
watermelons....
>
> Or are you just plucking this straight from your anus?
-----------------------------
http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/02/wind-farms-conk-out-in-heat-wave.html
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Wind farms conk out in heat wave #
The Adelaide (South Australia) Advertiser has a story today about the
sorry performance of the state's 180 wind turbines during the January
heat wave. Even if there were some wind, many of the turbines shut down
because it was too hot. Then one of them caught fire. Although
firefighters couldn't do anything about the turbine, at least they were
there to put out the spot fires started by falling debris. Imagine such
a fire amidst the brush of a remote ridgeline.
A $3 MILLION wind farm turbine caught fire while dozens shut down at
the time South Australia most needed them -- when a heatwave left
63,000 South Australian homes without power last month.
Adding to the drama, firefighters could not extinguish the blaze
because the tower was too high at 67m [220ft].
Lack of wind and automatic shutdowns triggered by hot temperatures were
to blame for the state's 180 turbines producing just 10 per cent of
their maximum power capacity during the January heat wave, according to
experts.
The experience proved SA could not rely on wind power to provide
electricity when demand was greatest, the Electricity Supply Industry
Planning Council (ESIPC) said.
"You never know if the wind will be blowing when you need it to or if
wind turbines will shut down," ESIPC spokesman Brad Cowain said.
Operators of the Lake Bonney wind farm, where the turbine fire occurred
on Sunday, January 22, said all of its 46 turbines had automatically
shut down during the heat wave when temperatures exceeded 40C [104F].
... [Wind farm operator Miles George of Babcock and Brown Wind
Partners] said the turbine fire ... had been caused by an electrical
fault while maintenance crews were working on it after it had shut
down.
Around 3pm, 40 CFS firefighters and six trucks rushed to the wind farm
to extinguish the blaze but fire hose water couldn't reach the steel
generator at the top of the tower.
Instead, the firefighters watched as fire destroyed the $3 million
turbine - which weighs 75 tonnes -- and extinguished spot fires
ignited by ashes from the turbine blaze.
... [D]uring Saturday's peak power demand wind farm output plummeted to
just 2 per cent of capacity, producing enough power for only 3500
homes, according to ESIPC. This compared with the maximum capacity of
318MW to power 175,000 homes. SA leads the nation in wind farm energy
with five established sites -- Starfish Hill, Canunda, Wattle Point,
Cathedral Rocks and Lake Bonney.
There are numerous other approved wind farm developments including an
AGL plan for 43 turbines at Hallet in the state's Mid North.
But AGL also plans to more than double the capacity of its nearby
gas-fired plant, from 180MW to 430MW, at a cost of more than $100
million to ensure peak demand during hot weather can be met.
--------------------------
Great. A power source that turns off when it gets warm, then
bursts into flame, and burns the bush down.... What a really
great green tool....Made for Australia....
And what happens when one of these big ugly, and quite
useless windmill farms gets in the way of a bushfire on
a ridge? Kiss half a billion buck goodbye overnight...
--------------------------
http://www.abc.net.au/southwestvic/stories/s1571475.htm
Wind farm economics: a drain on funds or a boost of energy?
Thursday, 16 February 2006
Reporter: (Online) Jarrod Watt
Presenter: Stephen Martin
Researcher: Kirsty McDonald
An economic analyst claims he's done the numbers and wind energy is
costing the Victorian Government far more money than any wind turbines
could generate.
A new report published by free market thinktank the Institute of Public
Affairs questions the investment being made by the Victorian State
Government into wind power around the state, claiming there is no hope
of establishing a viable alternative energy industry via protectionism
and MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) subsidies.
The report's author, Dr Alan Moran, explains how he collated and
crunched the data on windpower and its costs:
"It starts off by looking at how the State Government's own estimates
of how much wind it will need to create by 2010, and the answer is 2500
gigawatt hours per year. We looked then at how much wind costs, and
there's two elements of that. One is about 70-80 dollars per megawatt
hour, which is about twice what the price of commercial energy is," he
says. "In addition wind is very unreliable, it cuts in and cuts out, so
you have to have backup for it, so the costs are somewhat in excess of
that crude depiction of the premium price you have to pay for wind.
Then you just multiply those through by the numbers, and it comes to
around 100 million dollars per year, and bearing in mind the fact that
windfarms do in fact need 15 years' assured committment from the
Government, you can work out for Victoria to go ahead with this
proposal, it would cost the Victorian taxpayer over $100 billion."
Wind is not and cannot be reliable. You can rely on it to be there when
you need it only 10 per cent of the time
He is quoted as saying windfarms are 'unreliable'. Upon which basis
does he make this claim?
"Oh, well they just cut in and cut out. Windfarms on average operate
for 25 per cent of the time, but they only operate when the wind is
blowing, so when the wind isn't blowing they're not available. I think
it was well publicised in South Australia a wek or so ago when they had
a heatwave of 42 or so degrees and suddenly none of the windfarms were
operating, or only operating at very low level and one of them caught
fire. Wind is not and cannot be reliable. You can rely on it to be
there when you need it only 10 per cent of the time," he says.
-------------------------
Have a look around here.
http://ipa.org.au/publications/publication_detail.asp?publicationid=9
Here's another one. CSIRO for the Government.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/publications/pubs/windstudy.pdf
Have a look at, All, All. A combination of all data sets studied,
for all times of the day.
Figure 7 Reliably available capacity figures by state and times of day
Gee look at that. Less than 10%.
RELIABLE.
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
You're not bloody wrong. It wouldn't quite so bad if it worked
MOST of the time.
Mark Addinall.
>
> Mark
B J Foster
> 'Arf wrote:
>
...
>
> Wind is not and cannot be reliable. You can rely on it to be there when
> you need it only 10 per cent of the time
A key problem with electricity is that you can't store it. Wind power
could be useful only if coupled with pumped storage.
Too many bloody lawyers => uninformed opinions & waste of taxpayers money
Peter
Addinall wrote:
> fasgnadh wrote:
> > Yellow Bellied Pollies back down on Orange Bellied Parrots!
> >
> > The tories have backed down on their saboutage of a $400m
> > windfarm which they had blocked on the spurious pretext
> > that it endangered Orange Bellied Parrots.
> >
> > Apparently they have decided that pandering to
> > political interests in the electorate was not
> > worth destroying the clean green alternative
> > and renewable energy source; windpower!
>
> Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> declares "operational".
>
> I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
> Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
Less. More importantly, what we need to see is a graph of generated
power by time of day. If the things are generating a lot of power at a
time when little is needed, it's wasted (no storage capacity). Looking
at these figures will, I predict, further reduce the effectiveness of
wind power.
Ask any householder with an all electric kitchen if it's OK to only
have power for the fridge & stove for 30% of the day, said 30%
allocated randomly throughout the 24 hours.
PDW
Peter
The problem with you, Half a Brain, is that like the wind power you
favour, you overestimate the functional capacity of your brain by
somewhere around 90%. Deci Brain fits you better.
PDW
Addinall
Peter wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> > > Yellow Bellied Pollies back down on Orange Bellied Parrots!
> > >
> > > The tories have backed down on their saboutage of a $400m
> > > windfarm which they had blocked on the spurious pretext
> > > that it endangered Orange Bellied Parrots.
> > >
> > > Apparently they have decided that pandering to
> > > political interests in the electorate was not
> > > worth destroying the clean green alternative
> > > and renewable energy source; windpower!
> >
> > Yeah right. For that money we are supposed to be buying
> > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > declares "operational".
> >
> > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
> >
> > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
> Less. More importantly, what we need to see is a graph of generated
> power by time of day. If the things are generating a lot of power at a
> time when little is needed, it's wasted (no storage capacity). Looking
> at these figures will, I predict, further reduce the effectiveness of
> wind power.
Those figures have been done in Denmark. When the wind farms
actually generate, the sell the power to other countries at
a loss just to get the excess ofthe grid. It turns out that the
whole deal only produced ~3% of the total power into the
grid.Slightly less the Denmark has to IMPORT when the
wind stops blowing! And they are touted as best in the
world, and are abandoning any more investment.
>
> Ask any householder with an all electric kitchen if it's OK to only
> have power for the fridge & stove for 30% of the day, said 30%
> allocated randomly throughout the 24 hours.
Wind power is notorious for stopping right when it is needed.
Heat wave in Adelaide, the whole wind grid turned itself off
and one burst into flames! When all the businesses and homes
were cranking up the air-con, the power went off line causing
brown and black outs, and taking 65,000 off the grid.
Only cost 3/4 of a billion to produce this fine engineering
result.....
Same happened in California last year. With a whopping
2,500MW of rated capacity installed, at a cost of
BILLIONS, during the heatwave the wind grid produced
less than 2% of stated "front ticket" capacity.
It's a waste of money when it comes to power generation,
it's a bloody eyesore, a waste of good land (unlike the picture
the watermelons paint of pretty windmills in a feild of
flowers and moo-cows, you need to sit a 65m turbine
in a LOT of sand and cement to keep the bastard grounded,
and you need road access to every one of them, large enough
to get in a cat cherry picker/crane tallenough to lift up to the
turbine). They're dangerous. Look at the one that caught
fire in SA. Nothing the smokies could do about it
except chase the burning debrie. They kill birds and bats.
Not that that particulary worries me, but I would have though
it might upset the "Greens" amongst us.
It's a pointless waste of time and money.
Marky.
>
> PDW
Peter
Hey, you're talking to someone who watched a 65 tonne crane being
lowered into a ship hold to be used to install these things in a very
remote place. Which place, I might add, made considerable sense for
something like this.
They're dangerous. Look at the one that caught
> fire in SA. Nothing the smokies could do about it
> except chase the burning debrie. They kill birds and bats.
> Not that that particulary worries me, but I would have though
> it might upset the "Greens" amongst us.
>
> It's a pointless waste of time and money.
Sure, but it makes their little hearts warm thinking about it. They
don't have to stay awake nights wondering if they're being covered by a
plume of silent radioactive death from the skies.
I reckon that people who sign up to wind power should get wind power -
when the mills stop producing, their power goes off. Lets see how
popular it is then. As it is, they're parasites off the fossil fuel
grid that supplies baseload power. Hell, look at the quality of the
supporters of this stupidity and their general numeracy. The moment you
produce numbers off they go into lalaland. You can just pick the
"klunk" noise as their brains switch over to parrot mode, regurgitating
the last thing they heard which fitted with what they wanted to
believe. It'd be really funny if the morons didn't vote.
90% of *my* power is derived from renewable resources, but it's a
system that actually works. Provided it rains, anyway.
PDW
Fran
B J Foster wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > 'Arf wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > Wind is not and cannot be reliable. You can rely on it to be there when
> > you need it only 10 per cent of the time
>
> A key problem with electricity is that you can't store it. Wind power
> could be useful only if coupled with pumped storage.
>
Agreed, and the obvious place in Australia is at the shoreline where
both wind and water are in plentiful supply. Given that potable water
is also in short supply, and desalination consumes considerable power,
a facility that used the energy produced by air and/or submarine
turbines and/or a wave device to pump sea water to a collection point
above the shore could both ensure predictable and instantaneous output
of electricity AND desalinated water as the falling water passed
through reverse osmosis filters.
Power generated at the shore could also be used to pump water thus
produced to local catchments and reserves -- and since this is also a
part of the overall energy demand placed on the grid, it would be a
bona fide offset to demand on the grid.
Fran
Peter
How about we pump desalinated water uphill into the Snowy storage
system from whence it can be used to generate hydropower on demand (ie,
now we got storage) and boost the water supplies to the irrigation
areas?
Still gonna be a cost disaster WRT other generation systems but there
are some benefits from it, because power production is decoupled from
power demand.
I can just see the Greenies frothing at the thought of building
pipelines thru 'pristine wilderness' from the coast to the lakes......
PDW
Arthur Brain
Peter wrote:
> The problem with you, Half a Brain, is that like the wind power you
Show me evidence of the over-estimation of the functional capacity of
wind power generators.
Come on - you pro-nuke fossils like to poo-poo, WHERE ARE THE
FACTS????????
Arthur Brain
Peter wrote:
> The problem with you, Half a Brain, is that like the wind power you
Show me evidence of the over-estimation of the functional capacity of
wind power generators.
Come on - you pro-nuke fossils like to poo-poo, WHERE ARE YOUR
FACTS????????
Arthur Brain
Peter wrote:
> I reckon that people who sign up to wind power should get wind power -
> when the mills stop producing,
Which mills will stop producing?
Wind power is far more reliable than fossil fules due to the ready,
reliable and free source for powering the windmills : wind.
I think I see the problem - not content with confusing installed
capacity and actual output, you are also hopelessly confused about the
difference between *reliability* & *variability*.....
It is very difficult to determine where pro-nuke proponents' shameless
lies end and wilful ignorance begins, but it seems to me you do not
know the first thing about the technology you are poo-poooin.
> their power goes off. Lets see how
Like Chernobyl, 3-mile Island, and an average of 3 nuke plants per
annum go off because of incidents?
Like the power stations in France have gone off due to water shortages?
> popular it is then. As it is, they're parasites off the fossil fuel
> grid that supplies baseload power.
The distributed nature of windpower generation makes it FAR more
reliable than fossil fuels or nuclear power plants.
Get back to us when you have figured out the difference between
reliability & variability.
RooBoy
"Peter" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166744394....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Clearly there needs to be a combination of power sources which may include
Coal Fired, Gas Fired, Wind, Hydro and Nuclear
Arthur Brain
Addinall wrote:
> 'Arf wrote:
> > Addinall wrote:
> > > Arthur Brain wrote:
> > > > Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> > > > it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
> >
> > > I expect it to run at >90% of 3GB.
> >
> > Unless they run out of water - as has happened in France, or blow up,
> > as happened in Russia, in which case they drop down to 0%.
> Similar to where the wind turbines sat in February. 0%.
Liar, Australia's 400-odd operational wind turbines in February did not
produce 0% of their installed capacity.
> A $3 MILLION wind farm turbine caught fire while dozens shut down at
> the time South Australia most needed them -- when a heatwave left
> 63,000 South Australian homes without power last month.
Gee - lucky they built wind towers and not nuclear power stations -
imagine a fire in a nuclear power station - that'd be slightly
worrying, eh?
The wind turbines in SA shut down because they can't run in
temperatures greater than 40 degrees........pretty cunning plan
installing a wind farm unsuited to the environment it's put in, eh?
Proof that project managers are morons, not that wind power is
ineffective.
Arthur Brain
Peter wrote:
> Less. More importantly, what we need to see is a graph of generated
> power by time of day. If the things are generating a lot of power at a
> time when little is needed, it's wasted (no storage capacity).
That's not the approach taken by those who engineered the Snowy
Mountains Hydro Scheme.
Are you saying this country is less clever now than it was in the
1950's, or is it just you fossils who are thick?
You *do* understand that the Snowy Hydro scheme aengineers ddressed
this exact issue, 50 years ago?
Are you truly this ignorant or just shamelessly dishonest?
> Looking
> at these figures will, I predict, further reduce the effectiveness of
> wind power.
Obviously you fossils will try to reduce it in any way you can - pity
that so far all you spout is merely illustrating the ignorance and lies
of the pro-nuke lobby.
> Ask any householder with an all electric kitchen if it's OK to only
> have power for the fridge & stove for 30% of the day, said 30%
> allocated randomly throughout the 24 hours.
Weird. Absolutely divorced from reality. But that's pro-nukers for you.
Why don't you go and educate yourself as to the meaning of distributed
power generation.
Arthur Brain
Peter wrote:
> Less. More importantly, what we need to see is a graph of generated
> power by time of day. If the things are generating a lot of power at a
> time when little is needed, it's wasted (no storage capacity).
That's not the approach taken by those who engineered the Snowy
Mountains Hydro Scheme.
Are you saying this country is less clever now than it was in the
1950's, or is it just you fossils who are thick?
You *do* understand that the Snowy Hydro scheme aengineers ddressed
this exact issue, 50 years ago?
Are you truly this ignorant or just shamelessly dishonest?
> Looking
> at these figures will, I predict, further reduce the effectiveness of
> wind power.
Obviously you fossils will try to reduce it in any way you can - pity
that so far all you spout is merely illustrating the ignorance and lies
of the pro-nuke lobby.
> Ask any householder with an all electric kitchen if it's OK to only
> have power for the fridge & stove for 30% of the day, said 30%
> allocated randomly throughout the 24 hours.
Weird. Absolutely divorced from reality. But that's pro-nukers for you.
Addinall
'Arf wrote:
> jg wrote:
> > "'Arf" <arthur...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1166689971....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Arthur Brain wrote:
> > >> Addinall wrote:
> > >
> > >> > 104 MW of power. Let's follow this and see exactly how
> > >> > much it DOES deliver over a 12 month period after it
> > >> > declares "operational".
>
> > >> > I'll be optimistic and hope for 30MW.
>
> > >> > Any other bets ladies and gentlemen?
>
> > > promising to deliver the figure of 39.5 MW.
>
> > > to prove, unless you were simply trying to demonstrate the usual
> > > dishonesty of the anti-environment pro-nuke lobby?
>
> > greenhouse reduction, so 82% of energy will still come from where it does
> > now I guess. So our nuclear vision/nightmare of 10-15 years won't be a
> > greenhouse or an energy solution. Ask what the govt's real reasons for
> > wanting it are.
>
> Well - your average Joe can't invest in building a Nuclear power
> station - the only people with the money and technology will be
> companies such as Bechtel and Howard's other "Iraq Fiasco" mates.
>
> The nature of nuke power means:
> - no competition - only a couple of Yank companies can do it
And the Poms, and the Canadians, and the Japanese (BIG
players), and the French, and the Argentines....
> - most money goes overseas to JH's Yank mates during both the 15 years
> of building (expect cost blow-outs) and the subsequent operations
Sixty months to build a modern modular nuke.
> - Due to "security", the industry will not be open or accountable
Is that a guess is it!?
> - the sheer expense of the technology will be borne by govt. and every
> time the Yanks want to fleece us for more money, they will simply
> threaten to close down (without allowing any scrutiny of their
> financial operations) unless given additional subsidy upon their
> subsidies.
Unless we don't buy from the Yanks. Quite likely. Our
current nuke is being built by Argentina. Surely you knew that.
> - any incidents or issues with contamination will be transferred to
> the Aussie taxpayer to deal with - witness the UK's current
> decomissioning liability of $300 BILLION, transferred from the
> operators of the nukes to the brit taxpayer.
Well, a little bit of truth wouldn't hurt.
"Estimates of the total overall cost of civilian nuclear clean-up in
the UK have now reached over £70 billion as the NDA gains a greater
knowledge of the scope of the tasks. Of that enormous eventual 'bill',
the Sellafield and Drigg sites represent about half, the Magnox
reactors about a quarter and Dounreay about a tenth. The rest is split
across other UKAEA sites. The waste management portion is slightly
greater than the decommissioning share.
A number of financial arrangements have been made over the years to
establish decommissioning funds.
On BNFL sites, some £6.7 billion of the cost was covered by commercial
contracts, £4.8 billion was funded through the Magnox undertaking (a
government provision in 1998 when BNFL took over the Magnox reactors),
£8 billion was funded by the taxpayer via UKAEA and Defence, and the
balance fell to BNFL itself. Following the 2002 white paper, BNFL made
£2.35 billion provision in its accounts for dealing with management of
historic wastes at Sellafield and for early closure of its eight oldest
Magnox reactors - at Calder Hall and Chapelcross. All these were to be
taken over by the new Authority, along with financial assets of £9.0
billion.
For what became British Energy, some funds have been set aside over the
years - £3.5 billion for reprocessing/ wastes in the 1995 accounts,
and since 1996, some £2 billion was set aside towards long-term
liabilities. In 2003 BE showed £3.9 billion in accrued nuclear
liabilities. All these monies were in companies' own audited accounts,
not in an external trust fund."
http://www.uic.com.au/nip84.htm
And of course, this amount of money, some from the government,
some from private enterprise, is being used to decommission plants
that have (and are be to) operated in the period 1956-2012.
Not bad. Fifty six years worth of safe service.
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
Arthur Brain wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > 'Arf wrote:
> > > Addinall wrote:
> > > > Arthur Brain wrote:
>
> > > > > Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> > > > > it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
> > >
> > > > I expect it to run at >90% of 3GB.
> > >
> > > Unless they run out of water - as has happened in France, or blow up,
> > > as happened in Russia, in which case they drop down to 0%.
>
> > Similar to where the wind turbines sat in February. 0%.
>
> Liar, Australia's 400-odd operational wind turbines in February did not
> produce 0% of their installed capacity.
Your poster child Denmark did! World's best. Dropped from 3%
to sweet fuck all! Great!
>
>
> > A $3 MILLION wind farm turbine caught fire while dozens shut down at
> > the time South Australia most needed them -- when a heatwave left
> > 63,000 South Australian homes without power last month.
>
> Gee - lucky they built wind towers and not nuclear power stations -
I assume you think bushfires aresomehow funny?
> imagine a fire in a nuclear power station - that'd be slightly
> worrying, eh?
No. They have VESDA and supression systems. Cleared and
enclosed quite small footprints. Easy access. Dedicated
fire control personell.
Windfarms are stuck in the bush, no supression systems,
VESDA is impossible, hugh footprint. No fire control units.
>
> The wind turbines in SA shut down because they can't run in
> temperatures greater than 40 degrees........pretty cunning plan
> installing a wind farm unsuited to the environment it's put in, eh?
Golly yes. They shut down when it's hot, when the wind doesn't
blow, when the wind blows too much. They shut down during
bush fires and dust storms. Pretty ideal for Australia don't
you think?
>
> Proof that project managers are morons,
You don't really know what a Project Manager does do you?
> not that wind power is
> ineffective.
It's effective where Wiley installs 'em. No-where else.
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
Arthur Brain wrote:
Tsk Tsk. Since you arereplying to Peter,
it's badform to change the headers so he will not see
your response (lame as it is).
Addinall
Addinall wrote:
I'll bounce this into a "proper" group as well.
Fran
What might be better inland would be to pump treated water from town
sewage to the nearest points of the rivers feeding the Snowy Scheme. It
would also be possible to pump desal water from the coast to the
MacIntyre River, which feeds the Barwon and ultimately the Darling.
> Still gonna be a cost disaster WRT other generation systems but there
> are some benefits from it, because power production is decoupled from
> power demand.
>
I'm very much in favour of energy efficiency measures as the top
priority thing to be done in the here and now. Avoiding energy waste
beats the hell out of EVERY means of generating new capacity in dollar
and environmental terms, and it can be done in the here and now.
Cogeneration could go a lot further than it has at this stage, for
example. And householders could make much more extensive use of compact
fluorescent lighting, timer controls, better insulation, better
placement of AC units etc.
It's also worth pointing out that something like 7-8% of energy
production in the US is lost in transmission -- so reducing
transmission distances is a very useful thing to do. Thermal plants
aren't scaleable, and so the only way to make thme economic is to build
huge ones and wear the transmission losses. Smaller and more
diversified local energy generating capacity makes more sense. Since
most of us live near the coast, putting small wind or wave plants near
the coast with associated pumped storage makes sense. I understand that
Lithium-Ion batteries store at about 85% efficiency, so if, in addition
to using burst energy from wind and wave plants to do things like water
pumping, energy was purchased by businesses using battery storage,
variability wouldn't be such an issue.
> I can just see the Greenies frothing at the thought of building
> pipelines thru 'pristine wilderness' from the coast to the lakes......
>
It depends how it was done. Creating roads for heavy vehicle access in
sensitive areas wouldn't be so good, but some areas are already
severely degraded. That just leaves the question on what to charge
users of said water and power.
Fran
Addinall
Yeah I know! That was for the benefit of the slow amongst us!
> Which place, I might add, made considerable sense for
> something like this.
I agree. Which way did the fans end up pointing?
>
> They're dangerous. Look at the one that caught
> > fire in SA. Nothing the smokies could do about it
> > except chase the burning debrie. They kill birds and bats.
> > Not that that particulary worries me, but I would have though
> > it might upset the "Greens" amongst us.
> >
> > It's a pointless waste of time and money.
>
> Sure, but it makes their little hearts warm thinking about it. They
> don't have to stay awake nights wondering if they're being covered by a
> plume of silent radioactive death from the skies.
I'd be more concerned about that constant whump...whump...whump
monstrocity was going to run out of bearing grease and burn down
the bush around my house ;-)
>
> I reckon that people who sign up to wind power should get wind power -
> when the mills stop producing, their power goes off.
Yep.
> Lets see how
> popular it is then. As it is, they're parasites off the fossil fuel
> grid that supplies baseload power. Hell, look at the quality of the
> supporters of this stupidity and their general numeracy.
Bad isn't it. I have only posted the algorithms that can
be worked with simple arithmetic, and even that's
too difficult for the watermelons....
> The moment you
> produce numbers off they go into lalaland. You can just pick the
> "klunk" noise as their brains switch over to parrot mode, regurgitating
> the last thing they heard which fitted with what they wanted to
> believe. It'd be really funny if the morons didn't vote.
That's the truth.
>
> 90% of *my* power is derived from renewable resources, but it's a
> system that actually works. Provided it rains, anyway.
Pissed down here yesterday. Garden is enjoying it.
Marky.
>
> PDW
dewatf
Think of the all the taxpayer money paid to shareholders in wind power
companies you mean.
Germany found that they needed a back up of 90% of wind capacity to cover
for times when then wind didn't blow. What's more managing such an erratic
supply in the grid also caused lots of problems.
Decentralised solar hot water heating in homes makes far more sense than
wind generation of electricity ever will. The only viable alternative
energy sources at the moment are hydro, geothermal (if you live somewhere
like Iceland), tidal and small scale solar. And those have much more
potential for development and scaling up than wind generation of
electricity ever will. Wind is pure spin.
dewatf.
dewatf
A rather silly argument.
Both wind and nuclear are over twice as expensive as coal.
Wind is more expensive than nuclear though.
dewatf.
Peter
Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
economic, isn't reliable and can't meet the needs of baseload power
generation? It's only ever gonna be a niche thing at a big dollar cost.
Only someone with 1/10 of a brain would compare hydro power with wind
power. And guess what - nobody's building any more industrial scale
hydro plants in Australia either. Wonder why that is.....
Comparing hydro power to wind, hah. Hydro power works by *storing*
water in big things called dams with big concrete (or dirt etc) walls
and big pipes so that the water falling drives impellers which drive
generators. I know that's simplistic, but so are you. The important
point, which the Snowy engineers knew but has obviously passed you by,
is that you *store* the water so you can release it *when you need the
power*. Got it? Now, if you want to equate the 2, please explain where
your wind storage for release on demand is.
And no, what comes out of your arse, while voluminous, wouldn't light a
5 watt bulb. Nor would your intellect. Now run along and talk to the
Greens. They are pig ignorant and stupid too. You can all sit around
and sing whatever your equiv of 'Kumbaya my Lord' is.....
PDW
Peter
The river systems need the water back again for their own biological
life. Diverting river flow is a zero sum activity and I don't think
it's a real good idea in general. Taking water, using it & putting it
back again, fine. Works on the Rhine, Danube etc etc.
It
> would also be possible to pump desal water from the coast to the
> MacIntyre River, which feeds the Barwon and ultimately the Darling.
The key is cheap energy.
> > Still gonna be a cost disaster WRT other generation systems but there
> > are some benefits from it, because power production is decoupled from
> > power demand.
> >
>
> I'm very much in favour of energy efficiency measures as the top
> priority thing to be done in the here and now. Avoiding energy waste
> beats the hell out of EVERY means of generating new capacity in dollar
> and environmental terms, and it can be done in the here and now.
> Cogeneration could go a lot further than it has at this stage, for
> example. And householders could make much more extensive use of compact
> fluorescent lighting, timer controls, better insulation, better
> placement of AC units etc.
There's a limit to this tho. My new house has all compact fluoros, is
very well insulated, has no air con etc etc. It's also reasonably
small.
. I understand that
> Lithium-Ion batteries store at about 85% efficiency, so if, in addition
> to using burst energy from wind and wave plants to do things like water
> pumping, energy was purchased by businesses using battery storage,
> variability wouldn't be such an issue.
My understanding is that there isn't enough known lithium deposits on
the planet to make more than a tiny contribution to offline energy
storage. I'm open to correction tho, it's just what my memory tells me.
> > I can just see the Greenies frothing at the thought of building
> > pipelines thru 'pristine wilderness' from the coast to the lakes......
> >
>
> It depends how it was done. Creating roads for heavy vehicle access in
> sensitive areas wouldn't be so good, but some areas are already
> severely degraded. That just leaves the question on what to charge
> users of said water and power.
Why I said desal & pumping water in the first place. If you assume that
you're, some of the time, going to get electricity from wind energy at
a time you don't need it for immediate consumption, but this can't be
predicted in advance, desal & pumping uses energy that otherwise would
be shed somewhere, somehow. There are other things that could be done.
Big brine reservoirs under buildings for example, chilled down on cheap
power, used to provide air con. Once again, decouple the power
consumption side from the delivery of the product of the power. There
would be other things one could do, if it was necessary to live with a
less predictable power system. It's kind of interesting but frankly I'd
just build another nuke plant on the coast....
PDW
RooBoy
"dewatf" <dew...@foomail.com> wrote in message
news:19yfz8fix5ng6$.9lx0qieisxct.dlg@40tude.net...
I accept that in the sorter term Nuclear is more expensive than Coal but not
sure where you get twice as expensive from.
fasgnadh
> Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> economic, isn't reliable
If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons, or driven
by their belief in global warming.. instead what we observe is that
alternative energy attracts capital investment, and nukes don't
get built, unless the taxpayer is gouged mightily not just for the
capital cost, but to carry the risk.
It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
--
The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
The true-blue Homestead;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
The Tuckerbox;
http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
-----------
Possum Comitatus
<fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Peter wrote:
>> Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
>> economic, isn't reliable
>
>If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
>to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
>for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
They'll continue to get built as long as the government(s)
renewable energy gravy train funding model(s) and targets
treat cost efficiency as a third tier issue.
>I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons, or driven
>by their belief in global warming.. instead what we observe is that
>alternative energy attracts capital investment,
Because of the subsidy models - just like plantation timber
attracts investment through tax subsidies.
>and nukes don't
>get built,
Because they require government legislation to enable them,
by the bucketloads.A company just cant go out (even if it
wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
a reactor somewhere.
>unless the taxpayer is gouged mightily not just for the
>capital cost, but to carry the risk.
Agree.
>It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
>other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
>more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
>the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
There is no nuclear energy market on the supply side to be
able to "regard" .
Fran
Providing you put back in at least what goes out, + maintain seasonal
water volumes by supplementing, it's not a huge problem.
> Taking water, using it & putting it
> back again, fine. Works on the Rhine, Danube etc etc.
>
Agreed
> It
> > would also be possible to pump desal water from the coast to the
> > MacIntyre River, which feeds the Barwon and ultimately the Darling.
>
> The key is cheap energy.
>
Exactly.
> > > Still gonna be a cost disaster WRT other generation systems but there
> > > are some benefits from it, because power production is decoupled from
> > > power demand.
> > >
> >
> > I'm very much in favour of energy efficiency measures as the top
> > priority thing to be done in the here and now. Avoiding energy waste
> > beats the hell out of EVERY means of generating new capacity in dollar
> > and environmental terms, and it can be done in the here and now.
> > Cogeneration could go a lot further than it has at this stage, for
> > example. And householders could make much more extensive use of compact
> > fluorescent lighting, timer controls, better insulation, better
> > placement of AC units etc.
>
> There's a limit to this tho. My new house has all compact fluoros, is
> very well insulated, has no air con etc etc. It's also reasonably
> small.
>
Well then you're very much an exception. There's enormous scope for
improvements in this area, and not just in suburban homes but in
commercvial and industrial settings as well. It's not as exciting as
spiffy new energy plants, but lots more efficient in EROI and dollar
terms.
> . I understand that
> > Lithium-Ion batteries store at about 85% efficiency, so if, in addition
> > to using burst energy from wind and wave plants to do things like water
> > pumping, energy was purchased by businesses using battery storage,
> > variability wouldn't be such an issue.
>
> My understanding is that there isn't enough known lithium deposits on
> the planet to make more than a tiny contribution to offline energy
> storage. I'm open to correction tho, it's just what my memory tells me.
>
I haven't heard that. Just this year though there have been some
significant developments in Lithium Ion battery technology that have
led to the possibility of having batteries that are more energy dense,
quicker to charge and more stable in sub-optimal conditions. This has
implications for EVs as well. See for example ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery
> > > I can just see the Greenies frothing at the thought of building
> > > pipelines thru 'pristine wilderness' from the coast to the lakes......
> > >
> >
> > It depends how it was done. Creating roads for heavy vehicle access in
> > sensitive areas wouldn't be so good, but some areas are already
> > severely degraded. That just leaves the question on what to charge
> > users of said water and power.
>
> Why I said desal & pumping water in the first place. If you assume that
> you're, some of the time, going to get electricity from wind energy at
> a time you don't need it for immediate consumption, but this can't be
> predicted in advance, desal & pumping uses energy that otherwise would
> be shed somewhere, somehow.
True ... this wave plant might well offer something ...
http://www.energetech.com.au/index.htm?http://www.energetech.com.au/content/port.html
> There are other things that could be done.
> Big brine reservoirs under buildings for example, chilled down on cheap
> power, used to provide air con.
And then there's the possibility of using heat exchangers (sometimes
called heat pumps) to produce power or heat/cooling as needed.
> Once again, decouple the power
> consumption side from the delivery of the product of the power. There
> would be other things one could do, if it was necessary to live with a
> less predictable power system. It's kind of interesting but frankly I'd
> just build another nuke plant on the coast....
>
There we part company. Way too dangerous, hideously expensive,
disastrous for local tourism, and not a solution you could contemplate
outside a first world country. And of course, since it's not scaleable,
you have to accept massive transmission losses that you wouldn't get if
you had a network of much smaller plants delivering less power within a
much more local area. In just about every country with a substantial
coastline, you could have wind & marine turbine and/or wave/tidal
plants placed close to where much of the population lives and pumping
the power over relatively short distances.
There's also the problem of transport fuels of course. Much of the CO2
and other pollution is in transport. Until electric vehicles become a
competitive proposition, this is going to be a tough one. Heavy
shipping is also apparently a major polluter -- one container ship can
emit as much pollution as 12,000 motor vehicles.
Apparently, you can use sewage sludge to produce algae yielding both
starches and lipids, which can be used respectively, to produce
alcohol-based fuels such as n-butanol, and biodiesel. It's also
possible to use thermal depolymerisation to reduce just about any
carbon-based material to diesel fuel -- and since plastic and
technowaste is posing an increasing landfill problem, this seems like
an obvious direction to go in. I read somewhere that if the US used
this process to turn all of its waste packaging, medical waste and
animal offal/waste fat into diesel it could produce an amount equal to
90% of its current petroleum imports. That may be optimistic, but it's
an appealing idea.
Fran
fasgnadh
>
>> nukes don't get built,
>
> A company just cant go out (even if it
> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
> a reactor somewhere.
People should think about the reasons for that.
>> unless the taxpayer is gouged mightily not just for the
>> capital cost, but to carry the risk.
>
> Agree.
>
>> It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
>> other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
>> more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
>> the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
>
> There is no nuclear energy market on the supply side to be
> able to "regard" .
Possum Comitatus
<fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Possum Comitatus wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
>> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> nukes don't get built,
>>
>> A company just cant go out (even if it
>> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
>> a reactor somewhere.
>
>People should think about the reasons for that.
Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
technology.I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
The only China Syndrome happening these days is nations and
companies getting irrational about the money they think they
can make in China.
Fran
Possum Comitatus wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Possum Comitatus wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
> >> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>> nukes don't get built,
> >>
> >> A company just cant go out (even if it
> >> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
> >> a reactor somewhere.
> >
> >People should think about the reasons for that.
>
> Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
> technology.I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
> me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
>
In theory, you're right, but what's interesting is the unwillingness of
insurers to accept liability for catastrophic damage. People who could
make a buck betting on a "sure thing" just aren't willing to do so.
The other thing is that while procedures in first world countries
*might* justify that optimism about safety, you can't but think that in
places like Russia and Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the
subcontinent and South East Asia and so forth would be a lot more
haphazard. You wouldn't really want this lot in charge of nuclear power
stations. By all means let them use windfarms or wave plants or
geothermal (as indeed they are in parts of Africa) or biomass. There is
far less downside risk in these technologies and they compare well in
cost and environmental terms with nukes.
If civil war breaks out, who gets the windfarm or the biomass plant
isn't likely to be a huge international issue of concern.
Fran
Arthur Brain
Addinall wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
> > Addinall wrote:
> > > 'Arf wrote:
> > > > Addinall wrote:
> > > > > Arthur Brain wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Tell me - if a 3 GW Nuclear Power plant is built, do you imagine that
> > > > > > it will be running with a constant permanent output of 3GW?
> > > >
> > > > > I expect it to run at >90% of 3GB.
> > > >
> > > > Unless they run out of water - as has happened in France, or blow up,
> > > > as happened in Russia, in which case they drop down to 0%.
> >
> > > Similar to where the wind turbines sat in February. 0%.
> >
> > Liar, Australia's 400-odd operational wind turbines in February did not
> > produce 0% of their installed capacity.
> Your poster child Denmark did! World's best. Dropped from 3%
> to sweet fuck all! Great!
Denmark gets 20%+ of its power from wind, not 3% (that's the figure for
ALL europe), so wtf are you gibbering about?
The fact is that building wind turbines will dramatically reduce
consumption, thus reducing the demand placed on coal & gas-fired power
stations, which is exactly what we need to do - URGENTLY - to reduce
CO2 emission.
And there is no such thing as all wind farms dropping to 0% (unlike the
nukes in France which have run out of water) - as they are distributed,
generation is in fact far more reliable than existing plants.
To overcome the variability, you just need more of them.
And AUstralia has the advantage of having loads of space, meaning that
unlike Germany we can do proper surveys and site our wind farms in the
best spots - in SA, they have therefore come to expect production of
32-38%.
And you're right about Project Managers - my mistake - although they
are almost always useless bastards, it was clearly the incompetent
System Architect at fault for siting wind towers in an environment they
couldn't cope with without additional cooling.
Possum Comitatus
wrote:
>
>Possum Comitatus wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
>> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Possum Comitatus wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
>> >> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> nukes don't get built,
>> >>
>> >> A company just cant go out (even if it
>> >> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
>> >> a reactor somewhere.
>> >
>> >People should think about the reasons for that.
>>
>> Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
>> technology.I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
>> me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
>>
>
>In theory, you're right, but what's interesting is the unwillingness of
>insurers to accept liability for catastrophic damage.
For insurance companies, its the financial burden equivalent
of an act of god - one smite, regardless of its miniscule
likelihood, can end your company.
> People who could
>make a buck betting on a "sure thing" just aren't willing to do so.
Insurance is a business run by conservative conservatives,
anyone more radical than that in the business usually gets
eaten up in a buyout by said conservatives (and subsequently
have their risk restructured to reflect the status quo), or
goes bankrupt trying to grow.
I think it more reflects the institutional aversity to risk,
rather than the actual underlying risk itself.Why dont
insurance companies insure against volcanic eruptions for
instance?
Same thing.
>The other thing is that while procedures in first world countries
>*might* justify that optimism about safety, you can't but think that in
>places like Russia and Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the
>subcontinent and South East Asia and so forth would be a lot more
>haphazard.
I agree with that - except S.E.A.They seem quite competent
enough, although the unstable geography is a problem.
>You wouldn't really want this lot in charge of nuclear power
>stations.
Not that we're getting into any latent Orientalism here or
anything B^P
>By all means let them use windfarms or wave plants or
>geothermal (as indeed they are in parts of Africa) or biomass
..... or cake. B^P
> There is
>far less downside risk in these technologies and they compare well in
>cost and environmental terms with nukes.
Sure - the only question is how the risk vs. cost equation
ends up.
>If civil war breaks out, who gets the windfarm or the biomass plant
>isn't likely to be a huge international issue of concern.
That's true enough.
'Arf
> A rather silly argument.
No it isn't.
The cost of CO2 emissions is enormous. Coal & nuclear both produce
prodigious quantities of these.
(Yeah - nuke liars say nukes don't - they are great at leaving out
details - in this case the enormous CO2-emitting effort that goes into
producing the fuel).
Nuclear is utterly unaffordable except where:
- the cost of the massive risk involved is discounted
- the cost of 100,000 years of secure storage is ignored
- massive government subsidies are offered.
Peter Webb
>
> dewatf wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2006 00:22:48 -0800, Arthur Brain wrote:
>
>> A rather silly argument.
>
>> Both wind and nuclear are over twice as expensive as coal.
>> Wind is more expensive than nuclear though.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> The cost of CO2 emissions is enormous. Coal & nuclear both produce
> prodigious quantities of these.
> (Yeah - nuke liars say nukes don't - they are great at leaving out
> details - in this case the enormous CO2-emitting effort that goes into
> producing the fuel).
>
Crap. Its microscopic in comparison. Ranger mine supplies about 3% of the
world's electricity. Do you think it consumes 3% of the world's oil to
produce? That would be almost twice Australia's total existing production of
CO2.
How could you believe such crap when a 10 second calculation shows it must
be orders of magnitude too high?
> Nuclear is utterly unaffordable except where:
> - the cost of the massive risk involved is discounted
> - the cost of 100,000 years of secure storage is ignored
> - massive government subsidies are offered.
>
No, its about 30% more expensive than Coal. Which makes it a fraction of the
cost of any other zero CO2 emission technology.
fasgnadh
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Possum Comitatus wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
>>> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nukes don't get built,
>>> A company just cant go out (even if it
>>> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
>>> a reactor somewhere.
>> People should think about the reasons for that.
>
> Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
> technology.
Which they were sold as the safe, Friendly Atom! B^D
So, you are bitching in Usenet because the entire
Investment and Insurance community shuns your notion that;
"We got it right this time!" B^D
Really? Even when you can't keep track of radioactive material
from 'secure' sites in the West!?
----------
"NRC Warns of Missing Radioactive Materials
- Washington Post
U.S. businesses and medical facilities have lost track of nearly 1,500
pieces equipment with radioactive parts since 1996, according to a new
federal accounting of radiological material that terrorism experts warn
could be used in a "dirty bomb" attack against a U.S. city.
"In the past we have been very concerned about 'loose nukes' in the
former Soviet Union, but it looks like we have the same kind of problem
in this country." - US Rep Ed Markey (D-MA)
"there have been several instances in recent years of lost or stolen
hospital equipment that contains potentially lethal amounts of
radioactive cobalt or cesium.
Such material could be packed around a conventional explosive -- a
combination known as a "dirty bomb" -- to scatter radiation over large
areas. "
---------
And yet any time people raise the clear dangers of nukes, all
we get is the same bland assurances that nothing can go wrong
when it already is, and abuse for doubting your blind faith! B ^p
---------
"The NRC regulates the commercial use of radioactive material. It
acknowledged receiving reports of 1,495 lost or stolen radioactive
"sources" between October 1996 and September 2001
The agency launched enforcement action against 54 companies and
institutions involved in the incidents and collected fines from 16 of
them. The penalties ranged from a few hundred dollars to $50,000."
No one has to investigate lost sunlight, tides, wind or even coal
"the report highlighted a need for better safeguards measures and
stricter enforcement.
"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been trying to obtain nuclear
material. We know that the creation of a dirty bomb is one of al Qaeda's
stated objectives,"
Why not make it easier for him and have 25 nukes, scattered
round the coast, close to population centres, and with a fuel
cycle that involves secret convoys protected by helicopters
and armed guards!
pfffft!
Safe as houses;
http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/graphics/CA1_cliffs.jpg
---------
Fears over missing nuclear material
BBC News Thursday, 7 March, 2002, 14:47 GMT
"A few kilos of plutonium is enough for a nuclear bomb
International researchers have warned that the world
may be awash in unaccounted weapons-grade uranium
and plutonium, after completing a latest database
of lost and stolen nuclear material.
"The new database by the Institute for International
Studies (IIS) at Stanford University said the protection
of nuclear and radioactive material was "woefully inadequate",
pointing to huge gaps of information on the exact amount of
missing material.
"It truly is frightening. I think this is the tip of the iceberg"
- Lyudmila Zaitseva, Stanford research member
The Stanford Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and
Orphan Radiation Sources (DSTO) was released as US senators
warned that the so-called "dirty" bombs made of discarded
radioactive material could have a significant psycho-social
effect and cause mass panic among the population.
The database, which will only be available to carefully
vetted researchers, is intended to help governments and
international agencies track missing nuclear material
worldwide amid concerns over the patchy nature of most
of the available information.
Chilling estimates
According to the report, about 40 kilograms of weapons-usable
uranium and plutonium have been stolen from poorly protected
nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union during the
last decade.
DSTO incident list
643 nuclear smuggling incidents
107 sources of orphaned radiation
over 80 cases of fraud or malevolent acts
The database, which combines information from two existing
unclassified databases and also adds independently obtained
figures, registered 830 incidents of illicit trafficking
of radioactive material.
But Ms Zaitseva said that the real amount of missing
weapons-grade material could be 10 times higher than
the official figures.
"We don't know what's missing. That's the most frightening thing".
Another member of the research team, nuclear physicist
Friedrich Steinhausler, said the biggest hole in the
database was that no one knew where the smuggled material
has gone.
"There is no proof. There is suspicion but there is
no proof," he said.
'Orphan' radiation
The Stanford database also lists "orphaned" radiation sources:
scientific or medical material that may have been lost or misplaced.
Mr Steinhausler said that such materials also presented a
real threat because victims may not know that they have
been exposed.
"Many countries don't even have a central register of radioactive
materials. If they don't know what they have, they don't know what
they've lost," he said, quoting two cases of relatively recent mass
accidental contamination in the USA and Brazil.
Ms Zaitseva added that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large
amount of weapons-grade material was left without adequate protection.
She said the US-sponsored programme to secure nuclear components in the
former Soviet Union has locked only one-third of the more than 600 tons
of weapons-usable material.
"It's just not protected. This is hot stuff. If you steal 20 kilograms
of that material, you can build a nuclear weapon".
With so much of it so well managed, let's have more!? B^p
>I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
> me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
And your solution?
It's not a problem with wind, you just wait for it to blow back again.
B^)
> The only China Syndrome happening these days is nations and
> companies getting irrational about the money they think they
> can make in China.
--
Possum Comitatus
<fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Possum Comitatus wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
>> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Possum Comitatus wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
>>>> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> nukes don't get built,
>>>> A company just cant go out (even if it
>>>> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
>>>> a reactor somewhere.
>>> People should think about the reasons for that.
>>
>> Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
>> technology.
>
>Which they were sold as the safe, Friendly Atom! B^D
I love those old black and white propaganda pieces.Bert the
turtle and Duck and Cover! A is for Atom!
>So, you are bitching in Usenet
Pointing out that there is no supply market is hardly
bitching- its just reality.... which gets us to:
>because the entire
>Investment and Insurance community shuns your notion that;
The insurance community treats it like an act of god -
perfectly understandable.The investment community doesnt
have an opportunity TO participate because there is no
effective supply market to begin with.
Fuck know's why you're getting your tits in a tangle over
easy shit like this.
>"We got it right this time!" B^D
>
>Really? Even when you can't keep track of radioactive material
>from 'secure' sites in the West!?
As I said elsewhere:"I agree that the waste disposal is an
issue - for me its the only real issue (apart from cost)."
>----------
>
>"NRC Warns of Missing Radioactive Materials
> - Washington Post
>
>U.S. businesses and medical facilities have lost track of nearly 1,500
>pieces equipment with radioactive parts since 1996, according to a new
>federal accounting of radiological material that terrorism experts warn
>could be used in a "dirty bomb" attack against a U.S. city.
>
>
>"In the past we have been very concerned about 'loose nukes' in the
>former Soviet Union, but it looks like we have the same kind of problem
>in this country." - US Rep Ed Markey (D-MA)
>
>"there have been several instances in recent years of lost or stolen
>hospital equipment that contains potentially lethal amounts of
>radioactive cobalt or cesium.
>
>Such material could be packed around a conventional explosive -- a
>combination known as a "dirty bomb" -- to scatter radiation over large
>areas. "
>
>---------
>
>And yet any time people raise the clear dangers of nukes, all
>we get is the same bland assurances that nothing can go wrong
>when it already is, and abuse for doubting your blind faith! B ^p
I didnt abuse anyone here, although that should change
because you're being a retarded cockspank that cant
comprehend someone having any opinion on this that's between
the the two lunatic fringe positions of "nukes are great"
and "nukes are the the personification of evil itself".
You might be that simple, but that's you're ceiling, not
mine.
>---------
>
>"The NRC regulates the commercial use of radioactive material. It
>acknowledged receiving reports of 1,495 lost or stolen radioactive
>"sources" between October 1996 and September 2001
>
>The agency launched enforcement action against 54 companies and
>institutions involved in the incidents and collected fines from 16 of
>them. The penalties ranged from a few hundred dollars to $50,000."
>
> No one has to investigate lost sunlight, tides, wind or even coal
>
>"the report highlighted a need for better safeguards measures and
>stricter enforcement.
>
>"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been trying to obtain nuclear
>material. We know that the creation of a dirty bomb is one of al Qaeda's
>stated objectives,"
>
> Why not make it easier for him and have 25 nukes, scattered
> round the coast, close to population centres, and with a fuel
> cycle that involves secret convoys protected by helicopters
> and armed guards!
If you reckon that terrorists would prefer to get their
hands on radioactive material by hijacking domestic
Australian shipments (in some hypothetical future) rather
than buy it on the black market with drug money, or steal it
from the old decrepit Soviet Republics like they can now -
more power to you.I cant say I share your fantasy.
> pfffft!
>
>
> Safe as houses;
>
> http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/graphics/CA1_cliffs.jpg
No, safe as reactors, that's what they are.
So you reckon that terrorists wanting to acquire radioactive
material would, rather than go for the proliferation of low
hanging fruit, instead hijack domestic Australian supplies
(in some hypothetical future) that would, by your own
words, involve "secret convoys protected by helicopters
and armed guards!"?
I wish all terrorists were like you - the <insert
appropriately ominous orchestral music> "War on Terror"
would have been over the Sunday after 9/11.
>>I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
>> me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
>
>And your solution?
Do you really want my view on this - I'm not going to piss a
thousand words or more up the wall just because you're
having a moment?
>It's not a problem with wind, you just wait for it to blow back again.
> B^)
That in itself is the problem.
Peter
fasgnadh wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> > economic, isn't reliable
>
> If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
> to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
> for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
They only get built because the Govt agrees to buy the energy produced
at a price well above what they'll pay for energy from fossil fuelled
plants. IOW they're *subsidised*. Stop the subsidies and see how many
get built. It'll be a nice round number.
Rest of rant ignored. Grow up, nobody is impressed at how long you can
harangue or how verbose you can be. It just comes across as a
substitute for content.
I could give a rat's ass if people want to build wind farms on their
own property and the odd parrot disappears in a puff of feathers. What
I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time and a contracted price per
megawatt-hour delivered. If we put power out to tender on this basis,
how many wind plants do you think would be built?
PDW
Peter
Fran wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > Once again, decouple the power
> > consumption side from the delivery of the product of the power. There
> > would be other things one could do, if it was necessary to live with a
> > less predictable power system. It's kind of interesting but frankly I'd
> > just build another nuke plant on the coast....
> >
>
> There we part company. Way too dangerous, hideously expensive,
> disastrous for local tourism, and not a solution you could contemplate
> outside a first world country.
Taking them one at a time, stipulated that nobody would build another
Chernobyl type reactor, why do you think they're dangerous? And given
that everything is dangerous to some degree, too dangerous compared to
what?
You also use the term 'hideously expensive'. What does this mean in
dollar figures? Twice the cost of a fossil fuel plant? Ten times the
cost? 100 times the cost? Sorry, I like numbers to work with, takes the
emotive arm waving out of it all.
Keep in mind that a steam powered plant is a steam powered plant. All
we're talking about is how to produce the steam.
As for depressing tourism, sorry but I'd regard that as a plus, not a
minus.
Finally, the First World country bit - you don't get to make that
decision for them. If you think that China & India are going to refrain
from building nuke power plants because you think the technology is too
dangerous for them, well it's nice to think things that have no contact
with reality.
> And of course, since it's not scaleable,
> you have to accept massive transmission losses that you wouldn't get if
> you had a network of much smaller plants delivering less power within a
> much more local area.
I don't regard this as a problem. What, in percentage terms, do you
consider 'massive transmission losses'? Sorry, those pesky numbers
again.... we reticulate power all over the place now and the massive
losses seem bearable.
In just about every country with a substantial
> coastline, you could have wind & marine turbine and/or wave/tidal
> plants placed close to where much of the population lives and pumping
> the power over relatively short distances.
So why are they so scarce - I'm tempted to say nonexistent? Could it be
because they make no economic sense?
We've already dealt with wind, pretty much.
Tidal plants aren't going to work very well outside places with a big
tidal rise & fall. Where in Australia does this occur? Now combine this
with the geomorphology permitting a barrier to be built in a cost
effective fashion, or indeed at all. How many sites are left? Tidal
plants are a bit like hydro plants - they work in certain places where
the energy density is high enough and the geography allows for the
engineering.
Wave energy - same objection as wind power raised by a factor of
somewhere between 2 & 10. Salt water is bloody corrosive and I can't,
offhand, think of any way you're going to feather a wave system in
extreme weather. Feel free to point me to literature to the contrary
but it better be by marine engineering people. I know more than a
little about marine stuff.
So - what else?
> There's also the problem of transport fuels of course. Much of the CO2
> and other pollution is in transport. Until electric vehicles become a
> competitive proposition, this is going to be a tough one.
Different problem but there are various solutions if you have
sufficient electrical power. Hydrogen is one but the storage issues are
pretty horrible. Slippery little molecule. Methanol is another.
> Heavy
> shipping is also apparently a major polluter -- one container ship can
> emit as much pollution as 12,000 motor vehicles.
Irrelevant - we need heavy shipping. Besides this is an easy one, you
just don't like the answer.
> Apparently, you can use sewage sludge to produce algae yielding both
> starches and lipids, which can be used respectively, to produce
> alcohol-based fuels such as n-butanol, and biodiesel. It's also
> possible to use thermal depolymerisation to reduce just about any
> carbon-based material to diesel fuel -- and since plastic and
> technowaste is posing an increasing landfill problem, this seems like
> an obvious direction to go in. I read somewhere that if the US used
> this process to turn all of its waste packaging, medical waste and
> animal offal/waste fat into diesel it could produce an amount equal to
> 90% of its current petroleum imports.
I find that impossible to believe. Where's the reference? If possible,
what energy inputs are needed to make it work?
Note that I'm treating you seriously, not as I have that moron
Brainless. However I do like numbers rather than emotive terms. If you
don't have any and sources, my interest drops off fast and my posting
style likely follows.
PDW
Peter
Peter Webb wrote:
> "'Arf" <arthur...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1166763870.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > dewatf wrote:
> >> On 21 Dec 2006 00:22:48 -0800, Arthur Brain wrote:
> >
> >> A rather silly argument.
> >
> >> Both wind and nuclear are over twice as expensive as coal.
> >> Wind is more expensive than nuclear though.
> >
> > No it isn't.
> >
> > The cost of CO2 emissions is enormous. Coal & nuclear both produce
> > prodigious quantities of these.
> > (Yeah - nuke liars say nukes don't - they are great at leaving out
> > details - in this case the enormous CO2-emitting effort that goes into
> > producing the fuel).
> >
>
> Crap. Its microscopic in comparison. Ranger mine supplies about 3% of the
> world's electricity. Do you think it consumes 3% of the world's oil to
> produce? That would be almost twice Australia's total existing production of
> CO2.
>
> How could you believe such crap when a 10 second calculation shows it must
> be orders of magnitude too high?
Because somebody told him it was so, he wanted to believe and therefore
his brain goes into RESET mode every time someone proves that his
preconcieved 'truth' is bullshit. You can demonstrate the complete
fallacy of his statement and tomorrow, next week, next year, it'll be
Wack-A-Mole time all over again. Functionally indistinguishable from
profound stupidity - inability to learn.
> > Nuclear is utterly unaffordable except where:
> > - the cost of the massive risk involved is discounted
> > - the cost of 100,000 years of secure storage is ignored
> > - massive government subsidies are offered.
> >
>
> No, its about 30% more expensive than Coal. Which makes it a fraction of the
> cost of any other zero CO2 emission technology.
Noting that coal isn't, currently, zero CO2 emission. The other funny
thing is, people are talking glibly about CO2 sequestration 'forever'.
Yet it's impossible to store a minuscule fraction of the same volume of
rad wastes? Bullshit. Synrock it & dump it in an oceanic trench where
the continental plates are overriding each other.
PDW
Addinall
'Arf wrote:
> dewatf wrote:
> > On 21 Dec 2006 00:22:48 -0800, Arthur Brain wrote:
>
> > A rather silly argument.
>
> > Both wind and nuclear are over twice as expensive as coal.
> > Wind is more expensive than nuclear though.
>
> No it isn't.
You're nearly correct.
Coal is very cheap in Australia, we have lots of it to burn.
Nuclear would be on par with coal as we are also resource
rich in uranics.
Wind is about 10 times more expensive than either,
and unreliable. Virtually worthless.
>
> The cost of CO2 emissions is enormous. Coal & nuclear both produce
> prodigious quantities of these.
Prodigious?
Perhaps. However, wind farms produce four times
as much CO2 as a nuke. Dirty filthy ugly things.
> (Yeah - nuke liars say nukes don't - they are great at leaving out
> details - in this case the enormous CO2-emitting effort that goes into
> producing the fuel).
Trivial when compared to the build, eco-terrorism and
on-going maintenance of a windmill farm.
>
> Nuclear is utterly unaffordable except where:
> - the cost of the massive risk involved is discounted
What "massive" risk?
Nuclear power in the UK since 1956.
Number of fatal accidents: 0.
Wind power is bloody dangerous!
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/cwifAccidents.htm
Wind Power Accidents:
1970-2006
Fatal accidents
Number of fatal accidents: 37.
-------------
> - the cost of 100,000 years of secure storage is ignored
Why do you need to store anything for 100,000 years?
An audit. I could store all of the waste product from
the four fast reactors for the last decade in a little
corner of my back yard.
> - massive government subsidies are offered.
Wind power can't even get started without massive government
funding. No wonder. It's bloody useless, dangerous and dirty.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/cold-air-blown-on-wind-farmers/2006/05/11/1146940682388.html
--------------------------
Cold air blown on wind farmers
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 12, 2006
Advertisement
AdvertisementTWO wind farms worth a total of $550 million have been
shelved and another worth $250 million is at risk because of a lack of
support from the Federal Government, a developer says.
The Federal Government's refusal to assist wind farmers, and failure to
penalise fossil fuel-fired energy generators for greenhouse gas
pollution, was putting at risk another $12 billion worth of proposed
wind farms that could power all the homes in NSW and South Australia,
they have warned.
Yesterday, Roaring 40s said it had stopped work on its Heemskirk wind
farm in Tasmania and wound back work on its Waterloo farm in South
Australia, while the chances of it building another farm in Tasmania's
north-east were slim because of the Government's decision not to
increase its mandatory renewable energy target.
The target boosted investment in environmentally friendly forms of
power by requiring 2 per cent of electricity be generated from
renewable sources. However, it was so successful the 2 per cent figure
has been reached.
Without an increase in the target, electricity retailers were reluctant
to commit to power contracts with wind farmers, said the managing
director of Roaring 40s, Mark Kelleher.
[...]
---------------------
Mark Addinall.
Peter Webb
"Peter" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166772860.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sure, that would work.
But lets say - for the sake of argument - that if you had 30% of the world's
Uranium, was on the oldest landform on the planet (rocks 4.7 billion years
old), you had vast reserves of empty desert, a politically stable and
technology savvy community, and you had world class technology for digging
holes in the ground, that another approach might make more commercial sense?
Addinall
fasgnadh wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> > economic, isn't reliable
>
> If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
> to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms,
What private investment? The whole industry start up
plan is to get on the general revenue tit from day one.
"Warning" that if they don't get massive handouts,
WE'RE ALL DOOMED I TELLS YA!..
you want to build a farm on your farm, go for it; your
loss. Just keep it your loss. I have no intention in
investing on non-working nonsense that exists solely
to fuck up the environment.
> and no need
> for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
They don't any more. Even Denmark has put the brakes on
building the stupid things. UK, France, Germany, Holland,
Norway all have followed suit. Examined the worth of the
industry and removed the enormous tax breaks for
"Wind speculators". Guess what is happening now it's
not a guvmint mandated method of printing your own
money? No more wind farms....
>
> I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons, or driven
> by their belief in global warming.. instead what we observe is that
> alternative energy attracts capital investment, and nukes don't
> get built, unless the taxpayer is gouged mightily not just for the
> capital cost, but to carry the risk.
Wrong way around. Nukes ARE being built by private suppliers
of power.
>
> It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
> other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
> more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
> the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
Phht. You had your brain removed and replaced with a sock?
Technology is EVIL because of.... Osama!
ANd you should start reading again and turn off the Telly.
"The Market" thinks otherwise, with good reason.
--------------------------------------------
Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom
Briefing Paper # 84
November 2006
[...]
UK public opinion on the question of maintaining the share of
electricity provided by nuclear power by building new reactors has
reversed from 20% support and 60% oppose in July 2001, to 41% for and
28% against in November 2005.
Then to September 2006 there was a substantial increase in support for
building replacement nuclear capacity among ruling Labour members of
parliament. Opposition declined accordingly. Overall 61% of MPs
supported new nuclear build and 22% opposed, while 66% said nuclear
should be a major contributor to UK's energy future and 81% thought it
will be. Of Labour MPs, 60% supported new nuclear build (up from 35%
last year) and 80% of Conservative MPs did so.
The reasons for MP support were energy security (37%), realisation that
renewables won't fill the gap (18%), reduce dependence on fossil fuels
(15%), a good safety record (15%) and the need for balanced energy
policy (12%) with very little difference between the parties except on
the last, where Conservatives were stronger. Implementing effective
policies on nuclear wastes before proceeding with new build was seen as
necessary by 78% of MPs, but only 28% believed that there is already "a
clear way forward" on this. Regarding MPs' trusted sources of
information on nuclear energy, academics rated 83%, nuclear industry
leaders 51%, environmentalists 44% and media 24%.
In November the UK Prime Minister told parliament that "in common with
countries around the world, we need to put nuclear back on the agenda
and at least replace the nuclear energy we will lose [from closing old
plants]. Without it we will not be able to meet any of our objectives
on climate change, or our objectives on energy security."
[...]
----------------------------------
Everyone in our part of the world from Japan down to PNG
is implementing new nuclear power. We are selling our resources
to other nations as yellow dirt. Shortly we will have to buy it
back as grey metal with a 9000% mark-up.
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
Fran wrote:
> Possum Comitatus wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
> > <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Possum Comitatus wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
> > >> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> nukes don't get built,
> > >>
> > >> A company just cant go out (even if it
> > >> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
> > >> a reactor somewhere.
> > >
> > >People should think about the reasons for that.
> >
> > Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
> > technology.I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
> > me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
> >
>
> In theory, you're right, but what's interesting is the unwillingness of
> insurers to accept liability for catastrophic damage. People who could
> make a buck betting on a "sure thing" just aren't willing to do so.
That's the point of insurance companies isn't it? A couple of
years ago I couldn't find an insurance company to cover a
1968 MGB MKII Roadstar Electric Overdrive. If my little MiG
dropped a rod, it wouldn't wipe out all life in Manly...
>
> The other thing is that while procedures in first world countries
> *might* justify that optimism about safety, you can't but think that in
> places like Russia and Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the
> subcontinent and South East Asia and so forth would be a lot more
> haphazard. You wouldn't really want this lot in charge of nuclear power
> stations.
Lordy! Yessum missus! We niggers don need fresh water nor
non of dat fancy elektric like you little missy! We'yall happy libin
in dem huts, and de cholera don worry us a bit, no siree!
Jesus.......
> By all means let them use windfarms or wave plants or
> geothermal (as indeed they are in parts of Africa) or biomass.
Dat reeeeel nice of you missy! Where me am livin'
half way along de Kinshasha Hwy, a wave farm will SUUURRRE
look right de spot. 'Cept we gotno waves. Wind no gut too deh?
Geothermal gud, la gud, but dat damn Rift valley clear on de wrong side
of Africa. Biomass can work, but we gut to burn dead niggers.
We need some water to grow a few billion hectares of sugar cane.
> There is
> far less downside risk in these technologies and they compare well in
> cost and environmental terms with nukes.
Bullshit.
>
> If civil war breaks out,
Ever considered with that tiny mind of yours that the future
of civil war JUST may be driven by the ownership of energy
and access to water? Not just once?
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
fasgnadh wrote:
> Possum Comitatus wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
> > <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Possum Comitatus wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
> >>> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> nukes don't get built,
> >>> A company just cant go out (even if it
> >>> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
> >>> a reactor somewhere.
> >> People should think about the reasons for that.
> >
> > Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
> > technology.
>
> Which they were sold as the safe, Friendly Atom! B^D
Worked in the UK for 52 years safely.
Lucas Heights went critical during 1958. The
reports of the massive fatalities must be hidden
in Area 51 I suppose, via the secret corridor
through the hollow Earth access from under Pine Gap?
>
> So, you are bitching in Usenet because the entire
> Investment and Insurance community shuns your notion that;
>
> "We got it right this time!" B^D
>
> Really? Even when you can't keep track of radioactive material
> from 'secure' sites in the West!?
>
> ----------
>
> "NRC Warns of Missing Radioactive Materials
> - Washington Post
>
> U.S. businesses and medical facilities have lost track of nearly 1,500
> pieces equipment with radioactive parts since 1996, according to a new
> federal accounting of radiological material that terrorism experts warn
> could be used in a "dirty bomb" attack against a U.S. city.
>
>
> "In the past we have been very concerned about 'loose nukes' in the
> former Soviet Union, but it looks like we have the same kind of problem
> in this country." - US Rep Ed Markey (D-MA)
>
> "there have been several instances in recent years of lost or stolen
> hospital equipment that contains potentially lethal amounts of
> radioactive cobalt or cesium.
>
> ---------
>
> And yet any time people raise the clear dangers of nukes, all
> we get is the same bland assurances that nothing can go wrong
> when it already is, and abuse for doubting your blind faith! B ^p
That sounds like the reason YOU insisted on killing all of those
poor Iraqi peasants. They had an accounting run, and the numbers
didn't add up. So therefore we can conject.....
> Such material could be packed around a conventional explosive -- a
> combination known as a "dirty bomb" -- to scatter radiation over large
> areas. "
>
And blow those sand-niggers to kingdom come! It 'aint in the books,
al Kwada must have it!!! WE'RE DOOMED! Three Ring Binders of
MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!
>
> ---------
>
> "The NRC regulates the commercial use of radioactive material. It
> acknowledged receiving reports of 1,495 lost or stolen radioactive
> "sources" between October 1996 and September 2001
>
> The agency launched enforcement action against 54 companies and
> institutions involved in the incidents and collected fines from 16 of
> them. The penalties ranged from a few hundred dollars to $50,000."
>
> No one has to investigate lost sunlight, tides, wind or even coal
"Lost coal" is most certainly investigated. Those really big ships
leaving from Newcastle
are tracked pretty carefully.
>
> "the report highlighted a need for better safeguards measures and
> stricter enforcement.
>
> "Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been trying to obtain nuclear
> material. We know that the creation of a dirty bomb is one of al Qaeda's
> stated objectives,"
Yawn. you have had a lobotomy...
You reckon with a billion bucks in the bank he would have
had a lot of trouble buying a pound or two from
Pakistan? I bet he's just waiting to pounce on a modern
nuclear facility in Australia.
>
> Why not make it easier for him and have 25 nukes, scattered
> round the coast, close to population centres, and with a fuel
> cycle that involves secret convoys protected by helicopters
> and armed guards!
>
> pfffft!
Pffft. Put down the comic book. A 3rd generation liquid
metal cooled nuke, built in an encapsulated modular
design, lifts the whole core in as part of construction.
Then lifts the thing out 20-30 years later for replacement.
Being a fast reactor, the waste will almost fill up a Kombi
van.
It's the only option anyway. We own 24% of the world's
U supply, and if people carry on implementing Thermal
fission models, that will run out in 50-100 years, and
start a large conventional war trying to get at what is
left. Then we truly become chinese as we seem to have
no interest in our own defence anymore.
Adopt breeder technology and you can increase the
drop dead time frame by a factor of 60, 3000 - 6000
years, add Thorium and multiply again by 5,
15,000 - 30,000 years. We have the technology now
to provide power for probably as long as the human
race is going to need it, I can't see the point in
arguing about it. Has to happen unless you want to
cross your fingers and REALLY hope that the
fusion boffs finally get it right before our
70th birthday. Other than that, we left it a little late.
Building regular nukes is as pointless as building
bloody windmills. Still, I expect no-one other than
Wiley and I will see it.....
We have about 75 trillions t of black coal that will last
another 200 years. That might keep us out of the shit,
if we still own any that is....
>
>
> Safe as houses;
>
> http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/graphics/CA1_cliffs.jpg
>
> ---------
>
> Fears over missing nuclear material
> BBC News Thursday, 7 March, 2002, 14:47 GMT
>
> "A few kilos of plutonium is enough for a nuclear bomb
> International researchers have warned that the world
> may be awash in unaccounted weapons-grade uranium
> and plutonium, after completing a latest database
> of lost and stolen nuclear material.
I just tripped over some next to my Petunias. Bloody
messy El Queeda drunks, dropping it everywhere...
>
> "The new database by the Institute for International
> Studies (IIS) at Stanford University said the protection
> of nuclear and radioactive material was "woefully inadequate",
> pointing to huge gaps of information on the exact amount of
> missing material.
Gee. A government database that is a little fucked.
WHAT A SHOCK!
>
> "It truly is frightening. I think this is the tip of the iceberg"
> - Lyudmila Zaitseva, Stanford research member
DOOMED! DOOMED I TELLS YA!
>
> The Stanford Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and
> Orphan Radiation Sources (DSTO) was released as US senators
> warned that the so-called "dirty" bombs made of discarded
> radioactive material could have a significant psycho-social
> effect and cause mass panic among the population.
Your quoting the guvmint of the USSA as an
authoritive intellegence source....?
Ooooooooooooo......Kaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy.......
>
> The database, which will only be available to carefully
> vetted researchers,
The database that is fucked?
> is intended to help governments and
> international agencies track missing nuclear material
> worldwide amid concerns over the patchy nature of most
> of the available information.
>
> Chilling estimates
Brrrrrrr.......
>
> According to the report, about 40 kilograms of weapons-usable
> uranium and plutonium have been stolen from poorly protected
> nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union during the
> last decade.
And ALL of those damn nuclear explosion happening all
over the place.... It's been awful....
>
> DSTO incident list
> 643 nuclear smuggling incidents
> 107 sources of orphaned radiation
> over 80 cases of fraud or malevolent acts
>
> The database, which combines information from two existing
> unclassified databases
The fucked ones.....
> and also adds independently obtained
> figures,
(Guesses)
> registered 830 incidents of illicit trafficking
> of radioactive material.
WMD....EVERYWHERE!....EVERYWHERE!.....
>
> But Ms Zaitseva said that the real amount of missing
> weapons-grade material could be 10 times higher than
> the official figures.
It could be a BILLION TRILLION times higher
than the official figures! Then we are in the shit
rooly trooly!
>
> "We don't know what's missing. That's the most frightening thing".
>
> Another member of the research team, nuclear physicist
> Friedrich Steinhausler, said the biggest hole in the
> database was that no one knew where the smuggled material
> has gone.
It wouldn't really be a "hole" if it was well documented, indexed,
referenced and reproducable, now would it?
>
> "There is no proof. There is suspicion but there is
> no proof," he said.
Bomb the Bastards anyway!
>
> 'Orphan' radiation
>
> The Stanford database also lists "orphaned" radiation sources:
> scientific or medical material that may have been lost or misplaced.
>
> Mr Steinhausler said that such materials also presented a
> real threat because victims may not know that they have
> been exposed.
>
> "Many countries don't even have a central register of radioactive
> materials. If they don't know what they have, they don't know what
> they've lost," he said, quoting two cases of relatively recent mass
> accidental contamination in the USA and Brazil.
I must have missed that. Strange, I keep a good eye on world
events.
>
> Ms Zaitseva added that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large
> amount of weapons-grade material was left without adequate protection.
>
> She said the US-sponsored programme to secure nuclear components in the
> former Soviet Union has locked only one-third of the more than 600 tons
> of weapons-usable material.
This would be the same team that paid a Soviet town Mayor
$140,000 (USD) for a disused milk bottle capping machine
'cause they thunk it could have bin a "dual-purpose" anthrax
thingy? Very credible people indeed....
>
> "It's just not protected. This is hot stuff. If you steal 20 kilograms
> of that material, you can build a nuclear weapon".
You could build 7 ectually.
>
> With so much of it so well managed, let's have more!? B^p
The world is currently burning Pu from weapons in power
stations. The ultimate swords into ploughes. You should
be happy.
>
>
> >I agree that the waste disposal is an issue - for
> > me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
>
> And your solution?
Re-cycle the waste. Plutonium economy.
>
>
>
> It's not a problem with wind, you just wait for it to blow back again.
> B^)
It's not a problem unless the light go out while you
are on the operating theatre table. Then it's
rather inconvenient.
Mark.
Peter
Quite right, no disagreement from me. I actually see those byproducts
as potentially valuable radioactives we just haven't found a use for
yet. My point was that there are ways of dealing with nuclear waste
that will work, but anyone want to bet on enormous amounts of CO2 under
pressure staying put? There's another one of those 'DUH' moments where
you see someone believing 2 mutually exclusive things and telling you
it's so. It's not.
PDW
Peter Webb
While I agree that disposing of nuclear waste is a whole lot easier, that
doesn't mean geosequestration doesn't work. The CO2 isn't really under any
additional pressure; a kilometer underground the pressure is very high
already. And nor is it neccesarily in underground cavities; most systems use
porous rock.
Its used in a couple of large production facilities.
Addinall
Re-use it.
> My point was that there are ways of dealing with nuclear waste
> that will work, but anyone want to bet on enormous amounts of CO2 under
> pressure staying put? There's another one of those 'DUH' moments where
> you see someone believing 2 mutually exclusive things and telling you
> it's so. It's not.
Correct. It's rubbish and ANOTHER waste of time, money and effort.
Jeez ;-)
Marky.
>
> PDW
Peter
Addinall wrote:
> fasgnadh wrote:
> > Peter wrote:
> > > Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> > > economic, isn't reliable
> >
> > If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
> > to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms,
>
> Phht. You had your brain removed and replaced with a sock?
> Technology is EVIL because of.... Osama!
>
> ANd you should start reading again and turn off the Telly.
I never have had any regard for the general intelligence of Faggy. As I
said, you can pick the moment when the big mental switch clicks home
and the regurgitation starts..... after that it's all over, Rover.
Nothing worth addressing except for the benefit of anyone thinking in
the audience, who Faggy then tries to bury in verbiage in pursuit of an
illusionary victory through verbosity.
Uptime is a pretty simple metric for power generators. So is megawatt
hours produced versus theoretical capacity over time. Offer to pay wind
generators the same rate as the most efficient fossil fuel plant and
see how many private businesses want to invest. Tell them you want a
guaranteed 70% (which is pretty low for a target) of installed capacity
delivered during the hours of 0600 and 1900 and see how many are left.
PDW
Peter
Yeah, but over 100,000 years how do you know it won't leak out and
cause a runaway greenhouse effect? I mean, the odds are small, but can
you guarantee me that this will never happen at any time in the future?
Look at Indonesia where there's a runaway mudflow from drilling in the
wrong place. We have the future of the planet to consider here.
Personally I think this line of argument is crap but it's exactly the
one that the anti-nukes run, so it's only fair to apply the same
standard to other forms of energy generation.
PDW
Addinall
Peter wrote:
> Addinall wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > > Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> > > > economic, isn't reliable
> > >
> > > If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
> > > to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms,
> >
>
> > Phht. You had your brain removed and replaced with a sock?
> > Technology is EVIL because of.... Osama!
> >
> > ANd you should start reading again and turn off the Telly.
>
> I never have had any regard for the general intelligence of Faggy. As I
I have. I think he's gone a little mad.......Odd.......
> said, you can pick the moment when the big mental switch clicks home
> and the regurgitation starts..... after that it's all over, Rover.
> Nothing worth addressing except for the benefit of anyone thinking in
> the audience, who Faggy then tries to bury in verbiage in pursuit of an
> illusionary victory through verbosity.
>
> Uptime is a pretty simple metric for power generators.
We use it. I rather doubt my High-Availability solutions
would be very popular if they managed a 30% uptime
AT BEST, but hovered around 1% - 10% a lot of the time.
People would ask me why I called it "High-Availability".
Quite rightly as well. That's the same reason I ask why
they call Wind Farms "Power Generation", when they
don't.
I assume if your systems went off line 90% of the time
you might face a long, cold swim home ;-))))
> So is megawatt
> hours produced versus theoretical capacity over time.
I went through that math with portion-of-a-brain.
To no avail I'm afraid.
> Offer to pay wind
> generators the same rate as the most efficient fossil fuel plant and
> see how many private businesses want to invest. Tell them you want a
> guaranteed 70% (which is pretty low for a target) of installed capacity
> delivered during the hours of 0600 and 1900 and see how many are left.
I can tell you how many that is going to be. qq{0} ;
Marky.
>
> PDW
B J Foster
> B J Foster wrote:
>
>>Addinall wrote:
>>
>>>'Arf wrote:
>>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>>Wind is not and cannot be reliable. You can rely on it to be there when
>>>you need it only 10 per cent of the time
>>
>>A key problem with electricity is that you can't store it. Wind power
>>could be useful only if coupled with pumped storage.
>>
>
>
> Agreed, and the obvious place in Australia is at the shoreline where
> both wind and water are in plentiful supply. Given that potable water
> is also in short supply, and desalination consumes considerable power,
> a facility that used the energy produced by air and/or submarine
> turbines and/or a wave device to pump sea water to a collection point
> above the shore could both ensure predictable and instantaneous output
> of electricity AND desalinated water as the falling water passed
> through reverse osmosis filters.
>
> Power generated at the shore could also be used to pump water thus
> produced to local catchments and reserves -- and since this is also a
> part of the overall energy demand placed on the grid, it would be a
> bona fide offset to demand on the grid.
>
> Fran
>
This is the kind of creative thinking which is completely absent from
government planning. Although the above is a neat idea, unfortunately:
- it is not an ENERGY solution, it is a WATER solution
- there are better WATER solutions, e.g. rainwater collection at point
of consumption
B J Foster
> Fran wrote:
>
...
>>>
>>
>>What might be better inland would be to pump treated water from town
>>sewage to the nearest points of the rivers feeding the Snowy Scheme.
>
>
> The river systems need the water back again for their own biological
> life. Diverting river flow is a zero sum activity and I don't think
> it's a real good idea in general. Taking water, using it & putting it
> back again, fine. Works on the Rhine, Danube etc etc.
>
Not really. These rivers have been dead for centuries. It may be that
they are cleaner today, but they're still not much more than sewers.
I heard somewhere (don't know whether or not this is true) that towns
along the Rhine are forced to pump out their effluent upstream and take
their drinking water from downstream...
B J Foster
If the wind drops, you can always line up all Greenies in the direction
of the prevailing wind.
B J Foster
> "'Arf" <arthur...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1166763870.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
...
>
>>Nuclear is utterly unaffordable except where:
>>- the cost of the massive risk involved is discounted
>>- the cost of 100,000 years of secure storage is ignored
>>- massive government subsidies are offered.
>>
>
>
> No, its about 30% more expensive than Coal. Which makes it a fraction of the
> cost of any other zero CO2 emission technology.
>
Which makes it cheaper than coal if you calculate costs the same way
that the Greenies do, including the full long-term cost of
rehabilitating mines, transport infrastructure as well as the health
costs. Add the costs of using precious fresh water and you might
conclude the opposite: that *relative* to nuclear, coal is utterly
unaffordable
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
>>> economic, isn't reliable
>>
>> If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
>> to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
>> for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
>
> They only get built because the Govt agrees to buy the energy produced
> at a price well above what they'll pay for energy from fossil fuelled
> plants. IOW they're *subsidised*. Stop the subsidies and see how many
> get built. It'll be a nice round number.
You didn't address the point; private investment was blocked for
clearly spurious twaddle, costs were increased, and yet the
investors remained committed to the project and it's being built.
The same federal government which blocked the wind farm is pro nuke,
but where are the prospective investors? B^p
Instead of addressing the issues snipped them and become abusive;
> Rest of rant ignored. Grow up,
That is typical of the abusive nature of your argument, which
substitutes ad hom and misrepresentation for rational argument.
> nobody is impressed at how long you can
> harangue or how verbose you can be. It just comes across as a
> substitute for content.
B^D
You seem a bit hysterical, the 'long harangue' you snipped
was TWO paragraphs long (see below), less than your own
3 para response, and as the gentle reader can see,
I was measured and restrained. It seems the ad hom harangue
is yours, (as is the hypocrisy) and thus "It just comes
across as a substitute for content." B^p ! B^D
>
> I could give a rat's ass if people want to build wind farms on their
> own property and the odd parrot disappears in a puff of feathers.
Very kind of you, I'm sure. I'm pleased the tory government
realised it can't hold back progress.
But it's pretty obvious to the average reader the difference in
the political debate: Windfarm BANNED on completely bullshit
grounds, while the real dangers of radioactive material,
are ignored and denied, despite the clear concerns that every
government has.
We even have the West discussing invasion of ANOTHER country
because it has chosen to develop nuclear power! And yet the
same governments propose it for this country. There is a serious
disconnect, and it's not among people who are naturally cautious
about increasing the amount of radioactive material.
> What I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time
> and a contracted price per megawatt-hour delivered.
We have that now, I'm not sure what you are so hysterical
about. We have abundant supplies of coal and gas providing
base load electricity. And those of us who would like wind
turbines on our property for some extra income in our retirement
can contribute to the grid.
> If we put power out to tender on this basis,
> how many wind plants do you think would be built?
>
> PDW
The Australian Uranium Association states in it's Briefing Paper
#38, 'Renewable Energy and Electricity', Nov 2006:
"Wind is projected to supply 3% of world electricity in 2030,
and perhaps 10% in OECD Europe."
And yet we have pro-nuke fanatics claiming it's a technology that
doesn't work and shouting down anyone who thinks differently! B^p
There really is no need for you get nasty, just because people
don't agree with you.
Lets see what got you so hysterical;
>> I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons,
>> or driven by their belief in global warming.. instead
>> what we observe is that alternative energy attracts capital
>> investment, and nukes don't get built, unless the taxpayer
>> is gouged mightily not just for the capital cost, but to
>> carry the risk.
Seems an innocuous statement of fact to me.. perhaps you
would like to snip it and scream abuse again, if it makes you feel
better. B^p
I seem to have more detachment than some of the fanatics
in this debate:
>> It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
>> other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
>> more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
>> the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
I'm happy to indemnify any of my neighbours from any risks
arising from turbines on my property...
If you can find insurers to indemnify us from the risks
posed by nukes you might have more success in the energy market,
worldwide. But it looks like uniform rejection across the planet to me.
Just don't shoot the messenger, it makes you look brittle and
unconvincing! B^D
B J Foster
> The problem with you, Half a Brain...
ROTFL. Good one
B J Foster
> 'Arf wrote:
>
>>dewatf wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Dec 2006 00:22:48 -0800, Arthur Brain wrote:
>>
>>>A rather silly argument.
>>
>>>Both wind and nuclear are over twice as expensive as coal.
>>>Wind is more expensive than nuclear though.
>>
>>No it isn't.
>
>
> You're nearly correct.
> Coal is very cheap in Australia, we have lots of it to burn.
> Nuclear would be on par with coal as we are also resource
> rich in uranics.
> Wind is about 10 times more expensive than either,
> and unreliable. Virtually worthless.
>
Wind has enormous political potential: You can waste, er spend
relatively paltry amounts for a massive improvement to your 'green'
credentials. This scheme will work for as long as Greenies are irrational.
Peter
fasgnadh wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Peter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> >>> economic, isn't reliable
> >>
> >> If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
> >> to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
> >> for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
> >
> > They only get built because the Govt agrees to buy the energy produced
> > at a price well above what they'll pay for energy from fossil fuelled
> > plants. IOW they're *subsidised*. Stop the subsidies and see how many
> > get built. It'll be a nice round number.
>
> You didn't address the point; private investment was blocked for
> clearly spurious twaddle, costs were increased, and yet the
> investors remained committed to the project and it's being built.
OK, I thought it implicit that I thought the blocking because of some
mythical parrot was a load of crap, but this is the exact same logic
that stops other people from developing land, so I can't see why you
think it's unfair. Merely a case of what goes around, comes around. Can
I take it that you wouldn't object to a subdivision of land that might
have an impact on some other endangered species, somewhere?
Now, how about addressing *my* point - wind generated power is bought
at a price much higher than fossil fuelled power stations, and cannot
guarantee delivery. Do you agree that this is accurate, or don't you?
If not, what bits are inaccurate and why?
> > Rest of rant ignored. Grow up,
>
> That is typical of the abusive nature of your argument, which
> substitutes ad hom and misrepresentation for rational argument.
Actually it's experience in reading some of your previous postings and
a (probably forlorn) hope of short circuiting yet another one. We'll
see how it goes.
> > I could give a rat's ass if people want to build wind farms on their
> > own property and the odd parrot disappears in a puff of feathers.
>
> Very kind of you, I'm sure. I'm pleased the tory government
> realised it can't hold back progress.
>
> But it's pretty obvious to the average reader the difference in
> the political debate: Windfarm BANNED on completely bullshit
> grounds,
Agreed, but I can't get excited about it. Not like other development
activities haven't been BANNED on completely bullshit grounds, after
all. Why does this one upset you? Money involved?
while the real dangers of radioactive material,
> are ignored and denied, despite the clear concerns that every
> government has.
That'd explain why so many nuke reactors are under construction. Want
to compare megawatt-hours of capacity of both systems currently being
built? I think Mark quoted the figures for nukes recently. A wind power
supporter such as yourself can surely give us the figures for wind.
> > What I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time
> > and a contracted price per megawatt-hour delivered.
>
> We have that now, I'm not sure what you are so hysterical
> about.
Oh yes, I'm sure we do - the sort of contracts that would send people
broke if it wasn't for Governments paying over the odds. They weren't
written with an eye to reliability of supply, that's for sure. I don't
know the answer to this, but maybe you do - is the contract open ended,
just to purchase any power delivered, or is it a contract where the
wind farm operator undertakes to deliver so many mW-hours over a
specified time period, with penalties for noncompliance? Bet it's not
the latter.
> We have abundant supplies of coal and gas providing
> base load electricity. And those of us who would like wind
> turbines on our property for some extra income in our retirement
> can contribute to the grid.
Wondered why you were so upset about it all. Funnily enough I'm not and
guess what - I own 220 ha of land on the escarpment between 2 river
valleys, with clean lines of sight over 270 deg of horizon. Perhaps I
should consider getting on the Govt tit too.
>
> > If we put power out to tender on this basis,
> > how many wind plants do you think would be built?
> >
> > PDW
>
> The Australian Uranium Association states in it's Briefing Paper
> #38, 'Renewable Energy and Electricity', Nov 2006:
>
> "Wind is projected to supply 3% of world electricity in 2030,
> and perhaps 10% in OECD Europe."
>
> And yet we have pro-nuke fanatics claiming it's a technology that
> doesn't work and shouting down anyone who thinks differently! B^p
It only works if you use watermelon accounting - getting subsidised to
do something uneconomic. Has this sunk it, yet? Do you agree? If not,
why not?
> There really is no need for you get nasty, just because people
> don't agree with you.
I tire of dealing with idiots.
>
>
> Lets see what got you so hysterical;
>
> >> I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons,
> >> or driven by their belief in global warming.. instead
> >> what we observe is that alternative energy attracts capital
> >> investment, and nukes don't get built, unless the taxpayer
> >> is gouged mightily not just for the capital cost, but to
> >> carry the risk.
>
> Seems an innocuous statement of fact to me.. perhaps you
> would like to snip it and scream abuse again, if it makes you feel
> better. B^p
Let's split the above apart. First, the investment bankers are indeed
not watermelons, agreed. They recognise an opportunity to make money.
On that logic, Sydney's toll roads are a good thing, right?
http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm
Installed power systems - where's wind? In the 'other' category.
Minuscule.
Power prices from the above:
In cents per kilowatt hour some 2004 pool prices were:
Average Victoria 2.8 c/kWh
Average NSW 3.9 c/kWh
Average Qld & SA 3.2 c/kWh
How much are we paying for wind power? I can't seem to find a
comparable figure, perhaps you can help out? However:
http://au.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/WindPower.html
Electricity generated from the wind is $30-$40 per megawatt hour (MWh)
more expensive to produce, at present, than is electricity generated
from burning fossil fuels (fossil fuel electricity costs about $40/MWh
to generate, of course the cost to the environment is not included in
this).
It would appear that wind power is DOUBLE the cost to produce. There's
this thing called a Renewable Energy Certificate and this is the method
of applying subsidies. The Fed Govt seems to have frozen these. Many
screams, one suspects from the rent-seekers. You, perhaps?
Anyway, if you want to build a wind generator and sell power to the
grid at say 3.9c/kWh, I won't have any objections in principle.
However, since we've got baseload power covered already, I want the
power delivered at times I need it to cover peak loads, and since
non-delivery is going to have a severe impact on the grid performance,
I want delivery guarantees and indemnities. Still interested?
On this basis I wouldn't give a damn if you install (say) 100 mW/h of
capacity in order to guarantee delivery of 10 mW/h when I need it.
That's a straight commercial investment decision.
Can you please point me to a verifiable reference to such a site? If
not, you're comparing apples & oranges. Or lemons, more likely.
>
> I seem to have more detachment than some of the fanatics
> in this debate:
>
> >> It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
> >> other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
> >> more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
> >> the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
>
> I'm happy to indemnify any of my neighbours from any risks
> arising from turbines on my property...
>
> If you can find insurers to indemnify us from the risks
> posed by nukes you might have more success in the energy market,
> worldwide. But it looks like uniform rejection across the planet to me.
Hmmm, how many nuke plants did Marky say was under construction ATM?
How many mW/h of capacity? How many times are you going to repeat
something that you *know* is false? Wonder why you lose credibility?
Let's see.....
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ - 29 power plants under construction
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html
<quote>
ate last year, officials from Bruce Power, one of Canada's largest
power companies, announced a Can$4.25 billion (US$3.6 billion)
investment to rebuild two reactors that have stood idle for nearly 10
years on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, north of Kincardine, Ontario.
Last December, the Ontario Power Authority proposed plans to build 12
new nuclear plants to help phase out Ontario's coal-fired power
stations.
New 1600-MW European PWRs are being built, one in Finland and one in
France, with respective power-up dates of 2008 and 2012. On 5 January,
France's president, Jacques Chirac, announced plans for an expansion of
renewable and nuclear energy sources for France, including a PBMR by
2020. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce this spring
six to eight new reactors in the UK.
Russia is currently constructing several reactors, including an 800-MW
fast neutron reactor, but financial difficulties may delay four of
them, says the London-based World Nuclear Association. Iran is building
two Russian-designed reactors, the first of which should go on line
later this year. The first South African PBMR is set to be completed in
2012.
Nuclear-industry officials have long said that the majority of growth
would come in Asia. Japan is building five new power plants by 2010,
and China plans to build 30 nuclear reactors, based on domestic
designs, by 2020. China also sees nuclear technology as a major export
opportunity, say industry analysts, and is building its second of four
power plants for Pakistan, which may lead to a larger order. India has
nine power plants under construction, including a fast-breeder reactor
that generates its own fuel.
Six countries-Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, the Czech Republic,
and Turkey-may build two to five PWRs each, while Germany, Sweden,
and Switzerland are now reevaluating plans to phase-out nuclear power.
</quote>
> Just don't shoot the messenger, it makes you look brittle and
> unconvincing! B^D
Sigh. This has been over time & again. After a while, even Whack-A-Mole
gets old. When are you going to admit that your claims of "looks like
uniform rejection across the planet to me" is either the result of
wilful ignorance or outright lies?
Now, that's a pretty long answer and, for Usenet, pretty civil as well.
I'll await your attempt to address the facts, reasoning and quoted
sources. I'd *really* like to know how much the electricity authorities
are paying for wind power - is it more than double the baseload power
price?
PDW
Fran
Possum Comitatus wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2006 20:25:15 -0800, "Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Possum Comitatus wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:33:09 +1100, fasgnadh
> >> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Possum Comitatus wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:12:46 +1100, fasgnadh
> >> >> <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> wanted to, and even if the full costs were cheap) and build
> >> >> a reactor somewhere.
> >> >
> >> >People should think about the reasons for that.
> >>
> >> Throwback fears to 1st and 2nd generation nuclear
> >> me its the only real issue (apart from cost).
> >>
> >
> >insurers to accept liability for catastrophic damage.
>
> of an act of god - one smite, regardless of its miniscule
> likelihood, can end your company.
>
So? If you don't believe there's a foreseeable prospect of that
happening, you can ignore that risk with impunity. And let's face it,
if the unthinkable happens, and you go bankrupt, so what? If you're
going to allow unthinkable things as possibilities, you can think
you'll get off scott-free on the basis that it was unthinkable.
> > People who could
> >make a buck betting on a "sure thing" just aren't willing to do so.
>
> Insurance is a business run by conservative conservatives,
> anyone more radical than that in the business usually gets
> eaten up in a buyout by said conservatives (and subsequently
> have their risk restructured to reflect the status quo), or
> goes bankrupt trying to grow.
>
Now that doesn't make logical sense and you should be able to see why
that's so. No less conservative person's risks are going to be
swallowed up by a more conservative person's risks, precisely because
that would make the swallower equally adventurous. In the end, the
winner is always whoever gets closest to the optimal balance between
risk and reward. If you're too risk averse, less risk averse people
grab your markets and the pool of funds and you are asphyxiated by the
anaconda-like grip of your more adventurous rivals. If your more
adventurous rivals have been too adventurous you may break their grip
and carve them up instead, rewriting the risk reward balance in your
favour.
The winner is the coalition of insurers with the best knowledge of
actual risk costs over time and the best model for weighing the
commercial value of this risk against the commercial value of other
risks.
Right now, they'd sooner the state covered almost all of those risks,
and I'm inclined to pay attention to those who declare, with their
money, where the real risks are, whatever I think of their ethics.
> I think it more reflects the institutional aversity to risk,
> rather than the actual underlying risk itself.Why dont
> insurance companies insure against volcanic eruptions for
> instance?
>
Inadequate knowledge of the various heads of risk, prospective trigger
events, timing etc and thus the commercial cost.
> Same thing.
>
True, and good enough for me.
> >The other thing is that while procedures in first world countries
> >*might* justify that optimism about safety, you can't but think that in
> >places like Russia and Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the
> >subcontinent and South East Asia and so forth would be a lot more
> >haphazard.
>
> I agree with that - except S.E.A.They seem quite competent
> enough, although the unstable geography is a problem.
>
Yes, the Indonesians are building one in an area with active volcanoes.
> >You wouldn't really want this lot in charge of nuclear power
> >stations.
>
> Not that we're getting into any latent Orientalism here or
> anything B^P
>
Well I'm not. No country, can in my opinion, guarantee an adequate
regime for handling this technology in perpetuity, so one must ask what
the worst case scenario of system failure would lead to. In the case of
a windfarm or even a coal-fired plant, the damage would be modest, but
not so in the case of a nuclear plant.
Of course, outside the G7, the prospects of this worst case scenario
arising go up very sharply.
Let's look at what "Transparency International" says about the
integrity of most of the places who need energy.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2006
Interestingly, the USA ranks =20th on this list of least corrupt places
to do business.
Here are the countries where the lower bound of the confidence index is
under 5 out of ten:
Oman Jordan Hungary Mauritius South Korea Malaysia Italy Czech
Republic Kuwait Lithuania Latvia Slovakia South Africa Tunisia
Dominica Greece Costa Rica Namibia
Bulgaria El Salvador Colombia Turkey Jamaica Poland Lebanon
Seychelles Thailand Belize Cuba Grenada Croatia Brazil China
Egypt Ghana India Mexico Peru Saudi Arabia Senegal Burkina Faso
Lesotho Moldova Morocco Trinidad and Tobago Algeria
Madagascar Mauritania Panama Romania Sri Lanka Gabon Serbia
Suriname
Argentina Armenia Bosnia and Herzgegovina Eritrea Syria Tanzania
Dominican Republic Georgia Mali Mongolia Mozambique Ukraine
Bolivia Iran Libya Macedonia
Malawi Uganda Albania Guatemala Kazakhstan Laos Nicaragua
Paraguay Timor-Leste Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Benin Gambia Guyana
Honduras Nepal Phillipines
Russia Rwanda Swaziland Azerbaijan Burundi Central African
Republic Ethiopia Indonesia Papua New Guinea Togo Zimbabwe
Cameroon Ecuador Niger Venezuela Angola Congo, Republic Kenya
Kyrgyzstan Nigeria Pakistan Sierra Leone Tajikistan Turkmenistan
Belarus Cambodia Côte d´Ivoire Equatorial Guinea Uzbekistan
Bangladesh Chad Congo, Democratic Republic Sudan Guinea Iraq
Myanmar Haiti
You would certainly not want these countries handling nuclear
technology and yet India, Russia, China and Indonesia are on this list.
> >By all means let them use windfarms or wave plants or
> >geothermal (as indeed they are in parts of Africa) or biomass
>
> ..... or cake. B^P
>
As long as it's not yellow. They can have brioche of course.
> > There is
> >far less downside risk in these technologies and they compare well in
> >cost and environmental terms with nukes.
>
> Sure - the only question is how the risk vs. cost equation
> ends up.
>
If the insurers can't work out a deal that works then it should be put
to one side.
Fran
Fran
It's both, since pumping water forms part of the power demand on the
grid. It's also an entirely predictable and thus manageable part of
demand. You can pump or not pump according to power supply. If a
windfarm or any source is producing more power than is necessary, you
pump more water, and if it falls, you pump less or not at all. Of
course, you have to have water to pump it, and at the shore, there's an
inexhaustible supply of a key material that we can process into potable
water, given the energy.
> - there are better WATER solutions, e.g. rainwater collection at point
> of consumption
Oh I agree with that too. I also agree that far better use should be
made of grey water locally, especially in new medium density (or
higher) housing developments where the economies of scale could make
this especially cost and energy-effective. In effect, this is opting
for an increase in catchment capacity and diversity -- which makes good
sense. In the end though, that still won't be enough.
Fran
Addinall
fasgnadh wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Peter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
> >>> economic, isn't reliable
> >>
> >> If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
> >> to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
> >> for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get built.
> >
> > They only get built because the Govt agrees to buy the energy produced
> > at a price well above what they'll pay for energy from fossil fuelled
> > plants. IOW they're *subsidised*. Stop the subsidies and see how many
> > get built. It'll be a nice round number.
>
> You didn't address the point; private investment was blocked for
> clearly spurious twaddle,
Perhaps we see why. Now the locals who were reasonably silent,
talking to thier local polly about NOT wanting the bloody thing
built in thier environment, are now vocal in opposition to it.
> costs were increased,
What costs? All that "free" wind that escaped the net?
> and yet the
> investors remained committed to the project and it's being built.
Of course. If I could force the government in paying me four
times over spot for energy I CAN'T possibly produce from my
magical 400MW pixie wand, I'd bloody lobby like hell!
>
> The same federal government which blocked the wind farm is pro nuke,
> but where are the prospective investors? B^p
The whole world is pro nuke except you, Tevor Wilson, Garret de Weird
(and he's about to have his mind changed) and half a brain.
And how pray tell, are you going to increase radioactive material?
That would be an oustanding feat in Physics. Probably get you
at least one Nobel.
>
> > What I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time
> > and a contracted price per megawatt-hour delivered.
>
> We have that now,
Not with the wind companies you don't.
> I'm not sure what you are so hysterical
> about. We have abundant supplies of coal and gas providing
> base load electricity. And those of us who would like wind
> turbines on our property for some extra income in our retirement
> can contribute to the grid.
Sure. Build one. Shame about your property. Wind farms
are not pretty. And of course in the spirit of "free enterprise"
you are going to pay the $3 million per turbine X 100,
the cost of clearing your land and road construction,
Pylon erection and the cost of building a transfer substation
with computerised load/peak switch at the nearest junction
to the HW grid?
That'll spin you about $600 million.
So, before you retire, how much power do you need to supply
to the grid at the current spot price of about
Average Victoria 2.8 c/kWh
Average NSW 3.9 c/kWh
Average Qld & SA 3.2 c/kWh
3.3 c/kWh?
Do you need me to do the math for you?
Of course you'd run away if that was your money,
however, if the government said that $600 million
could be used as a tax offset for your fleet of
jets, aluminum smelter or AWB bribe money
then it starts to look like a good little shelter.
Add to that, that the government passes a law
that forces people to buy power from you
at FOUR times spot price, and the upshot is,
you get paid for it whether you produce it
or not! Great bloody investment. Joe
Stalin couldn't have thought of a better one!
You get an investment, the peasants pay for it!
>
> > If we put power out to tender on this basis,
> > how many wind plants do you think would be built?
> >
> > PDW
>
> The Australian Uranium Association states in it's Briefing Paper
> #38, 'Renewable Energy and Electricity', Nov 2006:
>
> "Wind is projected to supply 3% of world electricity in 2030,
> and perhaps 10% in OECD Europe."
It also says this.
"If the fundamental opportunity of renewables is their abundance and
relatively widespread occurrence, the fundamental problem, especially
for electricity supply, is their variable and diffuse nature*. This
means either that there must be reliable duplicate sources of
electricity, or some means of electricity storage on a large scale.
Apart from pumped-storage hydro systems (see below), no such means
exist at present and nor are any in sight."
So, you can quote that Wind power maybe pehaps could provide 99%
of all our power needs, but you are still going to have to duplicate
the output with conventional means. Coal, gas or nuclear. And since
then we are doubling capital investment per MWh produced, you
can kiss goodbye R&D money on the "Clean coal" R&D. Increasing
the number of wind farms on the planet is increasing environmental
pollution.
And of course everyone gets to pay more for power, including
what's left of industry.
It also goes on to describe the pin-up child of Windy's... Denmark.
-----------------------------------------
"West Denmark (the main peninsula part) is the most intensely
wind-turbined part of the planet, with 1.74 per 1000 people - 4700
turbines totaling 2315 MWe, 1800 MWe of which has priority dispatch and
power must be taken by the grid when it is producing. Total system
capacity is 6850 MWe and maximum load during 2002 was 3700 MWe, hence a
huge 81% margin. In 2002, 3.38 billion kWh were produced from the wind,
a load factor of 16.8%. The peak wind output was 1813 MWe on 23
January, well short of the total capacity, and there were 54 days when
the wind output supplied less than 1% of demand. On two occasions, in
March and April, wind supplied more than total demand for a few hours.
In February 2003 during a cold calm week there was virtually no wind
output. "
--------------------------------------------
Actually the figures show rather a worse case than that, as well a zero
output for
the 9 days (mentioned as a week), 54 days at less than 1%, there was
also 186
days at less than 15%.
The average base price for a turbine is $2 million. $9,400,000,000.
That's
about right. Ten billion. Good investment hey?
>
> And yet we have pro-nuke fanatics claiming it's a technology that
> doesn't work and shouting down anyone who thinks differently! B^p
Have you forgotten how to count and think?
SO, All of those days when the multi-billion dollar windmills were
sitting doing
nothing, where did the Danes get power? They purchase it from
the Euro grid from people lucky enough to have coal and nuke
technology. Where will Australia buy power from when the wind farms
don't work? Moresby? Nahhhhh, from ourselves.
So calculate the load requirements for an area at 14MWh per household
per annum. Say Geelong, 130,000 people? Population density of 2.3
people per household is 56,522 households is it not?
Requiring 791,308 MWh of production capablity. Not to mention the
Shell Refinery. Given a 2% growth rate pa, show me your renewable
energy plan for the area for 2020. Remeber, Geelong has two peak
power consuption periods. A length and cold winter, and a short
summer.
"Wind is rooly gooood an freeee an stuff" doesn't cut it. This people
want power. How are YOU going to supply it with MY tax?
After you finish your model which will of course provide baseload
requirements
from fossil fuel, consider the extra emmissions produced by any wind
farms you have been silly enough to construct, and give us all an
accurate
estimate on the percentage increase in Greenhouse emmissions t/pa.
>
> There really is no need for you get nasty, just because people
> don't agree with you.
>
>
> Lets see what got you so hysterical;
>
> >> I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons,
> >> or driven by their belief in global warming.. instead
> >> what we observe is that alternative energy attracts capital
> >> investment, and nukes don't get built, unless the taxpayer
> >> is gouged mightily not just for the capital cost, but to
> >> carry the risk.
>
> Seems an innocuous statement of fact to me.. perhaps you
> would like to snip it and scream abuse again, if it makes you feel
> better. B^p
Nukes are being built in nearly every country barring Australia.
People have woken up to the fact that it is nukes or the
cave very damn shortly.
>
> I seem to have more detachment than some of the fanatics
> in this debate:
You seem detached alright. From reality.
>
> >> It's amusing to watch VHS and Betamax proponents beat each
> >> other up with technical specifications, and nothing generates
> >> more heat than Linux gurus vs Microsoft acolytes, but post Osama,
> >> the market regards nukes as dangerous and uneconomic.
>
> I'm happy to indemnify any of my neighbours from any risks
> arising from turbines on my property...
http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2006/wind-farm-27-02-06.shtml
Good. You'll cover my adjoining land against fire damage.
Well done.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/cwifAccidents.htm
Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to November 1st 2006.
Total number of accidents: 301
Fatal accidents
Number of fatal accidents: 37
---------------
Blade failure
By far the biggest number of incidents found were due to blade failure.
"Blade failure" can arise from a number of possible sources, and
results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the
turbine. A total of 98 separate incidences were found:
Pieces of blade are documented as travelling over 400m, typically from
much smaller turbines than those proposed for use today. In Germany,
blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of nearby buildings.
This is why CWIF believe that there should be a minimum distance of at
least 1km between turbines and occupied housing - and preferably
about 5km to address other problems such as noise.
Fire
Fire is the second most common accident cause in incidents found. Fire
can arise from a number of sources - and some turbine types seem more
prone to fire than others. A total of 44 fire incidents were found in
the data:
The biggest problem with turbine fires is that, because of the turbine
height, the fire brigade can do little but watch it burn itself out.
While this may be acceptable in reasonably still conditions, in a storm
it means burning debris being scattered over a wide area, with obvious
consequences. In dry weather there is obviously a wider-area fire-risk,
especially for those constructed in or close to forest areas and/or
close to housing.
Structural failure
>From the data obtained, this is the third most common accident cause,
with 37 instances found. "Structural failure" is assumed to be
major component failure under conditions which components should be
designed to withstand. This mainly concerns storm damage to turbines
and tower collapse. However, poor quality control and component failure
can also be responsible - the collapse in May 2005 of a brand-new 300
foot turbine in Oklahoma during light winds are a good example of this.
While structural failure is far more damaging (and more expensive) than
blade failure, the accident consequences and risks to human health are
most likely lower, as risks are confined to within a relatively short
distance from the turbine.
Ice throw
21 incidences of ice throw were found (one of which has been classed as
"human injury" above, in italics below):
Ice throw has been reported to 140m.
These are indeed only a very small fraction of actual incidences - a
report* published in 2003 reported 880 icing events between 1990 and
2003 in Germany alone. 33% of these were in the lowlands and on the
coastline.
*("A Statistical Evaluation of Icing Failures in Germany's '250 MW
Wind' Programme - Update 2003, M Durstwitz, BOREAS VI 9-11 April 2003
Pyhätunturi, Finland. )
---------------
So you are going to need some public liability. If you can find an
insurance
company that will cover you for burning down Victoria that is. Good
luck.
>
> If you can find insurers to indemnify us from the risks
> posed by nukes you might have more success in the energy market,
> worldwide. But it looks like uniform rejection across the planet to me.
Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.
Mark Addinall.1
Addinall
I don't consider BILLIONS of dollars paltry, just so as to make some
numb-nut pollie feel happy about his/her last 3 years on the public
tit.
Cheers,
Mark.
Fran
> Fran wrote:
> > Peter wrote:
> > > Once again, decouple the power
> > > consumption side from the delivery of the product of the power. There
> > > would be other things one could do, if it was necessary to live with a
> > > less predictable power system. It's kind of interesting but frankly I'd
> > > just build another nuke plant on the coast....
> > >
> >
> > There we part company. Way too dangerous, hideously expensive,
> > disastrous for local tourism, and not a solution you could contemplate
> > outside a first world country.
>
> Taking them one at a time, stipulated that nobody would build another
> Chernobyl type reactor, why do you think they're dangerous?
Even the modern ones require detailed, systematic oversight and
maintenance by highly qualified (and thus expensive) technicians. In
short, this makes them a particularly poor choice for the people of
developing countries, since they will have to choose between bringing
in the expertise at very great expense or training up locals in a
hurry.
Developing countries do not, as we see in almost every area where big
projects are afoot, carefully consider the suitability of sites, the
longterm impacts on the area and so forth -- but tend to be driven by
the desire to porkbarrell and erect monuments. Given the huge sums
involved and the looseness of tendering processes, it would be
astonishing if projects were assessed properly, built properly,
maintained properly or secured properly, not made the subject of
parties to serious conflicts over regional governance etc.
This is not merely true of developing countries, but it's in these that
the problem simply smacks you right in the eye. That list I produced
for Mr Foster by Transparency International puts something like 2/3 of
the countries of the world, including four of the most populous
countries -- Brazil, China, Russia and India -- into a group where the
perceived confidence in government processes scores less than 5/10.
That's what *business* people think about these governments.
When talking about nuclear energy, it's not the best case scenario you
have to consider, but rather, the scenarios that are foreseeable in
practice. I'd much sooner have a badly managed any-other-kind-of-energy
plant than a badly managed nuclear facility. Every other plant can be
fixed and the site easily remediated. If those wind turbines or coal
stocks go onto the black market, I'm OK with that.
> And given
> that everything is dangerous to some degree, too dangerous compared to
> what?
>
Everything. No other energy technology has the same catastrophic
downside. The worst of these -- coal -- emits extremely toxic airborne
pollutants, and directly and indirectly causes the death and injury of
huge numbers of people every year in mine accidents and otherwise. And
yet, if we stopped using coal tomorrow, shut down every coal mine and
coal-fired power plant for ever, the associated injuries and deaths
would stop. If someone takes spent nuclear fuel and hands it to someone
animated by murderous intent and the necessary skills, until that can
be secured, everyone is at risk.
> You also use the term 'hideously expensive'. What does this mean in
> dollar figures? Twice the cost of a fossil fuel plant? Ten times the
> cost? 100 times the cost? Sorry, I like numbers to work with, takes the
> emotive arm waving out of it all.
>
This is part of the problem -- working out the precise cost assumes
models of risk and indemnity that the industry has never had to bear.
No nuclear plant in the world operates without a government subsidy,
which makes a point.
> Keep in mind that a steam powered plant is a steam powered plant. All
> we're talking about is how to produce the steam.
>
> As for depressing tourism, sorry but I'd regard that as a plus, not a
> minus.
>
Most of the country wouldn't agree with you there. I doubt the
government will sell seaside villages on nukes by telling them it will
keep out the tourists.
> Finally, the First World country bit - you don't get to make that
> decision for them. If you think that China & India are going to refrain
> from building nuke power plants because you think the technology is too
> dangerous for them, well it's nice to think things that have no contact
> with reality.
>
Oh I don't think that even if the Australian government had that view
that they would change their minds. They want them so they can keep
open their nuclear weapons options and use that as diplomatic leverage.
Israel until recently always denied it had nuclear warheads, but
allowed people to know that they were lying or dissembling. The desire
of governments -- especially those in developing countries, for nukes,
is militarily strategic rather than about energy security. Access to
low cost transport fuel is probably more significant to them in the
short to medium term than electricity anyway as they tend to lack the
infrastructure to deliver electricity over their territory reliably
anyway.
My point is that nukes are not a solution on a world scale, yet we need
solutions that can work anywhere and do not foster longtemr
environmental and political problems. Nukes don't fit the bill.
Were Australia (with 28% of known reserves, and about 40% of the
cheapest reserves) to decline to supply the market with uranium, the
price would increase and the longterm viability of nukes as an energy
source would decline relative to other options.
> > And of course, since it's not scaleable,
> > you have to accept massive transmission losses that you wouldn't get if
> > you had a network of much smaller plants delivering less power within a
> > much more local area.
>
> I don't regard this as a problem. What, in percentage terms, do you
> consider 'massive transmission losses'?
about 7-8%, as it is in the US.
> Sorry, those pesky numbers
> again.... we reticulate power all over the place now and the massive
> losses seem bearable.
>
> In just about every country with a substantial
> > coastline, you could have wind & marine turbine and/or wave/tidal
> > plants placed close to where much of the population lives and pumping
> > the power over relatively short distances.
>
> So why are they so scarce - I'm tempted to say nonexistent? Could it be
> because they make no economic sense?
>
It depends how you define "economic sense". In the current world,
"economic sense" describes a process in which those with the power to
tweak government policy so as to externalise the costs of their
industry structure their investment accordingly and make dollars doing
things that funnel profits from resources to them.
Why do coal-fired power plants make "economic sense". Because coal at
the moment is cheap. Why is it cheap? Well, in large part it's cheap
because the full costs of the hazards posed by coal mining to those
mining it, and on the local environment are not reflected in the cost.
The coal-fired power industry can pour out millions of tons of sulphur
dioxide. lead and mercury pretty much without cost, poisoning
surrounding communities. It makes economic sense to poison and kill
people, because people, including many of those being poisoned get
cheap energy. One can also say that if we knew that most of the hazards
associated with nukes would fall upon people who haven't yet been born,
or won't be born until you and I are no more than memories, then it
would make even more "economic sense" to use nukes because we could
externalise the costs to people we have to care about even less than
people living near coal plants or doing coal mining. Apparently, it
made "economic sense" last year for the US to spend $US140 billion
pacifying Iraq, with the results we now see -- so the term "econoimic
sense" is highly subjective.
My definition of "economic sense" is not about whether some swindling
corporate shill can funnel a billion or so into some bank account in
the Caymans to bribe people to let him keep doing it. What I want to
know is the extent to which a given solution fosters your average
person and persons likely to be born in the future being better off.
The idea that I might be 5 or 10% better off today and for the next ten
years but that the consequence would be that most people would be 20 or
30% worse off 50 years from now doesn't appeal at all as "economic
sense". Maybe we should stop talking of "economic sense" and start
talking of "human wellbeing sense". Perhaps there should be a
"sustainable human wellbeing index" to assess whether things are worth
doing.
There is absolutely no question that by using a combination of energy
efficiency, cogeneration, demand management, changing the design of our
tranpsport systems to electricity, and technologies such as wind, wave,
PV, biomass, geothermal, hydro and so forth that the world could have
all of the energy it could ever need.
> We've already dealt with wind, pretty much.
>
> Tidal plants aren't going to work very well outside places with a big
> tidal rise & fall. Where in Australia does this occur?
I wasn't necessarily proposing tidal for Australia -- though there
might well be places where this would be feasible. Some years ago, a
tidal project was proposed for the Kimberleys (near Derby IIRC). KPMG
thought it was a feasible proposal. I'm guessing they'd have used those
Davis Marine Turbines:
http://www.bluenergy.com/davishydroturbine.html
Moreover, if this project had gone ahead, there could have been spinoff
benefits in local aquaculture as well.
But there are lots of places -- (India and Bangladesh come straight to
mind) where good scaleable solutions are available.
In some places, erosion of beaches and estuaries is a real problem and
serious government funds have gone into erecting breakwaters to protect
the shoreline. In these places, perhaps a system designed to capture
this destructive energy would serve two purposes -- protecting the
shoreline AND generating useful energy.
> Now combine this
> with the geomorphology permitting a barrier to be built in a cost
> effective fashion, or indeed at all. How many sites are left?
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/tide/tide.asp
> Tidal
> plants are a bit like hydro plants - they work in certain places where
> the energy density is high enough and the geography allows for the
> engineering.
>
What you have to do is spread the infrastructure costs across all of
the beneficiaries. A tidal or wave plant could operate effectively on
much the same engineering infrastructure for 50-100 years. The "La
Rance" tidal plant in Normandy for example has a design life of 120
years). Since 1966, it has produced about 75% of the power output of
the average French nuclear plant. Its intitial cost has now been fully
amortised and it now produces cheaper power than is possible using gas
or nukes.
The *components* aren't going to last that long of course, but they can
be progressively replaced. So what is cost-effective over that time
scale becomes a lot more open. Tidal and wave plants can have very
short lead times from inception to the first power output -- you can
start collecting once the basic infrastructure is in place.
> Wave energy - same objection as wind power raised by a factor of
> somewhere between 2 & 10. Salt water is bloody corrosive
It is, but these days we can use carbon fibre housings, which don't
corrode. Interestingly, *lignin* which is one of the key precursor
materials for carbon fibre, can be extracted from sewage sludge.
> and I can't,
> offhand, think of any way you're going to feather a wave system in
> extreme weather.
Well those people down at Port Kembla haven't mentioned this as a
problem.
> Feel free to point me to literature to the contrary
> but it better be by marine engineering people. I know more than a
> little about marine stuff.
>
> So - what else?
>
> > There's also the problem of transport fuels of course. Much of the CO2
> > and other pollution is in transport. Until electric vehicles become a
> > competitive proposition, this is going to be a tough one.
>
> Different problem but there are various solutions if you have
> sufficient electrical power. Hydrogen is one but the storage issues are
> pretty horrible. Slippery little molecule. Methanol is another.
>
The energy efficiencies associated with hydrogen -- even as a storage
medium -- are embarrassingly poor, sadly.
> > Heavy
> > shipping is also apparently a major polluter -- one container ship can
> > emit as much pollution as 12,000 motor vehicles.
>
> Irrelevant - we need heavy shipping. Besides this is an easy one, you
> just don't like the answer.
>
What answer would that be?
> > Apparently, you can use sewage sludge to produce algae yielding both
> > starches and lipids, which can be used respectively, to produce
> > alcohol-based fuels such as n-butanol, and biodiesel. It's also
> > possible to use thermal depolymerisation to reduce just about any
> > carbon-based material to diesel fuel -- and since plastic and
> > technowaste is posing an increasing landfill problem, this seems like
> > an obvious direction to go in. I read somewhere that if the US used
> > this process to turn all of its waste packaging, medical waste and
> > animal offal/waste fat into diesel it could produce an amount equal to
> > 90% of its current petroleum imports.
>
> I find that impossible to believe. Where's the reference? If possible,
> what energy inputs are needed to make it work?
>
Check out this page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
I find it interesting that the process can also be used to remove from
coal substances that when emitted into the air are toxic.
Apparently the process can extract from coal: sulfur, mercury, naphtha,
and olefins all of which are merchantable commodities and it also makes
the coal more friable, making it bum hotter and cleaner, reducing the
energy is needed to crush it before combustion in thermal plants.
Currently, "clean coal technologies" are estimated to cost about $100
per tonne so it only has to beat that to be ahead.
Fran
Peter Wicks
> fasgnadh wrote:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>>fasgnadh wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter wrote:
>>>
>> >>>
>>
>>>>>Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
>>>>>economic, isn't reliable
>>>>
>> >>
>>
>>>>If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
>>>>to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
>>>>for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get
built.
>>>
>>>They only get built because the Govt agrees to buy the energy produced
>>>at a price well above what they'll pay for energy from fossil fuelled
>>>plants. IOW they're *subsidised*. Stop the subsidies and see how many
>>>get built. It'll be a nice round number.
>>
>>You didn't address the point; private investment was blocked for
>>clearly spurious twaddle, costs were increased, and yet the
>>investors remained committed to the project and it's being built.
>
>
> OK, I thought it implicit that I thought the blocking because of some
> mythical parrot was a load of crap, but this is the exact same logic
> that stops other people from developing land,
Frogshit, the only recorded incidence of death of an
orange bellied parrot from impact was one which flew
into a lighthouse.
Are you warning Australians that the same 'logic' which
blocked a windfarm investment will be applied to
stopping high rise, communications towers, the MCG
lights and diving towers?
> so I can't see why you think it's unfair.
Oh FFS! It was a pretext!
No OBP has ever been sighted within kilometres of the
Bald Hills site.
What was your phrase? 'Grow Up?" B^p
Why don't you go back to whining to Mark about my
'intellect' because I won't agree with you! B^D
> Merely a case of what goes around, comes around. Can
> I take it that you wouldn't object to a subdivision of land that might
> have an impact on some other endangered species, somewhere?
Are we talking genuine threat to an endangered species, or
completely spurious bullshit to satisfy voters in a marginal
tory electorate?
> Now, how about addressing *my* point -
Is it relevant to any claims I have made for windpower?
After all, you seem to play fast and loose with the facts,
snipping my questions and substituting your abuse and
ground shifting;
What happened to this;
## The same federal government which blocked the wind farm is pro nuke,
## but where are the prospective investors? B^p
Seems a fair bit of surreptitious snipping of context occurred..
But, sure, although my estimation of your general intelligence
takes a dive everytime you avoid issues, I will deal with your
concerns, even though they appear irrelevant to the modest claims
I have made for windpower and to the issues of concern with nukes;
> wind generated power is bought
> at a price much higher than fossil fuelled power stations, and cannot
> guarantee delivery. Do you agree that this is accurate, or don't you?
> If not, what bits are inaccurate and why?
Depends where you are, sonny jim.
There are two turbines down at Mawson Base,
which has nice steady winds! B^D
(minimum monthly average windspeed was 10.6m/s and
the maximum, 20m/s, in the first year of operation)
How much are you charging to deliver fossil fuel power?
You CAN use fossil fuels but you can't always ensure
delivery, and the pollution is a real issue. ;-)
What sized nuke would you recommend instead?
There are numerous applications for
wind and hybrid systems which work for
many remote or rural communities:
"One study of an Arctic community with annual
average wind speeds of 15 mph compared the cost
of a 500-kW diesel system to that of a 200-kW
diesel generator and four mid-sized wind turbines.
It found that the wind/diesel combination cost
considerably more to install ($378,000 versus
$125,000), but would deliver fuel savings of
$90,000 per year, paying for itself in less
than three years.*
Yet what we get from you overblown fanatics
is the claim that alternative energy sources
are uneconomic or don't work. And then you assume
others have the same extreme and immoderate stance
as yourself, only inverted, and rail at them for it!
pffffft!
## Instead of addressing the issues you snipped them
## and become abusive;
>>
>>>Rest of rant ignored. Grow up,
Rude little prick aren't you.
First you ignore my argument, then you are abusive,
and NOW you want to ask me questions! B^D
I usually wait till people fail to answer my questions before
I become abusive, (so you are now fair game), but clearly you
don't operate on evidence based reasoning. B^p
>>That is typical of the abusive nature of your argument, which
>>substitutes ad hom and misrepresentation for rational argument.
>
> Actually it's experience in reading some of your previous postings
Actually you said "Rest of rant ignored" so you snipped perfectly
rational points, which you hadn't read but simply ignored, so
you could 'imagine' their merit based on 'some other' posts,
ignore what I actually said and substitute your own abusive harangue?
Pretty fucking weird! B^p
"I never have had any regard for the general intelligence..." B^D
> and a (probably forlorn) hope of short
> circuiting yet another one.
Sorry? Short circuiting another post of mine which you
ignore claiming you already know it's a rant based on your
past experience? B^p
Even fucking weirder!
> We'll see how it goes.
I could make a prediction! B^D
You have found what I am about to say wanting,
before you have read it!
### nobody is impressed at how long you can
### harangue or how verbose you can be.
### It just comes across as a substitute for content.
##
## B^D
That would be the 2 para of content you snipped unread because
you had psychically determined it's merit based on a sample
of other content!?
Compared to the reams of irrelevant drivel you have
belatedly attached below in response to the content
you originally snipped and ignored!?
B^D Fucking weirdo!
## You seem a bit hysterical, the 'long harangue' you snipped
## was TWO paragraphs long (see below), less than your own
## 3 para response, and as the gentle reader can see,
## I was measured and restrained. It seems the ad hom harangue
## is yours, (as is the hypocrisy) and thus "It just comes
## across as a substitute for content." B^p ! B^D
>>> I could give a rat's ass if people want to build wind farms on their
>>> own property and the odd parrot disappears in a puff of feathers.
>>
>>Very kind of you, I'm sure. I'm pleased the tory government
>>realised it can't hold back progress.
>>
>>But it's pretty obvious to the average reader the difference in
>>the political debate: Windfarm BANNED on completely bullshit
>>grounds,
>
> Agreed, but I can't get excited about it.
Some of you accept the distortions and inefficiency which corruption
brings, I believe in efficiency and a Fair Go for All.
> Not like other development activities haven't been BANNED
> on completely bullshit grounds, after all.
Excellent logic, you were unconcerned about the rape of your sister
because they had already done your mother the day before.
Stick to snipping peoples posts and responding to your judgement
of their earlier works on other subjects.
> Why does this one upset you? Money involved?
Sorry, I'd love to answer every trivial distraction that
pops in your bonce, while you snip and ignore my
relevant questions about Australian investment in nukes,
but some weak prick will start whining about verbosity
as a fucking excuse to bug out! B^p
>>while the real dangers of radioactive material,
>>are ignored and denied, despite the clear concerns that every
>>government has.
>
> That'd explain why so many nuke reactors are under construction.
How many is 'so' I usually count using the standard number system?
> Want to compare megawatt-hours of capacity
> of both systems currently being built?
Which 'both' systems? I have talked about fossil fuel, (Coal,gas,
oil) nukes, wind power, hydro. That's 4- 6 and counting.
I'm tired of doing your thinking for you.
Especially as you seem to be labouring under a misconception
based on your unique method of Psychic assessment of unread posts.
Pick your hobby horse and compare it to this:
"Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive
in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with
abundant and accessible domestic coal resources"
Uranium Information Centre
Briefing Paper 8 November 2006
The Economics of Nuclear Power
> I think Mark quoted the figures for nukes recently.
Oh that really clears thing up! B^D
Lets see, he quoted the support for nukes
"The whole world is pro nuke except you [and three others...]"
In fact "commercial nuclear power reactors are currently
operating in 31 countries"
Uranium Information Centre
Briefing Paper 7 September 2006
Nuclear Power in the World Today
There are 192 Member States of the United Nations.
As some smart arse keeps saying, "Do the math" !
Australia is so 'pro-nuke' that it produces 0% of it's
commercial power from nuclear reactors.
Australia, like most of the planet, is pro-coal,
and pro-hydro.
Those two systems account for 39% and 19% respectively for the
global production of electricity.
16% of the worlds nations have built nuclear power plants.
That's also the percentage of global electricity
produced from nukes.
> A wind power supporter such as yourself can
> surely give us the figures for wind.
Sure, I'll use you method of citation 'Someone posted
the figures somewhere" Go fish.
What figures are you talking about, and why
would I be comparing them to other systems?
What claims have i made regarding wind power and fossil fuels
that leads you psychically determine that I need to compare them?
I regard them as complementary.
Why are you nuke-nuts always fanatically trying to stuff your
square peg s down what you think is someone's round hole,
especially as you don't LISTEN to what they actually say,
..as if there is only one energy solution for the planet! FFS! B^p
The whole world is NOT pro nuke. Some nations have
little choice, lacking our abundant hydro, coal, and gas
resources, providing cheap baseload capacity, and
wind, sunlight, open spaces and sheer bloody good luck,
we enjoy, enabling us to develop other sources for a
more diverse supply, especially for remote locations.
Aren't telstra still using solar panels on remote
gear, or are you linking them to the nearest nuke
with fucking long extension leads!?
As I've said before, I love thermonuclear power,
it's just an issue of safe location, and 93 millions miles
is an excellent distance.
Hastings or Flinders, or anywhere else where I'm in the
in the wind shadow, would piss me off.
So, lets get the sites for nuclear power plants
published and test the theory that only a four
people in the country are not avidly pro-nuke. B^p
So much for being 'anti-nuke', although it seems building
them can make you a target of some very aggressive
powers, and I don't mean just Osama.
Our government, the same one that threatens
any tall buildings a bird might fly into, argues
that Iran should be attacked for
developing peaceful nuclear generation capacity!
So you still haven't convinced anyone about safety.
>
>
>> > What I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time
>> > and a contracted price per megawatt-hour delivered.
>>
>>We have that now, I'm not sure what you are so hysterical
>>about.
Just look at your bill, it has the rate you are being charged at.
> Oh yes, I'm sure we do - the sort of contracts that would send people
> broke if it wasn't for Governments paying over the odds.
Can you provide the details you have on these contracts,
I would be very interested to read them (and it would
make a refreshing change to get some facts from you)
especially the comparisons between fossil fuel, hydro
and nuclear in Australia, or even one state.
Oh sorry, ...just the two that are popular enough to
actually be USED! B^D
> They weren't
> written with an eye to reliability of supply, that's for sure.
You have brownouts? My supply is very reliable, king coal
just keeps burning... pity my home town had to be dug up
to recover it.
> I don't know the answer to this, but maybe you do
> - is the contract open ended,
You are the one claiming to know the contracts well enough
to ascertain they would 'send us broke if the government
wasn't paying over the odds', you tell us.
I've made no claims about production costs in any of my
discussion with you or Mark. My concerns were about security
and you both seem to have allocated me a position based on
your renowned Psychic reading of posts, and attacked
the notions you have attributed to me.
It was funny for a while, now it's just becoming tedious.
> just to purchase any power delivered, or is it a contract where the
> wind farm operator undertakes to deliver so many mW-hours over a
> specified time period, with penalties for noncompliance?
Can we remind you of where we came in?
You: "Why don't you address the point, which is that
wind power isn't economic"
Now you are asking me if the facts (contractual arrangements)
support your claim that it isn't economic? pffffft!
Based on a notion that would make car production, the portland
Aluminium smelter, ethanol, wheat (nah, fuck it, ANY agricultural)
production, education, hospitals and the army navy and air force
'un-economic'
> Bet it's not the latter.
Tell us if you won. pffft!
>>We have abundant supplies of coal and gas providing
>>base load electricity.
That's what my 'contract' is based on.
The whole system was built with government money,
and there has been fuck all new capacity delivered
since privatization.
I guess you are locked in to opposing ANY subsidies. eh?
It's not as if nothing has ever been done without them! B^p
>>And those of us who would like wind
>>turbines on our property for some extra income in our retirement
>>can contribute to the grid.
>
>
> Wondered why you were so upset about it all.
Yeah well, you are well experienced at jumping to a confusion..
based on prejudice and 'intuition' about motives.
> Funnily enough I'm not and
> guess what - I own 220 ha of land on the escarpment between 2 river
> valleys, with clean lines of sight over 270 deg of horizon. Perhaps I
> should consider getting on the Govt tit too.
Tell me again about how much of your (or anyone's) fossil
fuel and hydro generating capacity in Australia was built
without government money, you crank!?
>> > If we put power out to tender on this basis,
>> > how many wind plants do you think would be built?
>> >
>> > PDW
>>
>>The Australian Uranium Association states in it's Briefing Paper
>>#38, 'Renewable Energy and Electricity', Nov 2006:
>>
>> "Wind is projected to supply 3% of world electricity in 2030,
>>and perhaps 10% in OECD Europe."
>>
>>And yet we have pro-nuke fanatics claiming it's a technology that
>>doesn't work and shouting down anyone who thinks differently! B^p
>
>
> It only works if you use watermelon accounting -
You will have to explain to me how you do that,
I understand you divine my meaning by not reading my
post, based on an average of prior samples on other topics,
and I am trying to grasp how you simultaneously discern
the evil nature nature of energy contracts while asking
me what's in them.. but the full scope of watermelon
accounting remains a mystery.
I would love to have you explain.. but unfortunately that's
the dinner bell, and I have to leave town..
soon as i'm back I will give you a call and you can bring
a cat to sacrifice and initiate me in the arcane art of
diddling numbers. B^p
Feel free to point to any dodgy economic arguments you
imagine I have made, otherwise you are the only fruit
around here, sunshine! B^)
> getting subsidised to do something uneconomic.
Sounds like tory business practice in a nutshell!
Hell they even excuse bribing a tyrant as business as
usual.
If you take power from the grid, you are a conspirator too,
the difference between you and me, watermelon, is that I
know the government funded the coal and hydro systems! B^p
> Has this sunk it, yet?
Sure, you are the only person in Australia who
takes power from the grid that wasn't built with
taxpayer funds!
And you have a masters in Watermelon economics.
> Do you agree?
My permission is needed for you to take power from
the grid?
> If not, why not?
Well, you would be a hypocrite if you were on the 'public tit'.
>>There really is no need for you get nasty, just because people
>>don't agree with you.
>
> I tire of dealing with idiots.
>
Well, you can choose your friends but you
can't choose your family.
>>
>>Lets see what got you so hysterical;
>>
>> >> I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons,
>> >> or driven by their belief in global warming.. instead
>> >> what we observe is that alternative energy attracts capital
>> >> investment, and nukes don't get built, unless the taxpayer
>> >> is gouged mightily not just for the capital cost, but to
>> >> carry the risk.
>>
>>Seems an innocuous statement of fact to me.. perhaps you
>>would like to snip it and scream abuse again, if it makes you feel
>>better. B^p
>
> Let's split the above apart.
Nah, fuck ya... first you couldn't be bothered to read it,
let alone respond intelligently, ..
just spat arrogant shite without even being informed
of the content, or what my position was... then you
stood about toolfondling and slagging me for things
I haven't said..you really demolished that Strawman..B^D
..now you have been shamed into dealing with it after
being shown to be a ridiculous blatherskite, and you
want a second bite, and you still act as if I have made some
ridiculous claim that wind power is a competitor with
fossil fuels or hydro! B^p
Go play with the traffic, lightweight.
Nothing in the paragraph you are supposedly responding to
is about the costs or quantum of wind produced electricity,
you crank. It simply notes that there is investment
in alternative energy here, (unless blocked by the
federal government, (including numerous small scale
distributed systems from solar and wind technologies),
but not in nukes.
The baseload continues to be provided by the
most economic systems.
<snip long, verbose harangue >
I'll just interpolate from your previous posts,
which are a mix of ignorance, arrogance and abuse.
----------
US Congressional investigation June 2004:
"What motivated the September 11 Attacks"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
---------
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
---------
There is a fundamental distinction between
multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists
constantly and deliberately confuse.
A society is multicultural if it has more than one
culture being practised within that society.
'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number
of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary
MulticulturalISM is two things, the -ISM indicates that it
is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture,
ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it,
a celebration of it.
But it is ALSO a set of government policies to
formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration!
Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents
the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from
having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."
Recently Howard has decided to abandon national unity through
freedom and diversity and return to the language of the White
Australia policy.
Australians will have to choose if they want a future,
or a return to the past.
---------
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>>fasgnadh wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter wrote:
>>>
>> >>>
>>
>>>>>Why don't you address the point, which is that wind power isn't
>>>>>economic, isn't reliable
>>>>
>> >>
>>
>>>>If what you said were true there would be no need for the government
>>>>to try and prohibit private investments in wind farms, and no need
>>>>for you to rail hysterically against them. They just wouldn't get
built.
>>>
>>>They only get built because the Govt agrees to buy the energy produced
>>>at a price well above what they'll pay for energy from fossil fuelled
>>>plants. IOW they're *subsidised*. Stop the subsidies and see how many
>>>get built. It'll be a nice round number.
>>
>>You didn't address the point; private investment was blocked for
>>clearly spurious twaddle, costs were increased, and yet the
>>investors remained committed to the project and it's being built.
>
>
> OK, I thought it implicit that I thought the blocking because of some
> mythical parrot was a load of crap, but this is the exact same logic
> that stops other people from developing land,
Frogshit, the only recorded incidence of death of an
orange bellied parrot from impact was one which flew
into a lighthouse.
Are you warning Australians that the same 'logic' which
blocked a windfarm investment will be applied to
stopping high rise, communications towers, the MCG
lights and diving towers?
> so I can't see why you think it's unfair.
Oh FFS! It was a pretext!
No OBP has ever been sighted within kilometres of the
Bald Hills site.
What was your phrase? 'Grow Up?" B^p
Why don't you go back to whining to Mark about my
'intellect' because I won't agree with you! B^D
> Merely a case of what goes around, comes around. Can
> I take it that you wouldn't object to a subdivision of land that might
> have an impact on some other endangered species, somewhere?
Are we talking genuine threat to an endangered species, or
completely spurious bullshit to satisfy voters in a marginal
tory electorate?
> Now, how about addressing *my* point -
Is it relevant to any claims I have made for windpower?
After all, you seem to play fast and loose with the facts,
snipping my questions and substituting your abuse and
ground shifting;
What happened to this;
## The same federal government which blocked the wind farm is pro nuke,
## but where are the prospective investors? B^p
Seems a fair bit of surreptitious snipping of context occurred..
But, sure, although my estimation of your general intelligence
takes a dive everytime you avoid issues, I will deal with your
concerns, even though they appear irrelevant to the modest claims
I have made for windpower and to the issues of concern with nukes;
> wind generated power is bought
> at a price much higher than fossil fuelled power stations, and cannot
> guarantee delivery. Do you agree that this is accurate, or don't you?
> If not, what bits are inaccurate and why?
Depends where you are, sonny jim.
pffffft!
>>>Rest of rant ignored. Grow up,
Rude little prick aren't you.
First you ignore my argument, then you are abusive,
and NOW you want to ask me questions! B^D
I usually wait till people fail to answer my questions before
I become abusive, (so you are now fair game), but clearly you
don't operate on evidence based reasoning. B^p
>>That is typical of the abusive nature of your argument, which
>>substitutes ad hom and misrepresentation for rational argument.
>
> Actually it's experience in reading some of your previous postings
Actually you said "Rest of rant ignored" so you snipped perfectly
rational points, which you hadn't read but simply ignored, so
you could 'imagine' their merit based on 'some other' posts,
ignore what I actually said and substitute your own abusive harangue?
Pretty fucking weird! B^p
"I never have had any regard for the general intelligence..." B^D
> and a (probably forlorn) hope of short
> circuiting yet another one.
Sorry? Short circuiting another post of mine which you
ignore claiming you already know it's a rant based on your
past experience? B^p
Even fucking weirder!
> We'll see how it goes.
I could make a prediction! B^D
You have found what I am about to say wanting,
before you have read it!
### nobody is impressed at how long you can
### harangue or how verbose you can be.
### It just comes across as a substitute for content.
##
## B^D
That would be the 2 para of content you snipped unread because
you had psychically determined it's merit based on a sample
of other content!?
Compared to the reams of irrelevant drivel you have
belatedly attached below in response to the content
you originally snipped and ignored!?
B^D Fucking weirdo!
## You seem a bit hysterical, the 'long harangue' you snipped
## was TWO paragraphs long (see below), less than your own
## 3 para response, and as the gentle reader can see,
## I was measured and restrained. It seems the ad hom harangue
## is yours, (as is the hypocrisy) and thus "It just comes
## across as a substitute for content." B^p ! B^D
>>> I could give a rat's ass if people want to build wind farms on their
>>> own property and the odd parrot disappears in a puff of feathers.
>>
>>Very kind of you, I'm sure. I'm pleased the tory government
>>realised it can't hold back progress.
>>
>>But it's pretty obvious to the average reader the difference in
>>the political debate: Windfarm BANNED on completely bullshit
>>grounds,
>
> Agreed, but I can't get excited about it.
Some of you accept the distortions and inefficiency which corruption
brings, I believe in efficiency and a Fair Go for All.
> Not like other development activities haven't been BANNED
> on completely bullshit grounds, after all.
Excellent logic, you were unconcerned about the rape of your sister
because they had already done your mother the day before.
Stick to snipping peoples posts and responding to your judgement
of their earlier works on other subjects.
> Why does this one upset you? Money involved?
Sorry, I'd love to answer every trivial distraction that
pops in your bonce, while you snip and ignore my
relevant questions about Australian investment in nukes,
but some weak prick will start whining about verbosity
as a fucking excuse to bug out! B^p
>>while the real dangers of radioactive material,
>>are ignored and denied, despite the clear concerns that every
>>government has.
>
> That'd explain why so many nuke reactors are under construction.
How many is 'so' I usually count using the standard number system?
> Want to compare megawatt-hours of capacity
> of both systems currently being built?
Which 'both' systems? I have talked about fossil fuel, (Coal,gas,
oil) nukes, wind power, hydro. That's 4- 6 and counting.
I'm tired of doing your thinking for you.
Especially as you seem to be labouring under a misconception
based on your unique method of Psychic assessment of unread posts.
Pick your hobby horse and compare it to this:
"Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive
in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with
abundant and accessible domestic coal resources"
Uranium Information Centre
Briefing Paper 8 November 2006
The Economics of Nuclear Power
> I think Mark quoted the figures for nukes recently.
Oh that really clears thing up! B^D
Lets see, he quoted the support for nukes
"The whole world is pro nuke except you [and three others...]"
In fact "commercial nuclear power reactors are currently
operating in 31 countries"
Uranium Information Centre
Briefing Paper 7 September 2006
Nuclear Power in the World Today
There are 192 Member States of the United Nations.
As some smart arse keeps saying, "Do the math" !
Australia is so 'pro-nuke' that it produces 0% of it's
commercial power from nuclear reactors.
Australia, like most of the planet, is pro-coal,
and pro-hydro.
Those two systems account for 39% and 19% respectively for the
global production of electricity.
16% of the worlds nations have built nuclear power plants.
That's also the percentage of global electricity
produced from nukes.
> A wind power supporter such as yourself can
> surely give us the figures for wind.
Sure, I'll use you method of citation 'Someone posted
>> > What I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time
>> > and a contracted price per megawatt-hour delivered.
>>
>>We have that now, I'm not sure what you are so hysterical
>>about.
Just look at your bill, it has the rate you are being charged at.
> Oh yes, I'm sure we do - the sort of contracts that would send people
> broke if it wasn't for Governments paying over the odds.
Can you provide the details you have on these contracts,
I would be very interested to read them (and it would
make a refreshing change to get some facts from you)
especially the comparisons between fossil fuel, hydro
and nuclear in Australia, or even one state.
Oh sorry, ...just the two that are popular enough to
actually be USED! B^D
> They weren't
> written with an eye to reliability of supply, that's for sure.
You have brownouts? My supply is very reliable, king coal
just keeps burning... pity my home town had to be dug up
to recover it.
> I don't know the answer to this, but maybe you do
> - is the contract open ended,
You are the one claiming to know the contracts well enough
to ascertain they would 'send us broke if the government
wasn't paying over the odds', you tell us.
I've made no claims about production costs in any of my
discussion with you or Mark. My concerns were about security
and you both seem to have allocated me a position based on
your renowned Psychic reading of posts, and attacked
the notions you have attributed to me.
It was funny for a while, now it's just becoming tedious.
> just to purchase any power delivered, or is it a contract where the
> wind farm operator undertakes to deliver so many mW-hours over a
> specified time period, with penalties for noncompliance?
Can we remind you of where we came in?
You: "Why don't you address the point, which is that
wind power isn't economic"
Now you are asking me if the facts (contractual arrangements)
support your claim that it isn't economic? pffffft!
Based on a notion that would make car production, the portland
Aluminium smelter, ethanol, wheat (nah, fuck it, ANY agricultural)
production, education, hospitals and the army navy and air force
'un-economic'
> Bet it's not the latter.
Tell us if you won. pffft!
>>We have abundant supplies of coal and gas providing
>>base load electricity.
That's what my 'contract' is based on.
The whole system was built with government money,
and there has been fuck all new capacity delivered
since privatization.
I guess you are locked in to opposing ANY subsidies. eh?
It's not as if nothing has ever been done without them! B^p
>>And those of us who would like wind
>>turbines on our property for some extra income in our retirement
>>can contribute to the grid.
>
>
> Wondered why you were so upset about it all.
Yeah well, you are well experienced at jumping to a confusion..
based on prejudice and 'intuition' about motives.
> Funnily enough I'm not and
> guess what - I own 220 ha of land on the escarpment between 2 river
> valleys, with clean lines of sight over 270 deg of horizon. Perhaps I
> should consider getting on the Govt tit too.
Tell me again about how much of your (or anyone's) fossil
fuel and hydro generating capacity in Australia was built
without government money, you crank!?
>> > If we put power out to tender on this basis,
>> > how many wind plants do you think would be built?
>> >
>> > PDW
>>
>>The Australian Uranium Association states in it's Briefing Paper
>>#38, 'Renewable Energy and Electricity', Nov 2006:
>>
>> "Wind is projected to supply 3% of world electricity in 2030,
>>and perhaps 10% in OECD Europe."
>>
>>And yet we have pro-nuke fanatics claiming it's a technology that
>>doesn't work and shouting down anyone who thinks differently! B^p
>
>
> It only works if you use watermelon accounting -
You will have to explain to me how you do that,
I understand you divine my meaning by not reading my
post, based on an average of prior samples on other topics,
and I am trying to grasp how you simultaneously discern
the evil nature nature of energy contracts while asking
me what's in them.. but the full scope of watermelon
accounting remains a mystery.
I would love to have you explain.. but unfortunately that's
the dinner bell, and I have to leave town..
soon as i'm back I will give you a call and you can bring
a cat to sacrifice and initiate me in the arcane art of
diddling numbers. B^p
Feel free to point to any dodgy economic arguments you
imagine I have made, otherwise you are the only fruit
around here, sunshine! B^)
> getting subsidised to do something uneconomic.
Sounds like tory business practice in a nutshell!
Hell they even excuse bribing a tyrant as business as
usual.
If you take power from the grid, you are a conspirator too,
the difference between you and me, watermelon, is that I
know the government funded the coal and hydro systems! B^p
> Has this sunk it, yet?
Sure, you are the only person in Australia who
takes power from the grid that wasn't built with
taxpayer funds!
And you have a masters in Watermelon economics.
> Do you agree?
My permission is needed for you to take power from
the grid?
> If not, why not?
Well, you would be a hypocrite if you were on the 'public tit'.
>>There really is no need for you get nasty, just because people
>>don't agree with you.
>
> I tire of dealing with idiots.
>
Well, you can choose your friends but you
can't choose your family.
>>
>>Lets see what got you so hysterical;
>>
>> >> I don't know many investment bankers who are watermelons,
>> >> or driven by their belief in global warming.. instead
>> >> what we observe is that alternative energy attracts capital
>> >> investment, and nukes don't get built, unless the taxpayer
>> >> is gouged mightily not just for the capital cost, but to
>> >> carry the risk.
>>
>>Seems an innocuous statement of fact to me.. perhaps you
>>would like to snip it and scream abuse again, if it makes you feel
>>better. B^p
>
> Let's split the above apart.
Nah, fuck ya... first you couldn't be bothered to read it,
<snip long, verbose harangue >
--
----------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
---------
---------
---------
The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
Peter
Hey, I was right the first time, wasn't I? You're a complete waste of
bandwidth. You've lost this one sooo comprehensively, I gotta wonder
just how much you'd had to drink or smoke before posting this harangue.
BTW, loved the way you snipped out the bits where I gave numbers for
wholesale power costs, yet had the effrontery to complain about my
snipping stuff. Pretty funny really. Hypocritical, but since your track
record indicated this was likely, not at all surprising.
Sorry that your attempt to glom onto the Government tit and suck
dollars by trying to build windplants that cost 2X fossil fuel plant
prices yet can't even guarantee delivery of power looks like history.
ROFLMAO......... Mawson base, bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. I know
more about Mawson base and its power systems than you ever will. I've
actually *been* there, I know the engineers, I know the techs who
maintain it. You really shoulda picked another example. How desperate
are you that you have to pick somewhere like that to attempt to justify
wind power? Can't find anywhere on any populated place that makes
economic sense? Guess not.
Wicksy, you're a bitter, twisted person who loses it big-time when
asked for rational arguments. I predicted you'd lose it and go into
harangue mode and sure enough, 2 posts.....
How many people do you think you've convinced? Besides the one you see
in the mirror?
Marky, he's all yours.
PDW
Peter
BTW, Wicksy, why do you even bring in places like Mawson, the Arctic
and other remote areas WHEN THE DISCUSSION STARTED ABOUT WIND SYSTEMS
SELLING POWER TO THE GRID?
Hmmmmmm?
Seems to me that:
Either you can't follow the thread
or
You're desperately avoiding the issues of cost & reliability.
FWIW I actually use solar power up my country place and have done for
over 20 years, because the cost of hooking up to the grid is more than
I'm prepared to pay. If I thought the payback on wind power was worth
it, I'd use that too. www.otherpower.com has some nicely engineered
systems *for off the grid power*.
But we were talking about 'commercial' wind farms delivering power in
return for money to the Australian power grid.
Do try to keep up.
PDW
Addinall
Fran wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > Fran wrote:
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > > Once again, decouple the power
> > > > consumption side from the delivery of the product of the power. There
> > > > would be other things one could do, if it was necessary to live with a
> > > > less predictable power system. It's kind of interesting but frankly I'd
> > > > just build another nuke plant on the coast....
> > > >
> > >
> > > There we part company. Way too dangerous, hideously expensive,
> > > disastrous for local tourism, and not a solution you could contemplate
> > > outside a first world country.
> >
> > Taking them one at a time, stipulated that nobody would build another
> > Chernobyl type reactor, why do you think they're dangerous?
>
> Even the modern ones require detailed, systematic oversight and
> maintenance by highly qualified (and thus expensive) technicians. In
> short, this makes them a particularly poor choice for the people of
> developing countries, since they will have to choose between bringing
> in the expertise at very great expense or training up locals in a
> hurry.
Gosh. Wouldn't want to give the locals an education. Damn niggers
might get uppity.
Ever heard of skills transference? Happens everywhere in the world.
>
> Developing countries do not, as we see in almost every area where big
> projects are afoot, carefully consider the suitability of sites, the
> longterm impacts on the area and so forth -- but tend to be driven by
> the desire to porkbarrell and erect monuments. Given the huge sums
> involved and the looseness of tendering processes, it would be
> astonishing if projects were assessed properly, built properly,
> maintained properly or secured properly, not made the subject of
> parties to serious conflicts over regional governance etc.
You're just having a bit of a girlie guess at the moment aren't you?
>
> This is not merely true of developing countries, but it's in these that
> the problem simply smacks you right in the eye. That list I produced
> for Mr Foster by Transparency International puts something like 2/3 of
> the countries of the world, including four of the most populous
> countries -- Brazil, China, Russia and India -- into a group where the
> perceived confidence in government processes scores less than 5/10.
> That's what *business* people think about these governments.
>
> When talking about nuclear energy, it's not the best case scenario you
> have to consider, but rather, the scenarios that are foreseeable in
> practice. I'd much sooner have a badly managed any-other-kind-of-energy
> plant than a badly managed nuclear facility. Every other plant can be
> fixed and the site easily remediated.
Fuck but you're dumb. How much Uranium and Thorium are present in
badly
managed coal fly ash, and where might it end up? What does badly
managed
coal plants do to the pH of rain. NO2 and SO2, heard of them? So yo
don't
mind the destruction of forests and marine ecosystems as long as it's
not nuclear, because nuclear is EVIL. You should stick to Macrame dear.
> If those wind turbines or coal
> stocks go onto the black market, I'm OK with that.
>
> > And given
> > that everything is dangerous to some degree, too dangerous compared to
> > what?
> >
>
> Everything. No other energy technology has the same catastrophic
> downside. The worst of these -- coal -- emits extremely toxic airborne
> pollutants, and directly and indirectly causes the death and injury of
> huge numbers of people every year in mine accidents and otherwise. And
> yet, if we stopped using coal tomorrow, shut down every coal mine and
> coal-fired power plant for ever, the associated injuries and deaths
> would stop. If someone takes spent nuclear fuel and hands it to someone
> animated by murderous intent and the necessary skills, until that can
> be secured, everyone is at risk.
>
>
> > You also use the term 'hideously expensive'. What does this mean in
> > dollar figures? Twice the cost of a fossil fuel plant? Ten times the
> > cost? 100 times the cost? Sorry, I like numbers to work with, takes the
> > emotive arm waving out of it all.
> >
>
> This is part of the problem -- working out the precise cost assumes
> models of risk and indemnity that the industry has never had to bear.
> No nuclear plant in the world operates without a government subsidy,
> which makes a point.
There is no baseline POWER generation plant in the world that
does not operate without a government subsidy. The point is
you're a fucking retard.
WHAT other options? Gee, we could stop selling coal to people as well,
making the planet
pretty and happy and full of flowers!!!!
>
> > > And of course, since it's not scaleable,
> > > you have to accept massive transmission losses that you wouldn't get if
> > > you had a network of much smaller plants delivering less power within a
> > > much more local area.
> >
> > I don't regard this as a problem. What, in percentage terms, do you
> > consider 'massive transmission losses'?
>
>
> about 7-8%, as it is in the US.
Fuck all you can do about Ohm's law girlie.
How?
>
> > We've already dealt with wind, pretty much.
> >
> > Tidal plants aren't going to work very well outside places with a big
> > tidal rise & fall. Where in Australia does this occur?
Darwin.
>
> I wasn't necessarily proposing tidal for Australia -- though there
> might well be places where this would be feasible. Some years ago, a
> tidal project was proposed for the Kimberleys (near Derby IIRC). KPMG
> thought it was a feasible proposal. I'm guessing they'd have used those
> Davis Marine Turbines:
>
> http://www.bluenergy.com/davishydroturbine.html
>
> Moreover, if this project had gone ahead, there could have been spinoff
> benefits in local aquaculture as well.
OK. You green idiots raised a worldwide stink when someone wanted
to build a resort near Ningaloo, yet you have no problem ripping
up the reef to anchor a bloody generator!
>
> But there are lots of places -- (India and Bangladesh come straight to
> mind) where good scaleable solutions are available.
>
> In some places, erosion of beaches and estuaries is a real problem and
> serious government funds have gone into erecting breakwaters to protect
> the shoreline. In these places, perhaps a system designed to capture
> this destructive energy would serve two purposes -- protecting the
> shoreline AND generating useful energy.
>
>
> > Now combine this
> > with the geomorphology permitting a barrier to be built in a cost
> > effective fashion, or indeed at all. How many sites are left?
>
> http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/tide/tide.asp
>
> > Tidal
> > plants are a bit like hydro plants - they work in certain places where
> > the energy density is high enough and the geography allows for the
> > engineering.
> >
>
> What you have to do is spread the infrastructure costs across all of
> the beneficiaries. A tidal or wave plant could operate effectively on
> much the same engineering infrastructure for 50-100 years. The "La
> Rance" tidal plant in Normandy for example has a design life of 120
> years). Since 1966, it has produced about 75% of the power output of
> the average French nuclear plant.
Bullshit.
> Its intitial cost has now been fully
> amortised and it now produces cheaper power than is possible using gas
> or nukes.
>
> The *components* aren't going to last that long of course, but they can
> be progressively replaced. So what is cost-effective over that time
> scale becomes a lot more open. Tidal and wave plants can have very
> short lead times from inception to the first power output -- you can
Also bullshit.
> start collecting once the basic infrastructure is in place.
And name the tidal esturies in Australia that you think might
warrent an ebb dam? Just one would be a good start?
How about the mighty Murray? That would work.
>
>
> > Wave energy - same objection as wind power raised by a factor of
> > somewhere between 2 & 10. Salt water is bloody corrosive
>
> It is, but these days we can use carbon fibre housings, which don't
> corrode.
Not unless you make everthing from carbon fibre.
Please do a little research on composite materials
engineering.
> Interestingly, *lignin* which is one of the key precursor
> materials for carbon fibre, can be extracted from sewage sludge.
>
> > and I can't,
> > offhand, think of any way you're going to feather a wave system in
> > extreme weather.
>
> Well those people down at Port Kembla haven't mentioned this as a
> problem.
>
Actually, that's one of the two renewable power schemes I have seen
with any merit.
This is also a good idea. A waste management plan that
can be partially self funded by selling the output. Not
a significant energy producer however, but worth it's
weight in gold in re-processing landfill. I don't know why
we don't already own a dozen large plants.
>
> I find it interesting that the process can also be used to remove from
> coal substances that when emitted into the air are toxic.
>
> Apparently the process can extract from coal: sulfur, mercury, naphtha,
> and olefins all of which are merchantable commodities and it also makes
> the coal more friable, making it bum hotter and cleaner, reducing the
> energy is needed to crush it before combustion in thermal plants.
> Currently, "clean coal technologies" are estimated to cost about $100
> per tonne so it only has to beat that to be ahead.
It's already a part of the "Clean Coal" strategy.
Mark Addinall.
>
> Fran
fasgnadh
Peter wrote:
> Hey, I was right the first time, wasn't I?
Declaring yourself victorious while
scurrying away? Very Convincing! Very Adult! B^D
<snip Ad hom harangue, we have all seen your idea of 'debate' B^p >
> BTW, loved the way you snipped out the bits where I gave
> numbers for wholesale power costs,
They would have been interesting if they were relevant to
points in dispute, rather that you thrashing a strawman of your own
imagination.
I'd already posted acknowledging fossil fuel and hydro
were the most cost-effective sources of power in Australia.
Wind power is miniscule, but not as you have claimed,
always uneconomic, and commercial nuclear power non existent.
# YOU: What I'd want is a guarantee of supply over time
# and a contracted price per megawatt-hour delivered.
#
# Me: We have that now, I'm not sure what you are so hysterical
# about. We have abundant supplies of coal and gas providing
# base load electricity.
And in response to that we get you flogging a dead horse
to PROVE that fossil fuels are cost effective! B^D
If you had included your shopping list it would have been just as
irrelevant to any of the positions I have taken in this.
I had ALREADY noted that the energy sources of choice in
Australia are fossil fuel and hydro, so why did you
want to harangue us with tedious detail abaot the low
cost of fossil fuel! B^D
As your data was not relevant to my argument,
did not need to be contested by me, you seem to be making an
awful lot of noise to desperately create excuses
for running away!
> yet had the effrontery to complain about my
> snipping stuff.
Lets be accurate, you snipped what you didn't
want to address, preferring mindless abuse as
an argument, making clearly spurious claims.
I shamed you by pointing that out, you 'responded' the
way politicians do to questions, ignoring what was said
and flaying your strawman further!
I snipped what I had actually read, and determined to be
irrelevant detail about the cost effectiveness of the energy
sources I already use!!! B^D
And your reason for complaint is....?
(Apart from smoke as you vanish! B^D
Just how much redundant tosh do you insist everyone reads
in your long and verbose harangues? B^)
It seems to be just an ego thing.
> Pretty funny really.
I certainly laughed at you, I'm sure others found it amusing.
If you think you get kudos for cutting and pasting reams
of raw data to argue points I have not contested, while
ignoring the argument I have made.. then carry on fooling
yourself. B^)
As I said, you seem to be labouring under a misconception;
"you still act as if I have made some ridiculous claim that
wind power is a competitor with fossil fuels or hydro! B^p "
It seems you project your own fanatacism onto people who
are prepared to consider WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE; a variety
of means to generate electricity, and to extend that by
using other technologies where appropriate.
When asked about examples of this you ignore them, tell us
you're an expert and become abusive! pffffft!
> Sorry that your attempt to glom onto the Government tit and suck
> dollars by trying to build windplants that cost 2X fossil fuel plant
> prices yet can't even guarantee delivery of power looks like history.
Clearly you are once more responding to a post you either
haven't read, or haven't understood. It does make you look
ridiculous whan I have pointed out that our shared power supply,
fundamentally fossil fuel and hydro, was built on government funding.
Get that tit out of your mouth, eh, sucker! B^D
> ROFLMAO......... Mawson base, bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. I know
> more about Mawson base and its power systems than you ever will. I've
> actually *been* there, I know the engineers, I know the techs who
> maintain it. You really shoulda picked another example.
Well then we would have expected you to have something intelligent in
response, instead of simply ranting and running.... bye! B^p
A claim to authority is not in itself credible when you have not
done us the courtesy of sharing your inside knowledge to rebut
the examples cited, just because they contradict your blanket assertion
that windpower is not cost effective! poor form, really.
Still, you remain a legend in your own mind, and that's what counts. ;-)
And others will no doubt bail you out and soothe your ruffled self-
grandeur;
...
> Marky, he's all yours.
So you are just the abusive loudmouth, and he does your heavy lifting?
Ah well I know what thats like, you tried to tell us that we have
" the sort of contracts that would send people
broke if it wasn't for Governments paying over the odds."
and when I asked you to share some details of these contracts,
you folded faster than a deckchair on the titanic!
(You even wanted me to find some figures for you! B^)
So you are right, best leave it to your Nanny, lightweight.
B^D
> PDW
--
Peter
This may amaze many, but I agree with you. I've worked in 3rd World
countries and IME they don't pay anywhere near enough attention to
running costs both money and skilled personnel. However, they *are*
going to want electrical power and they *are* going to *get* electrical
power. This power needs to be reliable enough for baseload activities.
Take that as a given, if you will, then tell me what alternatives there
are in reality, given current and near term available technology.
However, this really doesn't apply to 1st World high tech countries.
> This is not merely true of developing countries, but it's in these that
> the problem simply smacks you right in the eye. That list I produced
> for Mr Foster by Transparency International puts something like 2/3 of
> the countries of the world, including four of the most populous
> countries -- Brazil, China, Russia and India -- into a group where the
> perceived confidence in government processes scores less than 5/10.
> That's what *business* people think about these governments.
Quite true and they're building nuke power plants. Guess they don't
listen to you, hey? So once again I agree with your statements WRT the
govts but disagree with the conclusions.
> When talking about nuclear energy, it's not the best case scenario you
> have to consider, but rather, the scenarios that are foreseeable in
> practice. I'd much sooner have a badly managed any-other-kind-of-energy
> plant than a badly managed nuclear facility. Every other plant can be
> fixed and the site easily remediated. If those wind turbines or coal
> stocks go onto the black market, I'm OK with that.
>
> > And given
> > that everything is dangerous to some degree, too dangerous compared to
> > what?
> >
>
> Everything. No other energy technology has the same catastrophic
> downside. The worst of these -- coal -- emits extremely toxic airborne
> pollutants, and directly and indirectly causes the death and injury of
> huge numbers of people every year in mine accidents and otherwise. And
> yet, if we stopped using coal tomorrow, shut down every coal mine and
> coal-fired power plant for ever, the associated injuries and deaths
> would stop. If someone takes spent nuclear fuel and hands it to someone
> animated by murderous intent and the necessary skills, until that can
> be secured, everyone is at risk.
You don't know much about biohazards.
> > You also use the term 'hideously expensive'. What does this mean in
> > dollar figures? Twice the cost of a fossil fuel plant? Ten times the
> > cost? 100 times the cost? Sorry, I like numbers to work with, takes the
> > emotive arm waving out of it all.
> >
>
> This is part of the problem -- working out the precise cost assumes
> models of risk and indemnity that the industry has never had to bear.
> No nuclear plant in the world operates without a government subsidy,
> which makes a point.
So you don't know, so 'hideously expensive' can be ignored. It would
have been quicker to just say that you don't know.
> > Finally, the First World country bit - you don't get to make that
> > decision for them. If you think that China & India are going to refrain
> > from building nuke power plants because you think the technology is too
> > dangerous for them, well it's nice to think things that have no contact
> > with reality.
> >
>
> Oh I don't think that even if the Australian government had that view
> that they would change their minds. They want them so they can keep
> open their nuclear weapons options and use that as diplomatic leverage.
> Israel until recently always denied it had nuclear warheads, but
> allowed people to know that they were lying or dissembling. The desire
> of governments -- especially those in developing countries, for nukes,
> is militarily strategic rather than about energy security.
Agree with qualifications. There *might* be a govt somewhere that
doesn't think of this :-)
> Access to
> low cost transport fuel is probably more significant to them in the
> short to medium term than electricity anyway as they tend to lack the
> infrastructure to deliver electricity over their territory reliably
> anyway.
Even if true right now - which I don't concede - are you seriously
proposing that these countries either will not build a power grid or
cannot build a power grid? Assume that they will deliver reliable
electrical power to their citizens. How are they to provide that
baseload power?
> My point is that nukes are not a solution on a world scale, yet we need
> solutions that can work anywhere and do not foster longtemr
> environmental and political problems.
Come the millenium..... meanwhile we work with the technology we have.
> Nukes don't fit the bill.
Got news for you - NOTHING fits the bill. We're in the business of
dealing with least bad, not absolute best, because there ain't no such
animal, AFAIK.
> Were Australia (with 28% of known reserves, and about 40% of the
> cheapest reserves) to decline to supply the market with uranium, the
> price would increase and the longterm viability of nukes as an energy
> source would decline relative to other options.
Hah. That's one possibility. I can think of others, starting with an
increased incentive to search for more uranium in other countries. More
would be found.
> > > And of course, since it's not scaleable,
> > > you have to accept massive transmission losses that you wouldn't get if
> > > you had a network of much smaller plants delivering less power within a
> > > much more local area.
> >
> > I don't regard this as a problem. What, in percentage terms, do you
> > consider 'massive transmission losses'?
>
>
> about 7-8%, as it is in the US.
Not worth worrying about.
> > In just about every country with a substantial
> > > coastline, you could have wind & marine turbine and/or wave/tidal
> > > plants placed close to where much of the population lives and pumping
> > > the power over relatively short distances.
> >
> > So why are they so scarce - I'm tempted to say nonexistent? Could it be
> > because they make no economic sense?
> >
>
> It depends how you define "economic sense". In the current world,
> "economic sense" describes a process in which those with the power to
> tweak government policy so as to externalise the costs of their
> industry structure their investment accordingly and make dollars doing
> things that funnel profits from resources to them.
So true. Look at Peter Wicks as a classic example of a rent-seeker
who'd love to tweak govt policy. He's in a tizzy because the Govt has
stopped such activity in one instance.
> Why do coal-fired power plants make "economic sense". Because coal at
> the moment is cheap. Why is it cheap? Well, in large part it's cheap
> because the full costs of the hazards posed by coal mining to those
> mining it, and on the local environment are not reflected in the cost.
> The coal-fired power industry can pour out millions of tons of sulphur
> dioxide. lead and mercury pretty much without cost, poisoning
> surrounding communities.
Let's not forget the beloved Greenhouse Effect..... but I'll not
quibble, coal fired power stations suck. I agree with you, they manage
to externalise their wastes.
> It makes economic sense to poison and kill
> people, because people, including many of those being poisoned get
> cheap energy. One can also say that if we knew that most of the hazards
> associated with nukes would fall upon people who haven't yet been born,
> or won't be born until you and I are no more than memories, then it
> would make even more "economic sense" to use nukes because we could
> externalise the costs to people we have to care about even less than
> people living near coal plants or doing coal mining.
Now, this is where I have a problem. The side effects of coal fired
plants are pretty well known because we've been running them (and
improving them) for a long time.
What wastes from nukes are we talking about? There simply isn't much in
terms of volume at all.
> My definition of "economic sense" is not about whether some swindling
> corporate shill can funnel a billion or so into some bank account in
> the Caymans to bribe people to let him keep doing it. What I want to
> know is the extent to which a given solution fosters your average
> person and persons likely to be born in the future being better off.
Sorry, that doesn't parse.
> The idea that I might be 5 or 10% better off today and for the next ten
> years but that the consequence would be that most people would be 20 or
> 30% worse off 50 years from now doesn't appeal at all as "economic
> sense". Maybe we should stop talking of "economic sense" and start
> talking of "human wellbeing sense". Perhaps there should be a
> "sustainable human wellbeing index" to assess whether things are worth
> doing.
Oh yes that'd be a hoot.
> There is absolutely no question that by using a combination of energy
> efficiency, cogeneration, demand management, changing the design of our
> tranpsport systems to electricity, and technologies such as wind, wave,
> PV, biomass, geothermal, hydro and so forth that the world could have
> all of the energy it could ever need.
Wind is a trivial fringe contributor at best, totally unreliable for
baseload power.
Wave ditto.
PV has promise if we can get the $/watt price down by an order of
magnitude, preferably 2. This seems remarkably hard to do and I
sincerely wish it wasn't.
Biomass - I'm really tempted to just say GIGO :-)
Geothermal - like hydro, damn good if you can find the right site, got
everything going for it. Useless if you can't.
Hydro - see above.
The last 2 are the only ones I can see as practical for delivery of
baseload power. You can't run a 21C industrial society without reliable
baseload power.
> > Tidal plants aren't going to work very well outside places with a big
> > tidal rise & fall. Where in Australia does this occur?
>
> I wasn't necessarily proposing tidal for Australia -- though there
> might well be places where this would be feasible. Some years ago, a
> tidal project was proposed for the Kimberleys (near Derby IIRC). KPMG
> thought it was a feasible proposal. I'm guessing they'd have used those
> Davis Marine Turbines:
>
> http://www.bluenergy.com/davishydroturbine.html
So, you'd personally not object on environmental grounds if we dammed
Shark Bay, for example, or a number of other places in the Kimberlies
with big tidal ranges? Important point this - if you're proposing
technologies limited by geography, you're not simultaneously allowed to
refuse their construction on environmental grounds. Doing that removes
them from consideration. Gordon dam comes to mind, for example.
> Moreover, if this project had gone ahead, there could have been spinoff
> benefits in local aquaculture as well.
>
> But there are lots of places -- (India and Bangladesh come straight to
> mind) where good scaleable solutions are available.
Bangladesh is FLAT. It also gets hit by cyclones. Where is the
geography allowing tidal power generation? I'm serious - you throw off
these things but I can't offhand think of a single site. Dunno about
India but I'm skeptical - please provide a site I can check. Google
Earth is a wonderful toy.
> In some places, erosion of beaches and estuaries is a real problem and
> serious government funds have gone into erecting breakwaters to protect
> the shoreline. In these places, perhaps a system designed to capture
> this destructive energy would serve two purposes -- protecting the
> shoreline AND generating useful energy.
Let me know when anyone comes up with an engineering design.
>
> > Now combine this
> > with the geomorphology permitting a barrier to be built in a cost
> > effective fashion, or indeed at all. How many sites are left?
>
> http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/tide/tide.asp
>
> > Tidal
> > plants are a bit like hydro plants - they work in certain places where
> > the energy density is high enough and the geography allows for the
> > engineering.
> >
>
> What you have to do is spread the infrastructure costs across all of
> the beneficiaries. A tidal or wave plant could operate effectively on
> much the same engineering infrastructure for 50-100 years. The "La
> Rance" tidal plant in Normandy for example has a design life of 120
> years). Since 1966, it has produced about 75% of the power output of
> the average French nuclear plant. Its intitial cost has now been fully
> amortised and it now produces cheaper power than is possible using gas
> or nukes.
It produces 240mW of power a day.
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/FR-elico.html
Look at the tables. ALL the "Installed Electrical Capacity in Other
(Biomass, Wood and Waste, Wind, Geothermal, Solar) Plants" comes to
less than 1% of energy capacity. Generation figures the same. Tide
power is niche. It also suffers from inflexible delivery, but given you
know when it will be delivered, that's a lot less of a concern than
wind power is.
> > Wave energy - same objection as wind power raised by a factor of
> > somewhere between 2 & 10. Salt water is bloody corrosive
>
> It is, but these days we can use carbon fibre housings, which don't
> corrode. Interestingly, *lignin* which is one of the key precursor
> materials for carbon fibre, can be extracted from sewage sludge.
I *said* I know marine engineering, in fact I have a group of people
working in it all the time. We do not use carbon fibre, we use
stainless steel & aluminium for the most part. I'm not saying it can't
be done in fact I think there are some interesting things you can do
with carbon fibre and we might look at it more closely if we weren't
sending stuff to 2000m+ depths. It's interesting.
Another big potential problem is fouling from marine organisms.
> > and I can't,
> > offhand, think of any way you're going to feather a wave system in
> > extreme weather.
>
> Well those people down at Port Kembla haven't mentioned this as a
> problem.
>
>
> > Feel free to point me to literature to the contrary
> > but it better be by marine engineering people. I know more than a
> > little about marine stuff.
> >
>
> http://www.energetech.com.au/
http://www.energetech.com.au/attachments/Results_PK_Wave_Energy_Trial.pdf
Did you read this?
First, they tested their device for a few hours only, a couple hundred
metres off Port Kembla, held in position by 2 tug boats. I'll bet they
picked their day carefully, too. I know I do the first time I test
equipment in the field.
Second, the wave height was 2 metres. That isn't much.
Third, this is a bit odd because Figure 2 & text indicates a wave
height of 300mm. Reading the text a bit further...
<quote>
This result is very encouraging. Especially encouraging is the
confidence level
provided by the lower bound analysis. For example, for two metre waves
(with a
period of seven seconds), there is a 92.6% probability the device will
generate in
excess of 218 kW, with a 50% likelihood it will generate above 321 kW.
</quote>
They didn't actually measure power generation with 2m waves, they
calculated it.
Nothing in this article addresses engineering reliability in the field.
It looks like it will produce power, subject to the same vagaries as
wind generation (IOW, unsuitable for delivery of baseload power) but
having been out in Force 10,11 & 12 gales, seeing chained equipment
torn off of decks, I want to know how these things are going to be
anchored and what wave energy level they're designed to withstand.
Perhaps that info might be on their site, but I'll await the first
engineering trial over a couple years before getting too excited.
> > > There's also the problem of transport fuels of course. Much of the CO2
> > > and other pollution is in transport. Until electric vehicles become a
> > > competitive proposition, this is going to be a tough one.
> >
> > Different problem but there are various solutions if you have
> > sufficient electrical power. Hydrogen is one but the storage issues are
> > pretty horrible. Slippery little molecule. Methanol is another.
> >
>
> The energy efficiencies associated with hydrogen -- even as a storage
> medium -- are embarrassingly poor, sadly.
Yes, but it does work. I'd love to see good cheap batteries but it's a
problem that's been worked on for a long time with no radical
breakthroughs. Like room temperature superconductors made for the price
of aluminium high tension lines. Nice, but unobtanium as yet.
> > > Heavy
> > > shipping is also apparently a major polluter -- one container ship can
> > > emit as much pollution as 12,000 motor vehicles.
> >
> > Irrelevant - we need heavy shipping. Besides this is an easy one, you
> > just don't like the answer.
> >
>
> What answer would that be?
Put a nuke powered steam plant in them. Duh. One of those little self
contained steam plants would work a treat......
> > > Apparently, you can use sewage sludge to produce algae yielding both
> > > starches and lipids, which can be used respectively, to produce
> > > alcohol-based fuels such as n-butanol, and biodiesel. It's also
> > > possible to use thermal depolymerisation to reduce just about any
> > > carbon-based material to diesel fuel -- and since plastic and
> > > technowaste is posing an increasing landfill problem, this seems like
> > > an obvious direction to go in. I read somewhere that if the US used
> > > this process to turn all of its waste packaging, medical waste and
> > > animal offal/waste fat into diesel it could produce an amount equal to
> > > 90% of its current petroleum imports.
> >
> > I find that impossible to believe. Where's the reference? If possible,
> > what energy inputs are needed to make it work?
> >
>
> Check out this page here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
>
> I find it interesting that the process can also be used to remove from
> coal substances that when emitted into the air are toxic.
OK that looks like a real goer, something we should be looking at doing
anyway. I'd be ecstatic at the 80% level recovery for biowastes,
anything higher is a bonus. Even 50% would be way better than what
happens now.
None of this addresses the need for 'always on' baseload power supply,
however. Other than coal, nukes, hydro & geothermal (both the latter
limited severely by geography), what other choices are there? You can't
simply ignore this & maintain any credibility; people in general are
NOT going to give up what they have, and the countries which don't have
reliable power grids yet ARE going to build them.
If you can't or won't address the baseload power issues, you're
fiddling around the edges. I don't like coal fired stations OR nukes. I
just think the problems with nukes are more manageable until something
better comes along.
PDW
jg
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:458c500b$0$16555$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
..............
> If the wind drops, you can always line up all Greenies in the direction of
> the prevailing wind.
We would have to do something because nuclear certainly won't amount to
anything but a token science experiment to get us into the club. I was
reading there is currently a world shortage of carbon fibre, partly because
of the new airbus which uses a lot of it and partly the explosion in wind
power generation.
RooBoy
"jg" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gVBjh.12674$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>souce within 30 years........China are building one new Nuclear Power
>generator every year for the next 20 years......we need to have a variety
>of energy souces and anyone who discounts Nuclear out of hand is not
>thinking clearly..wind power n the other hand will only ever account for a
>relatively minor % of our energy source.
jg
"RooBoy" <null...@austarnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:emmv6k$mc5$1...@austar-news.austar.net.au...
than 30% of needs. It will produce co2 wherever it is burned. We cannot
afford to reserve a guaranteed share of our own gas and yet we reckon we
will afford nuclear which Switkowski says will cost more???
RooBoy
>of energy applications that include Nuclear............
Dr Igor Funk
If only we could harness the flatulence in here.
jg
"Dr Igor Funk" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:riRjh.13146$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
...............
> If only we could harness the flatulence in here.
>
>
jg
>
.............
>Look all I am saying is that realistically we should look to have a spread
>>of energy applications that include Nuclear............
>
>
Dr Igor Funk
Yeah dig up Mt Everest, because its there.
Addinall
This was a serious discussion. Can you boys
go and play in the garden until school starts
again?
Mark Addinall.